The Local Planning Committee meeting on 27 January 2026 saw the deferral of the Woodlands Heights application, the approval of planning permission for a beauty salon at 154 Plumstead Common Road, and the refusal of two applications for extensions at 61 Ashburnham Grove. The committee also granted planning permission for a six-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 72 Whetstone Road, but deferred a decision on a similar HMO application at 6 Melling Street pending a site visit and further information.

Woodlands Heights Application Deferred

The application for Woodlands Heights, located on Vanbrugh Hill, Blackheath, was deferred by the committee. Councillor Gary Dillon, Chair of Planning, announced at the beginning of the meeting that the item would be deferred due to complex issues which still need to be ironed out and discussed and debated. He apologised for the late notice to those present for this specific item. The deferral was agreed to allow for a site visit to enable members to gain a better understanding of the site and the issues at play.

Beauty Salon Approved at 154 Plumstead Common Road

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer presenting the item, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under Policy HC7 of the London Plan or Policy EAB of the Local Plan, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Extensions at 61 Ashburnham Grove Refused

Two applications relating to 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were recommended for refusal and subsequently refused by the committee. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, explained that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings, which highlighted harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area, were still considered applicable. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed to constitute an incongruous and unsympathetic development. The committee voted five to one in favour of refusing this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer highlighted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered relevant. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

HMO Application at 6 Melling Street Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

HMO Application at 72 Whetstone Road Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

Retrospective Change of Use Approved at 154 Plumstead Common Road

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery use had ceased and the beauty salon was already operational. He clarified that the microbrewery did not meet the criteria for protection under London Plan Policy HC7 due to a lack of heritage, cultural, economic, or social value. Kapil Keri, the landlord, spoke in support, emphasizing the correct planning history and the lower impact of the beauty salon use. The committee voted in favour of the officer's recommendation to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Applications Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's criticisms regarding the excessive scale, bulk, detailed design, and wraparound nature of the extension, which caused harm to the character and design context of the locally listed host dwellinghouse and the conservation area, were still considered applicable. The committee voted unanimously to refuse this application.

6 Melling Street HMO Application Deferred

The application for a six-bedroom, six-person House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 6 Melling Street, Plumstead, was deferred by the committee. The proposal included a loft conversion, rear dormer, single-storey rear extension, and cycle and refuse storage. The application had received 26 objections from local residents, raising concerns about noise, parking, anti-social behaviour, and the cumulative impact of HMOs in the area. Concerns were also raised about the potential link between the applicant and another HMO on the street that had experienced significant anti-social behaviour, including a murder.

During the deliberation, Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins expressed strong reservations, particularly regarding the potential impact on the amenity of elderly residents and the lack of clarity on the management of existing HMOs. Councillor Pat Greenwell also voiced concerns about the size of the property and the potential for overcrowding. Councillor Jo van den Broek suggested deferring the application to investigate the link to the other HMO and to obtain further information from the HMO Licensing Team. Alex Smith, the officer, confirmed that deferral was an option for a site visit or for additional information. The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for a site visit and for the HMO Licensing Team to provide comments.

72 Whetstone Road HMO Application Approved

Full planning permission was granted for the change of use of 72 Whetstone Road, Kidbrooke, from a single-family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO for up to six residents. The application had received 26 objections, primarily concerning the principal development, local character, quality of accommodation, nuisance, and transport impacts. The item had been previously deferred for a site visit and to receive comments from RBG Children's Services. Luke Sapiano, the Senior Principal Planning Officer, presented the case, noting that the site visit had taken place and Children's Services comments had been received. The comments from Children's Services, while sensitive, expressed concerns about the potential impact on the wellbeing and safeguarding of vulnerable children in the care of a nearby foster carer. However, officers reiterated that foster homes must be considered the same way as any other C3 dwellinghouse when considering a planning application. The committee deliberated, with Councillor Patricia Greenwell voting against the proposal due to concerns about amenity, while Councillor Dillon used his casting vote to approve the application, albeit reluctantly.

154 Plumstead Common Road Beauty Salon Approved

Planning permission was granted for the retrospective change of use of 154 Plumstead Common Road from a microbrewery (Use Class Sui Generis) to a beauty salon (Use Class E). The application had received 38 objections and 167 letters of support. Brendan Meade, the Planning Officer, explained that the microbrewery, known as The Plumtree, had ceased trading in January 2025. He clarified that the previous consent in 2019 was for a drinking establishment operating as a microbrewery, but no brewing had ever taken place on site. The Council's planning policy team advised that the microbrewery did not possess the heritage, cultural, economic, or social value required to be protected under London Plan Policy HC7 or Local Plan Policy EAB, thus the marketing requirements for the loss of a public house were not applicable. Kapil Keri, the landlord of the property, spoke in support, stating the premises had never operated as a microbrewery and that the beauty salon use was a lower-impact commercial use. The committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

Ashburnham Grove Extensions Refused

Two applications for development at 61 Ashburnham Grove, Greenwich, were refused. The first application (Ref: 25/2503/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a first-floor rear extension. Sam Malis, the Planning Officer, presented the case, highlighting that this was an amended resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and dismissed at appeal. The inspector's previous findings regarding harm to the character and appearance of the locally listed host dwellinghouse, the surrounding area, and the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area were still considered relevant. The proposed extension's height, scale, design, and positioning were deemed incongruous and unsympathetic. The committee voted five to one to refuse this application.

The second application (Ref: 25/2507/HD) sought planning permission for the construction of a rear extension to the lower ground floor with associated internal alterations. This was also recommended for refusal. The officer noted that this was also an amended resubmission of