Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes.

Venue: Rooms 4 & 5, Town Hall, Wellington Street, Woolwich SE18 6PW

Contact: Jean Riddler  Email: jean.riddler@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or tel: 020 8921 5857

Items
No. Item

1.

Appointment of Vice-Chair

Members to elect a vice-chair for the municipal year.

 

Minutes:

It was requested that this Item be resubmitted for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.

2.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors John Fahy and Clive Mardner.

3.

Urgent Business

The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda.

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

4.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 46 KB

Members to declare any personal and financial interests in items on the agenda.  Attention is drawn to the Council’s Constitution; the Council’s Code of Conduct and associated advice.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins advised the meeting that despite the same surname, it should be noted that she was not a relative to Mr and Mrs Cousins who had registered to speak on proposal in relation to Item 7, “58 Chestnut Rise, Plumstead, SE18 1RL – 16/3980F”.

 

Resolved –

 

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies be noted.

5.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 49 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting of the joint meeting of the Greenwich Area Planning Committee & Woolwich & Thamesmead Area Planning Committee held on 22 February 2018.

 

Members are also requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting of 29 March 2018.

 

No motion or discussion may take place upon the Minutes except as to their accuracy, and any question on this point will be determined by a majority of the Members of the body attending who were present when the matter in question was decided.  Once confirmed, with or without amendment, the person presiding will sign the Minutes.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Joint Meeting of the Greenwich and Woolwich & Thamesmead Area Planning Committee held on 22 February 2018, and the minutes of the meeting of the Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee held on 29 March 2018, be agreed and signed as true and accurate records.

 

6.

Land Adjacent to 32 TO 54 Sladedale Road, Plumstead, SE18 1PZ - 17/2588/F pdf icon PDF 38 KB

The Committee is requested to grant approval for the construction of 4 two storey buildings comprising 8 self-contained flats, as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to defer the application.

 

Minutes:

The Committee received and noted an illustrative presentation to the report by the Area Planning Manager (East), with a recommendation to approve the proposal therein. 

 

The meeting recognised that the proposal was a resubmission following a deferral at a meeting of the Committee on 29 March2018, in order to enable Members to visit the site before considering the application.  The Area Planning Manager confirmed that Members’ visit was conducted on 12 July 2018.

 

 

A resident addressed the meeting with an objection to the proposal.  The resident advised the Committee that he was also representing 19 households in his neighbourhood who were also opposed to the proposal.  The Committee heard that the grounds of the proposed site was infested with Japanese Knotweed, the spread of which had been known to create land subsidence.  Thus, residents were concerned about cracks appearing on the walls of their homes, and was suggesting to the Committee to reject the proposal.  The resident was of the view that it would be unlikely that the stem injection proposed by the developer to eradicate the invasive plant would be effective.  He suggested that instead, the Committee should recommend deep excavation to rid the roots off the land, supported by an insurance certificate as an assurance that the risk of the invasive plant spreading to into land of neighbouring properties was nil.

 

Another resident to address the meeting echoed concerns expressed about Japanese Knotweed plant, advising the Committee that he too was opposed to the proposal.   The resident informed the Committee that the developer had, in the past, hired a company to get rid of the plant with weed sprays.  However, the workers observed using the spray irresponsibly, with no protective clothing on.  It was stated that shortly after that, new plant shoots developed at and into nearby properties.  Thus instead of considering an excavation of the land, the Committee should reject the proposal outright because of the contamination on the land, and as a means to prevent wider pollination of the invasive plant in the neighbourhood.

 

The Committee made some enquiries and was advised by the Area Planning Manager that the agent for the applicant was not present at the meeting because he was experiencing traffic problems on the roads.  The Area Planning Manager stated that he had no information why the proposed site had remained empty for such a long time, except that there had been some refusals for planning permission to undertake development work on the grounds.  Notwithstanding that, permission was granted for the erection of 4 detached buildings containing 4x1 bed and 4x2 self-contained flats on the proposed site in 2013, which subsequently lapsed.

 

In considering submissions made at the meeting, the Committee expressed a view that clarity was required from the applicant about the subsidence, and Japanese Knotweed plant would be removed safely from the proposed site without contaminating other properties in the vicinity.  The Committee commented that although Tames Water had raised no objection to the proposed development, an assurance would be required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

58 Chestnut Rise, Plumstead, SE18 1RL - 16/3980/F pdf icon PDF 272 KB

The Committee is requested to grant planning permission for the erection of a two storey rear extension and loft conversion incorporating rear dormer, extended front light well together with internal alterations, extended basement and conversion into three contained flats, as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to refuse planning permission for the erection of a two storey rear extension and loft conversion incorporating rear dormer, extended front light well together with internal alterations, extended basement and conversion into three (2 x 2-bed and 1 x 1-bed) self-contained flats.

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Committee received and noted an illustrative presentation to the report and the addendum to it by the Principal Planning Officer, with a recommendation to approve the proposal therein.

 

In response to questions raised, the Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that the proposed site was not within a Conservation Area, and there were no listed buildings in the vicinity.  It was confirmed that the host property was a mid-terrace three-storey house located on the western side of Chestnut Rise in a predominantly residential area.

 

The meeting was addressed by a couple who expressed an objection to the proposal, informing that they resided at Chestnut Rise.  The Committee was advised that the mid-terrace house setting on the road were ideal family homes but most residents living on the road had, over the decades, because dissatisfied with the environment.  It was stated that a majority of the terrace houses had now been sub-divided into series of flats, resulting in an unwarranted number of rented multi-occupancy homes.  Thus, overcrowding in the rented homes, multiple array of bins, in addition to car parking problems on the road were creating nuisance, with adverse impact on the environmental surrounds and traffic.  The residents suggested to the Committee to reject the proposal in light of their concerns.

 

Another resident who spoke at the meeting echoed concerns about increasing numbers of multiple occupancy homes that were overcrowded, and parking problems on the road.  The Committee was advised that the drawing plans submitted with the application was impractical because there was not sufficient capacity within the host building to secure 3 flats.  The resident stated that he was also concerned that the proposed construction work would create considerable disruption on the road, in particular that there was no access to the rear of the host property to undertake soil excavation for a basement area.  Thus, the Committee should refuse the application.

 

In response to questions raised, the applicant advised the Committee that at present, the host building was operating as a six-bedroom multiple occupancy home.  Thus, there should be problem in converting it into 2 x 2 bed and 1 x 1 bed self-contained flats.  The applicant confirmed to the Committee that he intended to continue with his contribution to the community as a landlord of rented properties.

 

In considering submissions made at the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) that in planning terms, a requirement for affordable housing provision would only apply if an application for housing development comprised of 10 or more units.  Thus, the issue should not be a consideration in the circumstance, other than what had been proposed in the report.

 

The majority of Members were of the view that residents’ concerns outlined in the report and at the meeting were reasonable submissions because of the setting of terraced houses in the environmental surrounds.  Thus, the design and scale of what has been proposed would be dominant, and most likely distort the character of the host building when set against neighbouring properties.  However, a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Development Site at Rushgrove House, Rushgrove Street, Woolwich - 17/3955/F & 17/3956/L pdf icon PDF 567 KB

The Committee is requested to refuse Full Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent for the CConstruction of a two storey, four bedroom detached dwelling house and basement to include new vehicular access with opening to front wall. Construction of an additional single storey outbuilding associated with new house, outbuilding connected via a glazed link to the basement at the rear of the property for the reasons set out in the report.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to agree full Planning Permission (Ref: 17/3955/F) and Listed Building Consent (Ref: 17/3956/L) for the construction of a two storey, four bedroom detached dwelling house and basement to include new vehicular access with opening to front wall. Construction of an additional single storey outbuilding associated with the new house, outbuilding connected via a glazed link to the basement at the rear of the property.’

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrative introduction to the report and the addendum to it, recommending to the Committee to agree to refuse the proposal.

 

The Committee noted the report, and that the applicant was requested Full Planning Permission to for the construction of a new single family dwelling in the grounds of Rushgrove House, west of Mulgrave Pond.

 

The meeting was addressed by a resident who expressed support for the proposal.  The Committee was advised that approving the application would enable current occupiers on the land to share maintenance cost with the new owners.  The resident was also of the view that the proposed development would create a welcomed visual impact in the environmental surrounds.  He clarified to Members that he had no conflict of interest in the application because he was independent from the applicant, and that his company had not been contracted to construct the proposed dwelling.

 

The applicant also responded to questions raised, advising the Committee to approve the application.  The Committee was advised that the proposed dwelling would be constructed in a neglected piece of land within the grounds.  Therefore, it was unlikely that there would be a detrimental impact when set against the Grade II Listed Rushgrove House.  The Committee was advised that teachers were currently visiting with their pupils as part of their ecology lessons.  The access for school visits would continue after the development, and extended to the public as a community space. 

 

In considering submissions made at the meeting the majority of Members were commented on the fact that the proposal would not provide much needed affordable housing in the community.  Members stated that they were unconvinced that the proposed dwelling with new entry gate and drive way would not detract from the architectural and historic interest of the Grade II Listed Rushgrove House, and the Conservation Area surrounds.

 

The Committee voted on the proposal with a result of 5 in favour of recommendation to refuse the application, and one abstention.  It was

 

Resolved –

 

That it be agreed to refuse Full Planning Permission (Ref: 17/3955/F) and Listed Building Consent (Ref: 17/3956/L) for the ‘construction of a two storey, four bedroom detached dwelling house and basement to include new vehicular access with opening to front wall. Construction of an additional single storey outbuilding associated with the new house, outbuilding connected via a glazed link to the basement at the rear of the property’ as set out in the addendum and main report as follows:

 

Ref: 17/3955/F:

1.              The proposal constitutes inappropriate development on community open space and the provision of housing in this location is not necessary for meeting the housing needs for the borough. The proposed development has not provided sufficient evidence to justify the creation of a new house in this location. The proposal is therefore contrary to Paragraphs 14 and 47 of the NPPF, Policy 3.3 of the London Plan (2016), and Policy OS1, OS(b), H1 of the Core strategy and detailed policies (2014).

 

2.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

29 Saunders Road, Plumstead, London, SE18 1NT - 17/3922/F pdf icon PDF 448 KB

The Committee is requested to grant the conversion of a dwelling house into two flats with cycle storage proposed to the rear garden, as set out in the report.

 

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to grant planning permission for the conversion of a dwelling house into two flats 1no 1-bed/2person flat and 1no 2bed/4person flat with cycle storage proposed to the rear garden, subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation to the report, recommending to the Committee to approve the proposal therein.

 

The Committee noted the report, and a response from the Principal Planning Officer that the proposal underwent adequate consultation exercise, which included a site notice and letters to occupiers in neighbouring properties.  It was stated that that the Council’s Environmental Health Team had no objection to the proposal, and the one raised by the Waste Officer had been put right by submitted details that the bin storage area would be at the rear of the premises, and not on the highway as previously submitted.

 

The agent for the applicant also responded to questions raised, confirming to the Committee that the floor areas exceeded the minimum standard required for the proposed development.  It was confirmed that as all habitable rooms would have windows overlooking the rear garden or the road.  Thus, there would be adequate sunlight and daylight into the proposed flats.  The agent further informed the Committee that changes made to the staircase had been assessed by the relevant Council officers as adequate.

 

The Committee also received confirmation from the applicant that there had been no complaint from neighbours, other than an issue of anti-social behaviour on the premises, which was dealt with by the issue of eviction notice to tenants residing in the premises at the time.

 

The Area Planning Manager (East) also clarified to the Committee that the proposed development would not be liable to Local Community Infrastructure Level (CIL), or the Mayoral CIL.

 

In considering submissions made at the meeting, the Committee welcomed information that there were no proposed changes to the external aspects of the host building.  The Committee was satisfied that the principle of the development would provide an acceptable level of amenity for future occupiers of the proposed conversion flats.

 

The Committee voted on the proposal and unanimously

 

Resolved –

 

 

That Planning Permission be granted for the conversion of a dwelling house into two flats 1no 1-bed/2person flat and 1no 2bed/4person flat with cycle storage proposed to the rear garden, subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

10.

The Vista Building, 30 Calderwood Street, Woolwich. London. SE18 - 18/1147/F pdf icon PDF 395 KB

The Committee is requested to grant Full Planning Permission for the erection of 9 Storey extension to the North West of the building (fronting Clara Place) to provide 7 x 2 bed flats and a ground floor retail unit, as set out in the report.

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to refuse full Planning Permission for the erection of a 9 Storey extension to the North West of the building (fronting Clara Place) to provide 7 x 2 bed flats and a ground floor retail unit, subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

Minutes:

The Committee received and noted an illustrative presentation to the report by the Area Planning Manager (East), with a recommendation to approve the proposal therein.

 

 

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrative presentation to the Committee, recommending that it approve the proposal therein.

 

A resident addressed the meeting with an objection to the proposal, advising that he was also representing his neighbours.

 

The Committee heard that residents were concerned that statements in the report that the proposed 9-storey extension would be minor, of high quality design, and fit well with the host building and the environmental surrounds were misleading.  It was stated that that the applicant was proposing more units into the new space that would otherwise be the case.  Thus, the living conditions of future tenants would be compromised because the internal floor spaces were much smaller, when compared to units in the host building.  The Committee was advised that the bulk and density the proposed extension would excessive in the environment, and its shape and design would distort the structure of the host building.  Furthermore, the host building was currently poorly managed.  The quality of cladding to be used on the exterior of the proposed alternation, together with the suggested acoustic materials for the internal structure were unsatisfactory.  It was stated that existing parking problems would also be exacerbated because the number of proposed units.  Thus, residents were suggesting that the Committee should reject the proposals based on their concerns.

 

In response to questions raised, the architect for the applicant advised the Committee that consultation with residents was extensive, and included views of leaseholders of properties within the host building.  However, it had been difficult to arrangement a meeting with the freeholder of the host building.  The architect also advised the Committee that the proposed floor spaces were in accordance with the requirement of the London Plan.  The choice of cladding material to be used had been assed as adequate, and the applicant was willing to accept all the conditions in the report.

 

The Committee further noted a response from the Assistant Director that the amenities, including parking restrictions, were compatible to living conditions in a town centre setting.  The Committee was advised that the behaviour of the applicant with residents were not a material planning consideration.

 

In considering submissions made at the meeting, it was a unanimous view of Members that residents’ concerns were substantiated, as evidenced in the drawing plans.  It was stated that the proposal would likely create an adverse living conditions to residents.  The design of the proposed development would likely distort the character of the host building and the character of the environmental surrounds.

 

The Committee voted on the proposal and unanimously

 

Resolved –

 

That permission for full Planning Permission for the erection of a 9 Storey extension to the North West of the building (fronting Clara Place) to provide 7 x 2 bed flats and a ground floor retail unit, subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.