Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies from Members of the Committee.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Pat Greenwell.

         Councillor Dave Sullivan gave apologies for leave the meeting by 8.30pm.

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

The Local Planning Committee accepted the Planning Officers’ addendum report, circulated in advance of the meeting, in relation to Item 6 – Turner House, 22 McMillan Street, Deptford, SE8 3FR - Ref: 23/3200/F

The Local Planning Committee also accepted a public submission in respect of Item 9 - 31 Nithdale Road- Ref: 24/0832/F and Ward Councillor’s submissions in respect of Item 6 Turner House - Ref: 23/3200/F & Item 10 - 111 Eltham High Street- Ref: 24/0589/F

Chair also advised that he was amending the agenda running order taking items in the following order, Item 5; 6; 9; 10; 8 and 7.

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.

Councillor Gary Dillon made a personal declaration in respect of Item 5 – Land Adjacent to 85 Lansdowne Lane- Ref: 23/1102/Fand reclused himself from the meeting for consideration of the application.

Resolved -

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

·       That Councillor Dillons declaration be noted.

Member are asked to consider and confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the Greenwich Area Planning Committee Meeting of 9 May 2024; the Eltham and Kidbrooke Area Planning Committee meetings held on 23 April 2024, and the Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee meeting held on 26 March 2024 and note of inquorate meeting of 30 April 2024.

Resolved –

That it be note it was within the power of Members to confirm the minutes of the Area Planning Committees, which proceeded the establishment of the Local Planning Committee.

That it be noted that the respective minutes have been seen by Members in attendance of the respective Area Planning Committee meetings.  No comments or amendments were proposed.

That the minutes of the Greenwich Area Planning Committee meetings held on 9 May 2024; the Eltham and Kidbrooke Area Planning Committee meetings held on 23 April 2024 and Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee meetings held on 26 March 2024 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record’s.

That the note of the inquorate meeting of the Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee meeting of 30 April 2024 be noted.

Ward: Charlton Village and Riverside

The Area Planning Committee is requested to grant full planning permission for the development of six new residential dwellings (Use Class C3) in the form of one end of terrace dwelling and five dwellings on land to the rear with associated landscaping, private and communal amenity space, refuse and cycle parking provision.

Resolved that full planning permission be granted for the development of land adjacent to No. 85 Lansdowne Lane to provide six new residential dwellings (Use Class C3) in the form of one end of terrace dwelling and five dwellings on land to the rear with associated landscaping, private and communal amenity space, refuse and cycle parking provision

That permission is subject to -

·      The conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

·      Amendment to Condition 19 I Trees to include that replacement tress be a mix of sapling and semi mature trees and tree planting also obscure the view into 85 Lansdown lane

·      Amendment to Condition 7 – Waste Management that full details be provided to and agreed by Officers in respect secure and visual unobtrusive Waste bin storage/

·      Amendment to Condition 13 – That details of management and maintenance of the platform lift be robust and enforceable.

That the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) be authorised to make any minor change to the detailed working of the recommended conditions, as set out in the report (Appendix 2), its addendums and the minutes of this Area Committee meeting, where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.

Councillor Dillon declared a personal interest and reclused himself from the meeting.  With prior agreement of Councillor David Sullivan, appointed Vice Chair, Councillor Sam Littlewood Chaired the meeting, for reasons on continuity from previous submissions of the application.

The Planning Officer made an illustrative presentation of the application and clarified there was sufficient space to accommodate the number of units.  The change in land hight and alignment would negate overlooking or loss of amenities to existing residents.  Following the review of the applicants Fire Fighting Statement the London Fire Brigade raised no objections.

The Planning Committee accepted that an objection be read out on behalf of the Ward Councillor Jo van den Broek, who was unable to attend. The substances of her objections related to site contamination; destruction of woodland and wildlife habitat; development density and construction and site and access issues.  Further, that one unit would be built over a main sewer; the proximity to a 24 hour small industry site; fire safety concerns and accessibility issues to homes.

The Planning Committee accepted addresses from the appointed resident representative; an individual resident and Charlton Society representative whose objection’s related to the assertion that be classified as woodland and the adverse impact on wildlife and residents by removal of trees and green space.  There was no precedent for building houses in the rear gardens; intensification of the neighborhood; inappropriate development within a conservation area diluting the special quality of the area and specifically the deliberate design of Lansdown Lane and not reflective of the areas architectural or historic interest nor preserving and enhancement of the area.

Residents further felt the development would create a of sense of enclosure and overlooking to existing resident homes as well as noise nuisance, nuisance from additional vehicles, deliveries etc. and use of existing resident car parking area.  The construction would cause subsidence to existing homes; breached the party Wall Act; did not maintain a minimum distance to adjacent houses and at least one unit would breach Thames Water specifications by way of sitting over a sewer pipe.

Speakers highlighted a previous planning application for the site was dismissed by the Planning Inspector, who emphasised the importance of maintaining the established pattern in preserving the open character of the area.  The Charlton Society representative stated that English Heritage had advised that Charlton Village’s classification as outstanding was at risk due to deterioration of the areas character. 

The AreaPlanning Manager (East) addressed the comments raised and responded to Members questions expanding on the topography of the site and layout that would result in negligible overlooking or impact on amenities of the new and existing residents. noting that the proposal would be 9 metres below the level of the footpath with a 21-metres separation from existing homes.  Access to the site and party wall matters were not material planning consideration; the Councils Occupational Therapists considered the use of a platform lifts was appropriate and the Conservation Officer considered the proposal acceptable.

He continued that an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

At the culmination of consideration of Item 5, Councillor Dave Sullivan extended his apologies for having to leave the meeting.

Ward: Greenwich Creekside Ward

The Area Planning Committee is requested to grant full planning permission for the construction of a one-storey roof extension with roof access to the existing building to provide 2 x 1-bed, 2x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed self-contained units with cycle storage provision on ground floor. (Re-consultation) (Revised Drawings).

Resolved that full planning permission be granted for the construction of one-storey roof extension with roof access to the existing building to provide 2 x 1-bed, 2x 2-bed and 1 x 3-bed self-contained units with cycle storage provision on ground floor. (Re-consultation) (Revised Drawings).

That planning consent is subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and its addendum to be detailed in the notice of determination; and

That the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in this report and its addendums, where the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.

The Local Planning Committee accepted the Planning Officers’ addendum report, circulated in advance of the meeting and Ward Councillor’s submission in objection.

The Senior Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the application and clarified for Members the proposed development would be 18.3 metres, not including the lift overrun; the consented development would be 15.5 metres, not including the lift overrun.

The Local Planning Committee accepted a combined addresses for 4 residents and a further 1 resident who expressed the following in respect to their objection’s.

It was noted that a previous 8 storey application was refused by Members and on appeal.  When consent to build to a maximum of 5 floors was granted, Planning Officers and Members were aware of the 8 storey student block, which was being used to justify the height extension.  The merits of the proposal and sensitivity to the character and setting of the local community informed grant of the development limited to 5 storeys.

The speaker noted Charlott Turner Gardens had an open, low-rise character boarded by buildings at 5 storeys or lower and at 6 floors, the proposal would create a sense of enclosure and overpower the established townscape, which was also grounds upon which the appeal for a 6 – 8 block was refused. 

Speakers felt there would be significant loss of amenity to existing residents through loss of communal green area to the installation of a large bike storage unit, which would also impact the peaceful and safe habitation of residents, as access would pass bedroom windows and turn the area into a busy access point.  Residents would also loss access to the communal roof terrace, during construction and the re-instead area would be reduced. Both communal areas would be reduced in size whilst serving an increased number of residents. 

The resident adjoining the site stated the existing development had resulted in overlooking by 3 units and permanent loss of an hour of sunlight each day.  The additional storey would create further unacceptable overlooking and loss of light.

The speakers felt there were no material changes in the local built environment or planning policy to justify overturning a decision made when the area was not so well populated and it was considered that existing residents should have a reasonable expectation that this Committee would uphold the previous decision.

In response to Members questions a speaker stated the communal space would be reduced by about 11% whilst used by more people.

The Senior Principal Planning Officer clarified that since 2008 the NPPF and Local Plans had been updated as a result the 2008 decision holds no weight.

The Planning Committee accepted an address from the applicant’s agent who reiterated the updates to the Local and National Planning legislations noting the London Plan now sought optimising and increase on housing delivery, noting the NPPF looked favorability on the uplift on existing blocks.  That it would be a short construction period due to the used of part modular units constructed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Ward: Greenwich Park

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the construction of a five-storey building comprising office space (Use Class E) and residential units (Use Class C3) and associated refuse and cycle parking. 

Resolved that Planning Permission be granted for the construction of a five-storey building comprising office space (Use Class E) and residential units (Use Class C3) and associated refuse and cycle parking.

That planning consent is Subject to:

·             The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement as set out at Section 21 of this report; and

·              The Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

The Planning Committee accepted an illustrative presentation of the proposal from the Area Planning Manager (West).

The Committee accepted an address from a resident who objected to the proposal expressing concern that the design andaccess statementwere misleadingand incorrect.The main objection being the access way into the site was entirely owned by 27 Greenwich High Road.  Further there were parking spaces on the site and the access onto those would be removed and it seemed impractical to construct a 5 storey building on the available footprint, without access to the surrounding land.  There would be no on site turning space and there was no access to the Brooker site, meaning any vehicle would need to reverse into Greenwich High Road, which would impact construction and subsequent residents, in respect of deliveries.

At the invitation of the Chair the Area Planning Manager (West) advised that a Construction Management Plan was conditioned which would also address any impact on the highway.  He noted that the Councils Highways Department and Transport for London had raised no objections to the scheme.  Access via a third parties land was a private matter, noting that it had been raised and a s106 agreement was proposed.  Further, he noted that the parking spaces were not consented.

The Chair moved directly to putting the Planning Officers recommendation to grant planning consent to the vote with –

6 in favour

0 against

0 abstaining

Resolved unanimously -

That planning permission be granted for the construction of a five-storey building comprising office space (Use Class E) and residential units (Use Class C3) and associated refuse and cycle parking.

That planning consent be Subject to:

·        The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement as set out at Section 21 of this report; and

·         The Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

Ward: Shooters Hill Ward

The Area Planning Committee is requested to grant Listed Building Consent for the proposal to repair damaged brickwork and retrospectively alter the external materials to part of the side elevation of 52 Ashmore Road.

Resolved that Listed Building Consent be granted for the proposal to repair damaged brickwork and retrospectively alter the external materials to part of the side elevation of 52 Ashmore Road.

That consent is subject to the conditions set out at Appendix 2 of the report, to be detailed in the notice of determination.

That the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in the report (Appendix 2), where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.

The Planning Committee accepted an illustrative presentation of the proposal from the Area Planning Manager (East).

There were no public speakers to the application and the applicant advised they were in attendance to respond to Members questions, of which there were none.

As Members had no questions for the applicant the Chair put the Planning recommendation to grant planning consent to the vote with –

6 in favour

0 against

0 abstaining

Resolved unanimously -

That Listed Building Consent be granted for the proposal to repair damaged brickwork and retrospectively alter the external materials to part of the side elevation of 52 Ashmore Road.

That consent be subject to the conditions set out at Appendix 2 of the report, to be detailed in the notice of determination.

That the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in the report (Appendix 2), where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.

Ward: Shooters Hill 

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the change of use of from two flats (Use Class C3) to large HMO (Sui Generis) for 7 people, including the removal of a front window and all associated works.

Resolved that Full Planning Permission be granted for the change of use of from two flats (Use Class C3) to large HMO (Sui Generis) for 7 people, including the removal of a front window and all associated works.

That consent is subject to –

·        The conditions, set out at Appendix 2 of the report;

·        Additional Condition that, notwithstanding the substantive consent, revised drawings shall be submitted prior to the commencement of the development to retain the impression of the1^st floor front facing window. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with these details.

to be detailed in the notice of determination.

That the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) be authorised  to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in the report (Appendix 2), where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.

The Local Planning Committee noted a public submission and accepted and illustrative presentation of the application from the Planning Officer, who clarified the applicant had an existing permitted development right for conversion to an HMO (House of Multiple Occupation), which would be removed if the scheme before Members was agreed.

The Planning Committee accepted an address from Councillor Ivis Williams, Ward Councillor for Shooters Hill, who read a statement of objection from residents of Nithdale Road which set out concernat thedensity andscale and permanent impact on the area.  The assertion that 7 person occupancy would not create adverse noise did consider the poor sound insulation of the terraced houses, noting that soundproofingwas notrequired fora developmentof this scale.  Further 7 individual adults did not function in the same way as a family household.

She continued it was felt the proposal was not an improvement or providing quality accommodation with no communal area, which was to be repurposed into a bedroom and 3 of the bedrooms were barely above minimum requirements.  The minimum space requirement kitchen would be dominated by a table and was the through route to the cycle storage which was unhygienic, impractical and a safety hazard.  A first floor front elevation window was to be removed which would permanentdamage the appearanceand characterof theexistence streetscape and the proposed façade would be incongruous, both in colour and design.

In response to Members question, Councillor Ivis Williams noted that the principal of an HMO had been approved by the Planning Inspector advising the residents’ concerns at anti-social behaviour included rubbish spilling onto the street.  It was considered the house would be better used to meet the demand for family homes.

The Local Planning Committee accepted addresses on behalf of and from residents who, speaking in objection, raised that the prosed HMO would be out of character with the area, disregarding the distinctive identity of Nidderdale Road.  The removal of the decorative first floor window was of significant concern and would impact the heritage aspect of the house and street.   Consideration should be given to fitting a partition behind the existing window.

It was felt that the 7 unrelated adults would not function in the same manner or have the same impact as a family, with increased noise from 7 tv’s or radios; more visitors and un-coordinated waste disposal with the wrong waste in the wrong bins resulting in uncollectable overflowing bins, as occurred at other HMOS.  If the proposal was agreed it was felt installation of soundproofing should be required, both for the peaceable habitation of the new and existing residents.  Further, the 6 existing waste binswere currently contained by a small wall which was to be removed; this added to concerns the bins and any overspill would end up on the path and road.   It was noted that an unsightly, unkept area becomes an attraction for crime, citing the ‘broken window theory’ case study in the 1980’s.

Speakers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Ward: Greenwich Park

That Committee is requested to consider the following planning application which seeks Change of use from Use Class E unit to an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) (Sui Generis).

Resolved that it be noted that the applicant had submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination.

That it be noted the Council may no longer determine the application as the decision-making jurisdiction has transfers to the Secretary of State (or to one of their Inspectors acting on their behalf).  However, that the Council is still required to resolve whether it would have been minded to grant or refuse the application if the appeal had not been lodged.

It was resolved that, if the Committee had the power to determine the application, they would Refuse consent for the change of use from Use Class E unit to an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) (Sui Generis). The reason for refusal is as follows:

The proposed development, by way of the over concentration of betting shops and other associated gambling establishments, would lead to an unacceptable impact on the amenity of Eltham Town Centre and lead to an unacceptable increase in anti-social behaviour. The proposal would therefore fail to be in accordance with Chapter 7 and 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), SD6 and HC6 of he adopted London Plan (2021) and DH1, TC(b) and CH1 of the adopted Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014).  

The Local Planning Committee accepted an illustrative presentation from the Planning Officer, who clarified the application was being presented on the basis of non-determination seeking Members view of the Planning Officers recommended consent for change of use to an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC).

In response to Members questions the Planning Officer confirmed the applicant was seeking 24 hour operation of the AGC and would be the only gambling establishment in the area doing so confirming the hours of operation could be conditioned.  Only tea, coffee and soft drinks would be available on site; a toilet would be available at the ground floor and the upper floor would be an ancillary area for back office service.

The Area Planning Manager (East) reminded Members that the application had gone to appeal for non-determination and if they proposed the principal of reducing the hours of operation the applicant could appeal this or request a future variation.  He noted that there were no objections to 24 hours operation which would have been a different situation if it were in a residential area rather than a town centre, further, neither the Highways Department or the Environmental Officer had raised objections to the proposal or the operational management plan.   He advised that Planning and Licensing were sperate, though overlapping, process.

The applicants representative addressed the Committee advised that an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) was different form a betting shop, explaining the differences.  The slot machines would be low stakes, £2 maximum, and attracted mainly female clients.  It would be the only AGC in the area and a 24 hour operation licence was granted in March, without objection from the Police and the premises met CCTV, Challenge 25 and secure by design requirements.

The Planning Members discussed the applicant, considering the points made by Officers and the applicant.  A member expressed discomfort with a further gambling premises in the location, given the existing number in a small area.  That the hours of operation were concerning, and that patrons, who may also have been drinking were more likely to engage in risky behavior and have an adverse impact on antisocial behaviour.

A Member expressed that their understanding was this was not a traditional betting shop and, whilst not against gambling outright, felt that restricted hours of operation would be appropriate.

Before moving to the vote Members sought further clarification from Planning Officers as to the situation if they refused the application or agreed it with restricted hours. 

With the consent of the Chair, the Area Planning Manager (East) advised Members that if they were to approve the application with an hour’s of operation condition, they must be considered to be reasonable and acceptable so that, if minded to allow an appeal, the Planning Inspector would be in a position to accept them. Further, Members would need to provide a reason for restriction of hours.

Further, that if Members were to refuse the application, the decision would have to be in line with policies and evidential information that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.