Greenwich Council

Agenda item.

15A Ulundi Road, Blackheath, London, SE3 7UQ - Ref: 18/1541/F

The Committee is requested to refuse Planning Permission as outlined in Appendix 2 of the report.

Decision:

Resolved to defer for a site visit.

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Planning Committee received an illustrative presentation on the proposal from the Area Planning Manager (West) who advised that the application fell within the Westcombe Park Conservation Area and whilst, if agreed, there would be little change to the street view the rear aspect of the building would be changed.

 

In response to Members questions the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that no objection to the proposal had been received from the occupant of the adjoining property, No. 17.  Whilst this was the case the determination of an application was not on the basis of whether an objection had or had not been received.  The impact of the development on a Conservation Area was not limited to effects to the street scene and consideration had to be given to the harm to the nature of the Conservation Area.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an address from the applicant who advised that he was disappointed it had taken 6 months and some considerable cost with no response from the Councils Planning Officers for two months.  That no Planning Officer had undertaken a visit, which he felt would be beneficial.  He noted that the Officers report stated that pre-planning advise had not been sought, however this was not the case as when pre-planning advise was sought he was told, by the Councils Planning Officers, that it was not available for residential unless new build.  He advised Members that this was still the advice being issued.  He stated he was aware that the draft report on the application recommended approval.  This was not a development but amendments to a private home, in order to provide space for older ‘children’ who could not afford to rent. 

 

The applicant’s agent address the Planning Committee stating that in the absence of a site visit, it would be difficult for Officers to appreciate the proposals.  He advised that a dormer window was not being fitted and there would be no adverse increase in the scale of the building.  As advised the changes would not be seen from the street scene and would only be visible to the family, visitors or neighbour, who was not objecting to the proposals.  He added that they had proposed the erecting of privacy screening, to overcome any concerns regarding overlooking however, Planning Officers advised that they felt that this was not maintainable.

 

In response to Members questions the Area Planning Manager (West) advised that the site had been visited by the Planning Officer, given that there were photographic images of the site forming part of the illustrative introduction.

 

In considering the application Members considered that a site visit may be useful but were concerned at any further delay this may cause the applicant.

 

The Chair noted that the applicant and agent had both raised concern that they felt a site visit had not been undertaken and may be useful.

 

The Chair put the proposal that the Board Members undertook a site visit to the vote with 2 Members for and 1 against.

 

Resolved –

 

That a decision on the application be defer for a site visit in order to gain a clearer view of the site and possible impact of the proposal to neighbouring properties and the Conservation area.

 

Supporting documents: