Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

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

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received for Councillor M. James.

 

Apologies for lateness were received for Councillor Scott-McDonald.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.  However, the Committee noted that public representations were submitted in relation to Item 5 – 9 Kidbrooke gardens and Item 6 – 10 St Germans Place.

 

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 33 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:

Resolved –

 

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

4.

83 Maze Hill, Greenwich, London, SE10 8XQ (17/0819/F) pdf icon PDF 84 KB

The Committee is requested to grant the proposal for the demolition of existing conservatory and construction of a single storey rear extension with decking, relocation of main entrance, cladding of external walls, installation of new windows and formation of a "semi self-contained flat" in basement ancillary to the main dwelling.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission for the demolition of existing conservatory and construction of a single storey rear extension with decking, relocation of main entrance, cladding of external walls, installation of new windows and formation of a "semi self-contained flat" in basement ancillary to the main dwelling.

 

Subject to the Conditions as set out at appendix 2 of the main report and the Addendum report.

and

Agreed that Ward Councillors would be informed when the details submitted in respect of condition 3 were submitted.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation and summarised the report recommending to the committee to agree the proposals therein.

 

In response to a Members question as to the stability of the ground, suitability of creating a basement room on a sloped area and the implications of the Blackheath pebble bed on the application; the Area Planning Manager (West) advised that this was a small excavation and adequate precautions were secured as part of Condition 3 relating to basement construction. 

 

The Committee accepted an address from the representative of the Greenwich Conservation Group speaking in objection to the application.  He advised that the Conservation Group were pleased that a basement impact statement was conditioned.  However, the Conservation Group were concerned that the basement works could have a serious impact on the host building and neighbouring properties. 

 

He advised that experienced showed the Humber Road area was affected by changes in ground water and the host building was on silty sandy clay which would be effected by the seasonal changes in ground water and could become unstable.  He noted that the Councils Supplementary Planning Document; Basement Impact Assessment (BIA) at paragraph 6.4 required a BIA be submitted and 6.5 covered the type of ground condition the application was set on. The Conservation Group felt that, as the outcome of the BIA was not available for the Members or neighbours to examine, Member’s should consider deferring their decision until the information was available. If they felt that they could not refuse the application.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an address from the direct neighbour to the applicant who advised his objection was only in relation to the basement element of the application.  He advised that the houses had shallow foundation and were built on pebble base ground, which was unstable with all of the properties affected by ground movement.   He was extremely concerned at the potential that the capped, but not filled, well under his kitchen or his entire house could collapse due to the basement works.   He noted that land stability was a planning concern and no ground survey had been conducted to ascertain if the land was suitable for such work and that it would be safe.

 

In response to a question from the Committee he advised that he was aware of the proposal that the basement be dug out by hand but was concerned that, as no method of construction had been provided, it was unclear how the applicant would build a stable retaining structure to stop the surrounding pebble soil and ground under his house from simply moving to fill the void created.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an address from a member of the public speaking in objection to the application who strongly supported the previous speakers and expressed concern that, no matter how well supported the excavation was, the ground would move both horizontally and vertically as well as be effected by the flow of ground water and it was not clear that an excavation, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

9 Kidbrooke Gardens, London. SE3 0PD. (17/2080/F) pdf icon PDF 326 KB

The Committee is requested to grant full planning permission for the demolition of existing two storey house and single storey garage and replacing with a new build two storey house subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted full planning permission for the demolition of existing two storey house and single storey garage and replacing with a new build two storey house.

 

Subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report with amendment to Condition 8, that further paragraph be added as follows –

No site works (including any temporary enabling works, site clearance and demolition) or development shall take place until the scheme of temporary tree protection as approved under this condition has been erected around existing trees on site. This protection shall remain in position until after the development works are completed and no material or soil shall be stored within these fenced areas at any time.

Minutes:

The Committees attention was drawn to additional documents submitted by the applicant, which had been provided to them in advance of the meeting.

 

The Planning Case Officer gave an illustrated presentation and summarised the report recommending to the committee to agree the proposals therein.

 

The Committee accepted an address from a member of the public speaking in objection to the application, who felt that the demolition would result in more work and an increase in dust, noise and construction traffic on a small site.  They requested that the applicant ensure that the dust was contained. That there would be an environmental and noise impact to residents and requested that the hours of work be restricted to 9am to 4pm weekdays and no weekend working.

 

That the site was on a suburban road which was frequently congested between 8-9am, as it was used as a ‘rat run’ and children were dropped off for local schools.  That the additional contractors parking and deliveries would increase the level of congestion.

 

The Committee accepted addresses from a representative for the Greenwich Conservation Group who advised that whilst they had objected to the previous application for the site they were not so opposed to this proposal as new build required conditions which complied to the Councils core strategy.

 

He advised that the Conservation Group were concerned at the lack of reference to the re-use of demolition material and what environmental and sustainable materials would be used in construction to ensure policy compliance. That the Conservation Group would like to see the demolition and construction method statement strengthened and that any construction or related work be banned from interfering with the pavement or highway.

 

The Committee accepted an address from a representative of the Blackheath Society who advised that since 2016 the Council had required that trees on site which would be affected by construction had an Informative on the means of protection, which had not been provided with this application.  Further, that it was incorrectly indicated that there were no trees as there was an established Beach tree on the entrance to the drive of the site.  He continued that there was serious concern for the survival of the Beach tree, which formed an important part of the street scene.  Further, at 14meters from the entrance to the property and with a shallow root it was likely to be damaged by construction traffic and foundation work.

 

The Blackheath Society representative continued that an arboreal survey indicated that the garden wall should be retained and the drive, by the tree not used, as vehicles driving over the roots could destroy the tree in minutes.  He advised that the Society proposed that Condition 8 be strengthened with a further paragraph;

No site works (including any temporary enabling works, site clearance and demolition) or development shall take place until the scheme of temporary tree protection as approved under this condition has been erected around existing trees on site. This protection shall remain in position until after the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

10 St Germans Place, Blackheath, London, SE3 0NN (17/0875/F & 17/0876/L) pdf icon PDF 209 KB

The Committee is requested to grant full planning permission and Listed Building consent for the construction of a single storey timber framed outbuilding adjacent to tennis court, subject to the Conditions set out in the appendices to the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted full planning permission for the construction of a single storey timber framed outbuilding adjacent to tennis court:

 

Subject to the deletion of condition 5 of the Conditions set out in appendix 2 of the report, an amendment to Condition 3 so as to prohibit the out building from being used for business use and an additional condition relating to additional screening.

 

Agreed that Ward Councillors would be informed when details were submitted in respect of the additional screening.

 

Granted Listed Building consent for the construction of a single storey timber framed outbuilding adjacent to tennis court:

 

Subject to the Conditions set out in appendix 3

 

Minutes:

The Committees attention was drawn to a number of additional documents submitted by local residents, which had been provided to them in advance of the meeting.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave a detailed presentation on the application and drew the Committees attention to Conditions 4a and 4b which was duplicated as Conditions 5a and 5b.  He advised that if Members were minded to agree the application Conditions 5a and 5b would be deleted.

 

In response to Members questions the Area Planning Manager (West) advised that the brickwork foundation of the proposed outbuilding was laid before the applicant was aware that they required planning permission.

 

The Committee accepted addresses from 4 members of the public, speaking in objection to the application who raised concerns that whilst the application stated that no trees would be removed and development would not commence without permission; foundations had already been laid and vegetation had been removed and cut back and a stand pipe had been installed.

 

An objector stated that the proposed outbuilding would be 2.5 metres high, but due to changes in the land, the height would, in reality appear to be 3.8 metres.  That the outbuilding would be built on the boundary of the neighbours’ garden; would be visible from neighbour’s properties and overlook their gardens.   They noted that the outbuilding would not adversely impact the applicants view as it would not be visible from their property.

 

Concern was raised that the outbuilding would be used as a gym and a commercial building which would cause noise nuisance to surrounding residents.

 

The speakers commented that the applicant had indicated that they were ignorant of planning legislation but felt that this was not the case as a close member of the applicant’s family was a planning lawyer.

 

Speakers expressed that the proposal was in a conservation area.  That at five times the size of other outbuildings in the area it was oversized for family use watching tennis, on the adjacent court, and storage.  That it would negatively impact the open character of the surrounding area causing unacceptable harm and had been commenced without permission; as such the application should be withdrawn or refused.

 

In response to questions from Committee Members the speakers in objection advised that whilst there were a number of trees in the area there was little screening between the outbuilding and neighbours.

 

The Committee Members accepted an address from the applicants’ representative who advised that the outbuilding was intended for the use of the family to watch tennis and work out but would not be used as a commercial premise.  That there would be gym equipment, such as cross trainer set up for a family member to use for Iron Man training and the building height was in order to accommodate a specialist piece of equipment used for this training. 

 

In respect of the concerns raised as to the outbuilding being used for commercial purposes she confirmed that the home address was the registered business address for the Blackheath Football  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.