Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Eltham Centre, 2 Archery Road, Eltham, SE9

Contact: Robert Sutton  Email: robert.sutton@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or tel: 020 8921 5134

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mark James and Ray Walker.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 42 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.

Minutes:

Resolved –

 

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

4.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 81 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2016.

 

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.

Minutes:

In response to a query from Councillor Wynn Davies with regard to Item 7 on the minutes the Area Planning Manager (East) advised that the applicant had not yet made a request to discharge the conditions added to the application for “125 to 129 Eltham High Street, Eltham, SE9 1TQ”.

 

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Eltham and Kidbrooke Area Planning Committee held on 15 March 2016 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

5.

157 Bexley Road, Eltham, SE9 pdf icon PDF 59 KB

The Committee is requested to consider granting planning permission for the construction of a 2-storey detached building to provided 2 x 2-bed dwellings with associated access and parking.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Planning Permission for the construction of a 2-storey detached building to provided 2 x 2-bed dwellings with associated access and parking is refused

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrated introduction of the report.  He made an amendment to Section 2.1 of the report it that it should state ‘07 Revised A and 08 Revised A’.  He highlighted the previous refusals and how the new proposal addressed the matters raised in the refusals.

 

In response to questions from the Committee the Principal Planning Officer clarified the position of the trees between the site and 6 Riefield Road, and indicated which tree was to be retained. He detailed the distance between the building at 6 Riefield Road, the perimeter wall and the proposed development.

 

The Committee was addressed the representative of the Riefield Road Residents Association.  He noted that the view of the Association was split on the proposed building, whereas they had been united against the previous ones. However, the issue they agreed on was the issue of parking and access. The concerns were with the traffic exiting into Riefield Road, and whether there would be enforcement of the proposed parking restriction on the site. He referred to an earlier period of an unlawful crossover onto Bexley Road from the site, which had been known to the Council for 20 years without enforcement action, and he suggested that something similar would happen again.

 

In response to questions of the Committee the representative of the Riefield Road Residents Association said it was the view of the Association that it would be better to have the exit onto Bexley Road, to avoid blocking on Riefield Road, but it was recognised that would require moving the bus stop.  He suggested that two detached houses would be the ideal building development.

 

The Committee was addressed by the immediate neighbour at 6 Riefield Road. His concerns were that it was overdevelopment, that under the National Planning Policy Framework there was a presumption against building on gardens. He suggested the proposal was backland infill contrary to Core Strategy Policy H(c), that the density was too high and contrary to the London Plan. He contended that the proposal would result in a loss of his amenity contrary to Core Strategy Policy DH(b). He highlighted the reasons for previous refusals which he felt still stood.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the immediate neighbour replied that the loss of sunlight was qualitively different from loss of light caused by a solid wall, in that the trees were not solid and they lost leaves in the winter when light was needed most.

 

The Committee was addressed by a resident at 23 Crown Woods Way. He felt a better proposal would have been for two family houses, facing onto Bexley Road. He said that based on the number of dwellings he said it could be expected that would be lots of cars belonging to the occupants. He questioned what penalty there would be if more people did park on the site. He noted Officers were suggesting they could park in neighbouring roads, but he commented that there were parking problems in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

7 Hill End, Plumstead, SE18 3NH pdf icon PDF 43 KB

The Committee is requested to consider an application regarding the demolition of the existing side extension and construction of a new two-storey side and single-storey rear extension.

Additional documents:

Decision:

1.       That Officers be authorised to oppose the appeal for non-determination for the demolition of the existing side extension and construction of a new two-storey side and single-storey rear extension.

 

2.       It was the view of the Committee that Drawing No. 3193/A3/01 Revision No. A, which had been circulated by the appellant as a potential revision to the Ground Floor Proposed Plan at appeal, was acceptable in principle.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated introduction of the report. He noted that the item had been deferred from the last meeting for a site visit, which had taken place on the previous Saturday.  He detailed the proposed development in context with what was currently allowable under permitted development

 

In response to questions from the Committee the Area Planning Manager (East) clarified that subsequent to the deferral of the item for a site visit the applicant had appealed to the Planning Inspector for non-determination, and had also prepared an alternative floor plan which had been circulated to Members. The Planning Inspector would consider the original application and would only consider the alternative plan if the applicant requested that it be considered.  Members could comment on both the original proposal and the alternative plan. The Area Planning Manager (East) advised on the difference between ‘permitted development’ and ‘prior approval’ and explained that permitted development did not allow continuous building of extensions.

 

The Committee was addressed by the neighbour at 8 Hill End. She explained how the original application would impact on her amenity, both in terms of light to her living room, and the impact on her garden. She stated that she had met with her neighbour; she appreciated he wanted an extension but it was the size of the original proposal which caused her objection.  She felt that the revised plan would be less obtrusive and would let in more light. She accepted that the modified proposal was more fair and reasonable.

 

The Committee was addressed by Ward Councillor Danny Thorpe.  He suggested the original plan would have an effect on amenity with regards to sunlight, daylight and overlooking, however, he hoped the Committee would take into account the neighbour’s opinion of the revised plan.

 

The Committee was addressed by the applicant.  He explained that he had gone to appeal because the matter had passed beyond the timescales for a determining such an applicant. He added that he had also resubmitted a new application but apparently it had been lost and not validated. That new application should have been the one before the Committee and he could then have withdrawn his appeal. He explained that he had met with the neighbour at 8 Hill End with regard to the proposed changes.

 

The Area Planning Manager (East) advised the Committee that the new application had been lost electronically but once it was released then it could be validated.

 

The Chair asked the neighbour at 8 Hill End if she was happy with the revised plan. The neighbour stated she accepted it as a reasonable compromise

 

Members discussed the matter. Members unanimously agreed that they would have refused the original application on the grounds of overdevelopment and loss of sunlight, and that they were happy in principle with the revised plan.

 

Councillor Wynn Davies requested to make a comment on the process. The Chair agreed to hear it after the meeting.

 

Resolved -

 

1.       That Officers be authorised to oppose  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

134 Timbercroft Lane, Plumstead, London, SE18 2SG pdf icon PDF 142 KB

The Committee is requested to consider granting planning permission for a change of use from B1 office space to new D1 children's nursery to include erection of new fence and landscaping of courtyard subject to the conditions and informatives detailed in section 5 of the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Planning permission for a change of use from B1 office space to new D1 children's nursery to include erection of new fence and landscaping of courtyard is refused.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated introduction of the report.  He drew Members’ attention to the proposed conditions.

 

In response to questions from the Committee the Area Planning Manager (East) replied that it was understood that the site was vacant at present. He confirmed that the proposed nursery would provide places for up to 38 children. He indicated that the Area Childcare Officer had considered the site acceptable for the proposed use. He said that there was no on-site parking.  It was an assumption that people would come by car; there was an expectation it would cater for locals and that they would walk to it.  There was a condition that it required a Travel Plan, so the applicant needed to demonstrate that they were to minimise car use or show alternatives to private car use. The expectation was that the drop-off for the nursery would be earlier, in general, than that for most school children, and likewise, collection would be, in general, later than that for most school children.  He confirmed that the addresses of those signing the petition in support were seemingly local to the area. He clarified that three previous applications had been made under prior approval but with minimal information; there had been concerns about highways issues, and they had been refused.

 

The Committee was addressed by a resident in support of the application. He highlighted that it was a proposal for a nursery was to serve local residents, and he suggested that there was a demand for nurseries. He commented that it would have a Travel Plan to ensure sustainable means of travel, and that it was easy to walk or cycle to. He did not consider that were traffic problems in the area. He said the site was currently in use by a construction company. He felt that it was not an appropriate area for B1 site use. The B1 use was noisier and it had no conditions on it at present; he felt the conversion from B1 to D1 use was better it would provide better air quality and they would not have to suffer construction vehicles going in and out. He felt the proposal would have no impact on local amenity and would be of benefit to children and the community.

 

In response to questions from the Committee the resident in support of the application clarified he lived at 130 Timbercroft Lane and his property backed onto the site.  He stated he was not the applicant nor did he have any interest in the site or application.

 

The Committee was addressed by a resident at 119 Thaxton Road.  She did not think that B1 use was worse than D1 use.  It had been there some time and had not bothered the community, in contrast to the current proposal. She noted there was a history of refusal. She contended that the site was unsuitable for D1 use, that as courtyard there would be continuous noise and that the proposed acoustic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

4 Sidcup Road, Lee, London, SE12 8BW pdf icon PDF 137 KB

The Committee is requested to consider granting planning for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a part 2 building with accommodation in the roof space comprising 5 flats  (1x1 bed and 4x2 bed) with 5 parking spaces, cycle parking, refuse store and associated landscaping subject to the conditions detailed in section 5 of the report.

        

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a part 2 building with accommodation in the roof space comprising 5 flats  (1x1 bed and 4x2 bed) with 5 parking spaces, cycle parking, refuse store and associated landscaping is refused

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrated introduction of the report. 

 

In response to questions from the Committee the Principal Planning Officer clarified the nature of the road system and where the nearby petrol station was. He confirmed that the proposal had originally been for three floors but was now to have a unit in the roof space.

 

The Committee was addressed by two neighbours speaking against the proposal. They expressed concerns that it was overdevelopment, that the flats would be of an insubstantial size, that the building density was too great, and that it was out of keeping with the local properties. It was noted that there plenty of development of flats in the area and it was suggested that instead they should be seeking to protect mid-sized family housing. There was a concern that it would set a precedent for similar developments in the immediate vicinity. It was felt that it would not be possible to park five cars on site. It was explained that it was near a busy junction and that Crathie Road was a ‘rat run’. Crathie Road was also part of a red route with a parking box near the access way.

 

In response to questions from the Committee the neighbours said the proposal would affect their outlook as the development would be longer and taller than the existing building, that there had been no dialogue with the applicant, and that the site had originally had a garden before it was concreted over.

 

The Chair proposed a site visit, and was seconded by Councillor Bill Freeman. The proposal was put to the vote and with two votes in favour and four against the proposal was rejected.

 

The Committee was addressed by the applicant’s agent. He refuted that the flats were of an insubstantial size, as they complied with national and Mayor of London space requirements. He noted there was no right to a view, in general and it was felt that there would be no unacceptable impact to outlook, it was not thought that it was out of character with the area. He explained that the height was no different to the previous building, the ridge line was no higher than that at 6 Sidcup Road.  It would have a pitched roof, regardless of the flat inside it, so that flat did not affect the height. He stated that there would be no change in the access at Crathie Road. He highlighted that Planning and Highways Officers were satisfied with the proposals.

 

In response to questions from the Committee the applicant’s agent replied that it was not possible to undertake a conversion of the existing property because it would not meet the required space standards. He confirmed that the development would have a bigger footprint than the current building; he said its size did not mean that it caused harm or that it breached standards or policies.

 

Members discussed whether the revised proposal addressed the concerns that had been raised.

 

The matter was put  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.