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 on behalf of Councillors Linda Bird 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.  However the Chair drew the Committees attention to the photographic evidence submitted in respect of Item 6 – 2 Sunnydale Road.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 38 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.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 83 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting’s held on 17 May 20116 and 19 July 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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meetings of the Eltham and Kidbrooke Area Planning Committee held on 17 May 2016 and 19 July 2016 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate records.

5.

New Eltham Day Nursery, 699 Sidcup Road, Eltham, London, SE9 3AQ pdf icon PDF 43 KB

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a new nursery building, nature trail and associated parking to existing nursery.

Additional documents:

Decision:

That Planning permission be granted for the construction of a new nursery building, nature trail and associated parking to existing nursery subject to the conditions listed at section 5 of the report dated 15 March 2016 and that Condition 4 – Air Quality Assessment Impact Assessment be presented to Members at a future Eltham & Kidbrooke Area Planning Committee.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation. As part of the presentation the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that the application was on designated Metropolitan Open Land with the minor amendment to the application being of no substantial impact to the application.

 

In response to a Member’s question the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that the proposed parking area had capacity for 20 more vehicles than the present area in order to allow for pupil drop-off and was in line with the increase in capacity of the nursery.  He added that the new car park would be constructed of a water permeable surface.

 

In regards to air quality, he advised that Environmental Health had been consulted on the application.  Further, an Air Quality Impact Assessment had to be carried out and the result submitted in writing and this would need to be agreed by the Planning Department before work could commence.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that the Nature Walk was intended for the use of children attending the Day Care Nursery.   Further, that the lawful use of the site was for education purpose and a large on site school building had been demolished a year ago.

 

The applicant, Mr Morris, responded to Member’s concerns, advising that the parking spaces were increased to accommodate the, up to 10, additional members of staff and alleviate problems with people parking on the street to drop off children.  Further, the majority of children were driven to the Nursery, arriving within a one hour block, and a hand over for each child was conducted, lasting around 10 to 20 minutes.   He confirmed that the gates to the area would be locked at weekends and monitored by the Manager, on weekdays, to ensure the parking was not misused.

 

In considering the application a Member raised concerns at the air quality and potential effects on young children.

 

Mr Morris responded to Member that the land was on leasehold to the Day Nursery.  In addition, the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that the site would remain Metropolitan Open Land.

 

It was proposed and seconded that it was felt that the Committee would benefit from a site visit, in respect of this application. 

 

At the invitation of the Chair, the Area Planning Manager (West) responded to the concern advising that the matter was under Condition in the report and it would not be possible for the applicant to being building without the Air Quality Assessment being approved.  Further, it would be the discretion of the Members to decide if they wished the Air Quality Assessment brought before them for consideration.

 

Before moving to the vote it was proposed and agreed that, in principle should the matter be agreed it would be brought back to the planning Committee for consideration of the written Air Quality Impact Assessment.

 

Unanimously Resolved –

 

That Planning permission be granted for the construction of a new nursery building, nature trail and associated parking to existing nursery subject to the conditions listed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

2 Sunnydale Road, London, SE12 8JN. pdf icon PDF 134 KB

The Committee is requested to consider granting planning permission for the construction of single storey rear and side extensions subject to subject to the conditions set out in Section 4.2 of this report.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

That the matter be deferred in order to conduct a site visit.

 

Minutes:

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

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation. As part of the presentation the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that as the application was proposed in order to accommodate a disabled member of the family, Policy DH1 allowed for a degree of relaxing of the rules but not to the extent as to change or predominantly impact the site.

 

He advised that this was the third application for an extension on this site and that the outcome of an appeal to the Planning Inspector was awaited in respect of the previous application.  He responded to Members that if the Planning Inspector upheld the applicant’s appeal the applicant could revert to that planning design, instead of the one being considered at this meeting.

 

He continued that the proposal before Members was for two separate extensions, one to the side and one to the rear of the site.  He confirmed that both extensions would be linked into the existing internal aspect of the dwelling.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the resident of an adjoining property, who spoke in objection to the application raising the following issues.

 

She felt that, as with the previous applications, the proposal was not in keeping with the area.  She continued that it would encroach onto part of her property, without her consent, as the roof of the side extension would build onto her UPVC window.  She was concerned at weight bearing issues and damage to the window.  Further, that there were security implications as people could climb the roof offering direct access to her property via the window.

 

The Committee accepted an address from a representative speaking for herself and for three leaseholders of adjacent properties, who spoke in objection to the application raising the following issues.

 

She noted that, whilst permission for some side extensions had been granted, there were no other rear aspect extensions in the area and it was felt that the proposed application continued to be out of character to the area, too large, and intrusive, in height to the property above, despite amendments from previous applications.  She continued that the proposed rear extension would exceed 3.6meters and appeared to be the previous extension proposal laid long ways down the garden. 

 

She continued that under the Council’s Residential Extension, Basements and Conversation Guidance SPD (July 2016) and the Councils SPD the extension should not dominate and should remain subservient or secondary in size and appearance to the existing building.  It was felt that the proposals were not in keeping with these SPD’s and it could not be considered as subservient or secondary giving that the construction would result in the property becoming 100% larger than it currently was.

 

She advised that it was understood that Policy DH1 was in order to allow people to carry out work in order to allow them to continue to live in their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Land rear of 421 Footscray Road, Eltham SE9 pdf icon PDF 144 KB

The Board is requested to consider refusing planning permission for the construction of a single storey one bedroom dwelling for the reasons stated in Section 4.1 of the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

That the application for full Planning Permission for the construction of a single storey one bedroom house fronting Ellis Close be refused for the reasons stated in section 4.1 of the main report.

Minutes:

The Committees attention was drawn to an email circulated to Members, by the applicant, in advance of the meeting.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation and summarised the report.  As part of the presentation the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that an appeal regarding a previous application for a 2 bed property on this site, had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector.  Further, that the current application was for a single story one bed property.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the applicant, Mr Breen, who stated that the Officers’ report did not highlight all aspects of the application and, he felt, dwelt on the previous refusals.

 

He continued that it had been 10 months since the application was submitted and the concerns raised in the report could have been overcome, in that time.  He felt that the application assisted in meeting housing need in the Borough and hoped that it be used by an elderly person with specific needs, as it was near facilities and the Council could no longer build bungalows, despite the demand.

 

With regards to the proposed property not being considered as in keeping with the area he advised that Ellis Close had building of various designs the proposal would meet the step design of neighbouring properties.

 

He advised that the application had been reduced to once storey in order to address the impact on 10 Ellis Close.  Further, the land was currently used for fly tipping and the lock up garages no longer met modern demands.

 

In response to Member’s questions Mr Breen advised that the property height had been lowered to overcome concerns regarding loss of daylight to 10 Ellis Close and the sun would now go over the roof line without reduction of daylight.  Further, he confirmed that he had contacted the residents at 10 Ellis Close regarding the proposed application, without response.

 

In considering the application Members noted the previous concerns regarding the external and internal size in relation to numerous Policy’s, did not appear to have been overcome by this application and that they were persuaded by the Planning Officers’ recommendation to refuse the application.

 

A Member felt that this was a practical use for the area of land and the proposal had been designed with thought and felt that the concentration on concerns over previous applications was not of assistance.

 

The matter was put to the vote with 4 Members for and 1 Members against.

 

Resolved -

 

That the application for full Planning Permission for the construction of a single storey one bedroom house fronting Ellis Close be refused for the reasons stated in section 4.1 of the main report and below;

 

·       The proposed development, by reason of the location, size and layout of the new plot, would create a new dwelling that would be out of character with its immediate surroundings and would have a detrimental impact upon the cohesive layout, character and appearance of built form in the area, resulting in a visually obtrusive building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.