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 Councillors Bill Freeman, Christine Grice 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 Panel’s attention was drawn to tabled documents in relation to Item 5 – 2 Sunnydale Road and Item 8 – 15 Parkgate.

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 67 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 September 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:

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Eltham and Kidbrooke Area Planning Committee held on 26 September 2016 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

5.

2 Sunnydale Road, London, SE12 8JN. pdf icon PDF 65 KB

To consider granting planning permission for the construction of single storey rear and side extensions.

Additional documents:

Decision:

That planning permission for the construction of single storey rear and side extensions subject to Conditions set out in section 4.2 of the main report dated 26.9.2016 be refused.

 

Minutes:

Members noted the additional tabled items submitted by objectors, in relation to this item.

 

The Assistant Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation and advised the Committee that Planning Inspector had not upheld the appeal in respect of the previous application for this site advising that Policy DH(a), to enable a person with a disability to continue living in their own home, should not be applied.

 

The Committee addressed the concern, raised in the tabled papers, which indicated that a manhole would fall within the area of development to the Assistant Area Planning Manager (West).  He advised that this did not fall within the remit of a planning decision and was a matter for the applicant to resolve.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the resident of an adjoining property, who spoke in objection to the application.  She advised that the applicant had not sought permission to build on the land boundaries nor had they sought approval for the proposals from the building’s owner.  She was extremely concerned that the manhole, which served a number of properties in the building, would not be accessible and that Thames Water did not permit manhole covers to be inside a building.   Further, that the roof line of the proposed extension would prohibit her, as the flat above, from changing or carrying out any work on her windows.  She concluded that the other permitted development in the area where not end of block developments and the proposal was still in excess of the dimensions for permissible development.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the applicants architect, who advised that there were two other single story developments in in the area which had been granted planning permission but not yet been constructed.  That there were also properties in the area which had side extensions and were of a similar design to that proposed.  He continued that, as indicated in the drawings, the manhole would be re-located outside of the extension, to meat Thames Water requirements, but the existing soil pipe and down water pipe would remain in situ.  He felt that any issue regarding the roof line effecting the property above would be resolved as part of a party wall agreement.  He confirmed that an application, regarding the proposed development, had been submitted to the building landlord, who had yet to respond.

 

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the applicants architect confirmed that planning proposal notices had been displayed in the area but he had had no direct communication with the residents of neighbouring properties.  He was unaware if his client, the applicant had spoken with neighbours on the matter.  He added that he felt that a lot of the objections raised would be dealt with under the party wall agreement.

 

The applicants architect also advised that the roof line had been re-designed to pitch in order to allow access, by the flat above, to their windows and window panel wall without altering the appearance of the roof line or construction.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

76 Blackheath Park, Blackheath, SE3 0ET. pdf icon PDF 327 KB

To consider granting planning permission for the conversion of garage into habitable room.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

That planning permissionbe granted for the conversion of garage into habitable room subject to Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation advising that, if the application were agreed, the new garage door would retain the same appearance as the existing, the only difference would be that they would be bi-folding doors.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the resident of an adjoining property, who spoke in objection to the application.  He advised that the property was a five bed, not four and was part of a small area, of which ten residents had submitted objections. The shared driveway would hold a maximum of four cars and the Cul-de-Sac was already crowded with parked cars and being narrow access was difficult.  He advised that the applicant had not taken up occupation and had known the size of the property when purchased.  He added that, when the properties were build it was conditioned that the garages could not be converted to habitable dwelling areas.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that the only reason planning permission is required is due to permitted development rights having been removed under the 1983 consent.

 

The Committee accepted an address from a representative from the Blackheath Conservation Group who advised that these were large semi-detached houses with integral garages forming a homogenised close.  That the idea of converting garages into habitable rooms was not intended when the properties were built and the original design and intention should be retained as a unified close. 

 

In response to a question he confirmed to Members that whilst the door would appear the same if this became a habitable family room it would only open in the corner area and the change of design was not appropriate and it would not be possible to leave the original door in situ.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the applicant who stated that the house had a quirky layout and he want to adapt it to match modern living.  He felt that the change of garage door would not change the external appearance and the loss of the garage for parking was not detrimental as use of the drive was retained and there was one space opposite the drive.  Further, the London Plan stated that developments should have a maximum of two car spaces and the property currently had three.  He advised that he had consulted neighbours and the only comments received related to the door design and bin storage, both of which had been addressed. He reminded the Committee that the application before them was separate from any other application he had submitted and should be consider in isolation of any other applications.

 

In response to a question he confirmed to Members that the area would be used as a utility room and there was space behind the bind bins store area which could become a habitable space.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that the area behind the proposed bins store would benefit from light from the existing rear window.

 

Before considering the application members sought clarification as to the weight that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

14 Brookway, Blackheath, SE3 9BJ pdf icon PDF 216 KB

To consider granting planning permission for storey rear & side extension, loft conversion with rear dormer window and 3 rooflights and part conversion of garage into habitable room.

Additional documents:

Decision:

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

Minutes:

The Assistant Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation advising that similar applications had been approved in Brookway.

 

The Committee accepted an address from a representative from the Blackheath Conservation Group who stated that the proposal would upset the design and symmetry of the two houses and the long roof height would create a terrace affect.  It was felt that this would be detrimental to the look of the grouping of houses in the cul-de-sac.  He accepted that the applicant had made steps to address concerned which the Group had raised.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the resident of the neighbouring property, who spoke in objection to the application.  He advised that, due to the frying pan design of the Cul-de-sac his and the applicants’ properties were uniquely visible and he was concern that the appearance and symmetry would change.  He continued that approval was given for changes to two other properties in the Cul-de-Sac but these were only visible from the ‘pan handle’ and had not had a great impact on the overall look of the area.  He advised that the gardens of his and the applicants properties were not as deep as others and 1/5th of the garden would be taken up with the extension which would also dominate his property and he felt that the height should be reduced.  He accepted that the applicant had noted concerns raised and appreciate changes were made but still felt the proposals were not acceptable.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the applicants’ agent who felt that the design was balanced and the proposals benefited the overall aspect of the property.  He advised that the design had retained the gap between the two properties.  He confirmed that the balcony was replicating those on other properties in the Cul-de-Sac and a pitched, rather than flat roof was proposed, to address concerns which had been raised.  He added that whilst many other extensions in the Cul-de-sac had been built up to the property boundaries, this extension was six meters from the boundary in respect of neighbours.  He confirmed to Members that his and his neighbours properties were connect by a garage block.

 

The Assistant Area Planning Manager (West) responded to Members question that there was at least one other existing extension on the property boundary and there were others of a similar style to the proposals.

 

In considering the application Members felt that the existing garage already gave an impression of terracing.  That whilst the proposed design did not appear detrimental to the existing property concerns were expressed at the scale and symmetry as well as possible overshadowing.

 

A proposal was made to carry out a sight visit, with three Members in favour of such and two against

 

Resolved –

 

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

8.

15 Parkgate, Blackheath, London SE3 9XF pdf icon PDF 190 KB

To consider granting planning permission for a single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, first floor side extension and the replacement of two roof lights with two new rear dormer windows (Resubmission).

Additional documents:

Decision:

That planning permission be granted for the Construction of a single storey rear extension, single storey side extension, first floor side extension and the replacement of two roof lights with two new rear dormer windows (resubmission) subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

 

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation advising that amendments had been made to the previous application, including the substitution of the pitched roof in place of the flat roof

 

The Committee accepted an address from a representative from the Blackheath Conservation Group who understood that the proposals had been adjusted so that the 1st floor extension was now clear of the bedroom window of No. 13.  That the Conservation Group objected to the application due to the incongruous appearance within the planned street design and that the symmetry of the property would be impaired.

 

The Committee accepted an address from a representative of the neighbouring property, No.13, who advised that their specific concern was with the side extension, which they had only today heard was to be changed. She continued that 13 Parkgate came right up to the property boundary and had two windows, one bedroom and one bathroom window, which would be effected by the extension.  That it was felt that there would be a negative impact on No.13’s enjoyment of daylight, particularly to the rear of the property.  She concluded that, even with the re-design, the extension would have a significant impact on No.13 and that the symmetry of the property and roof line was untypical elements for the area.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the applicants’ agent who stated that he and the applicant had been working with officers to make changes and address the concerns raised by the occupants of the adjoining property.  He believed that the only impact to No.13 would be to the top floor where there was a terracing effect to a void area which No.13 had indicated they felt was over excessive.  That the street view showed that No.13 was full depth to boundary and two stories high whereas the applicants propose was in keeping with the style of house in the area; set back; not up to the boundary line and not as large as No.13.  It was proposed to replace the rear elevation rooflights with two side dormer windows, to make full use of the internal space, with no change to the existing centre dormer window.  He felt that the proposed extension was sympathetic and had a minimal impact on the existing house.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the applicants who advised that they had tried to accommodate the concerns raised by the neighbouring property and felt that their proposal was not disproportionate to existing properties.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) responded to Members question regarding the proximity between No’s.13 & 15 and that officers had considered this and the proposal would have no impact regarding privacy as there was no overlapping and the windows facing No.13 were secondary.

 

In considering the application Members noted that a number of properties, including the one adjacent to the application, were build up to the boundary and felt that this application should not be penalised for restrictions not imposed on others. It was felt that the design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

80 Joan Crescent, Eltham, SE9 5RP pdf icon PDF 90 KB

To consider granting planning permission for a 2-storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and a front porch.

Additional documents:

Decision:

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

Minutes:

Members noted the additional tabled items submitted by the applicants agent, in relation to this item.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation advising that the matter was put before the Committee at a Members request and confirmed to Members that the application had to be considered on its own merits.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the occupant of the neighbouring property who advised that he had no objection to the side extension but he objected to the rear extension as there were issues with subsidence to the properties which shared one drain run.  That the Council had already advised him that they believed that the subsidence had moved the drain run and the sewer pipe had dropped.  He advised that the drains frequently blocked.  Further, there had been numerous attempts to underpin the properties due to frequent flooding due to being at the bottom of a hill. He was concerned that, due to the subsidence issues any digging to the rear area would have a detrimental effect on both his and the applicants property.  He continued that, due to the change in land height the rear extension would also result in him looking at a 12 foot slab of bricks instead of fencing.  Further, that the gardens were due south and lost light early in the day and he felt that the wall would result in almost total loss of light to his rear window.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) responded to Members question regarding subsidence that this would be a matter for building regulations and confirmed that planning looked at the design of the extension and building control were concerned with construction of the building and would look at these types of issue.

 

In considering the application Members were concerned at the potential scale and impact of the rear aspect of the extension and a proposal was made to carry out a sight visit which was agreed.

 

Resolved unanimously -

 

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