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 accepted for Councillor May.

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 attention to tabled public documents in relation to Item 9 – 24 to 26 Hervey Road.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 34 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 89 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 November 2016 and 17 January 2017.

 

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 Committees held on 15 November 2016 and 17 January 2017 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate records.

5.

Treetops Day Nursery, 35 West Park, Eltham, SE9 4RZ pdf icon PDF 203 KB

The Committee is requested to grant full planning permissionfor the construction of a single storey rear extension and increase to the number of children taken from 45 to 69.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted full planning permissionfor the construction of a single storey rear extension and increase to the number of children taken from 45 to 69 in line with the conditions set out in Appendix 2 to the report.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated presentation advising that the facia materials would match that of the existing building and that it was considered that there would be no adverse impact to the area, existing property or parking and amenities.

 

In response to Members Questions the Area Planning Manager (East) stated that there was no issue of overlooking as the window would be obscured by the fence line.  Further, that of the eight objections receive, seven had been submitted by residents and one by a Councillor.

 

In determining the application before them Members were satisfied that officers had considered the objections raised.  That there appeared that there would be minimum, if any impact, on residents and parking if the application were agreed.

 

The matter was put to the vote with five Members voting in favour of the application and one objection. 

 

Resolved –

 

That full planning permission be granted for the construction of a single storey rear extension and increase to the number of children taken from 45 to 69 in line with the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

 

6.

New Eltham Day Nursery, 699 Sidcup Road, Eltham, London, SE9 pdf icon PDF 314 KB

The Committee is requested to grant discharge of conditions in relation to submission of details pursuant to condition 4 (Air Quality), condition 7 (Bird/Bat Boxes and Stag Beetle Loggeries), condition 10 (Refuse), condition 11 (Cycle parking) and condition 12 (Travel Plan) of planning permission dated 28/09/16 ref: 15/2099/F.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Agreed the recommended that the conditions and their requirements be discharged, as follows:

Conditions for the submission of details pursuant to condition 4 (Air Quality), condition 7 (Bird/Bat Boxes and Stag Beetle Loggeries), condition 10 (Refuse), condition 11 (Cycle parking) and condition 12 (Travel Plan) of planning permission dated 28/09/16 ref: 15/2099/F.

 

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated presentation advising that the report was presented in order to consider the discharge of the conditions outlined in the report.  Further, when the initial application was approved in September 2016 it was requested that the matter be re-submitted when Officers had prepared an Air Quality Condition, which was set out as Condition 4.

 

The Panel Members moved straight to the vote and it was;

 

Unanimously Resolved –

 

That it be agreed that the recommended that the conditions and their requirements be discharged, as follows:

Conditions for the submission of details pursuant to condition 4 (Air Quality), condition 7 (Bird/Bat Boxes and Stag Beetle Loggeries), condition 10 (Refuse), condition 11 (Cycle parking) and condition 12 (Travel Plan) of planning permission dated 28/09/16 ref: 15/2099/F.

 

7.

Wide Horizons Woodland Centre, Constitution Rise, Shooters Hill, London, SE18 pdf icon PDF 219 KB

The Committee is requested to grant Planning Permission for the relocation of previously approved compost toilet facility under planning permission dated 06/07/2016 (Ref: 16/0520/F).

Additional documents:

Decision:

That the matter be deferred for a site visit.

 

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated presentation confirming that the compost toilet facility was currently located 20 metres from the nearest building and the proposed re-location would be 50 metres from the nearest building.

 

The Panel accepted an address from the resident of the nearest property to the toilet facility who spoke in objection to the proposal stating that they already concern that overfill and run off from the toilet would pollute their garden and the re-location of the toilet, which was further up hill, would do nothing to alleviate this concern.  She continued that there were better composting systems, than that proposed, which could be used and would resolve the issues of overfill as well as other plumbing solutions including locating the toilet near the main sewer pipe and directly plumbing it into such. She was disappointed that none of the alternatives appeared to have been considered. She raised concerns that the compost system to be used would encourage flies and vermin and noted that, whilst the facility would not be available to the public but only visitors to the site this could still be 900+ at weekends.  She concluded that if the type of toilet was different she may not hold the same concerns at the provision and location of the facility but was very concerned at the current facility being moved uphill from her home.

 

In response to Members questions the Area Planning Manager (East) advised that he was unable to advise if alternative types of toilet facility provision had been considered by the applicant but the current compost toilet had been considered acceptable when the application was previously agreed.

 

In determining the application before them Members felt that matter should be deferred in order to carry out a site visit and ensure that the applicant or their agent was requested to be present at the meeting at which the item was resubmitted to.

 

The proposed deferment was put to the Panel and carried, seven for and one against.

 

Resolved –

 

That the matter be deferred for a site visit.

 

8.

167 Footscray Road, Eltham, London. SE9-2SZ. pdf icon PDF 168 KB

The Committee is requested to grant Planning Permission for the construction of a single storey games room.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted Planning Permission for the construction of a single storey games room in line with the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report with amendment to Condition 3 and an addition Condition, to read as follows;

 

Condition 3   The games room hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes incidental to and in connection with the main dwelling house as a games room only. The games room is not to be sub-let or sold on as a separate dwelling.

 

Condition 4   The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details, including materials and drawings, to a scale of 1:100 and 1:50, of a suitable privacy screen to the games room have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The details and drawings shall illustrate measures to prevent direct overlooking towards the neighbouring and nearby residential properties. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained for as long as the development shall exist.

 

Minutes:

The Planning Case Officer gave an illustrated presentation advising that, if the application was agreed, the storage shed, currently on the site would be removed as part of the works.

 

In response to Members Questions the Planning Case Officer confirmed that the proposal was outside of the permitted development size, would be built to the boundary and was of a greater height than permissible.  That the sun window would look out onto the garden but would be obscured by a two-metre-high fence.  He confirmed that the application was for a games room not a habitable room, which was conditioned.

 

The Panel accepted an address from one resident who spoke in objection to application stating that the applicant had confirmed to him that the development was intended to be used as a bungalow and not a games room and that he intended to live in it for part of the year.  He advised the Members that there was a covenant covering the area prohibiting any fence or garage to be greater than 6-foot high.  That the proposal would adversely affect the level of sun into his garden.  That the trees that it was indicated would be removed were not all on the applicants’ property, drawing particular attention to the one in the driveway area, which was used by all residents to access their garage, was on MoD land and could not be removed.  He concluded that it strongly appeared that this was going to be used as a habitable building not a games room and was referred to as a dwelling in the officers’ report and he was concerned that it would be sub-let.

 

In determining the application before them Members were concerned as to whether Condition 3 – Use of Outbuilding (Games Room) was strong enough as it appeared that it did not prohibit the occupant of the house from using the room as a bedroom, as the wording states ‘connection with the main dwelling house’ and could be interpreted that if one sleeps in the main dwelling one could sleep in the outbuilding.  Further, that if it were used as a habitable room, after four years’ consent would have deemed to have been given. The Chair sought guidance from Planning Officers as to whether it was possible to strengthen the Condition to prohibit the outbuilding to be used as a habitable dwelling or bedroom.

 

The Planning Case Officer advised that he believed the Condition could be amended but would need to consider guidance. The Assistant Director Planning & Building Control added that permission was being sought of an outhouse, which was incidental to the main dwelling and could, in theory, be used as overnight accommodation by the occupants of the main dwelling.  She offered the Panel a proposed change to Condition 3, to address their concerns, which was accepted and if agreed would form part of the Panels resolution.

 

Members sought clarification on the issue of covenant and its implications, to which the Planning Officer advised he was not aware  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

24-26 Hervey Road, Kidbrooke, SE3 pdf icon PDF 228 KB

The Committee is requested to grant planning permission for the construction of basement level to provide 2 x 2 bedroom flats and 1 x 4 bedroom flat including 3 new private rear terraces for existing ground floor flats with glazed balustrades and glazed walkways, lowering of communal garden by 800mm and demolition of existing bin store (Amended description)

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission for construction of basement level to provide 2 x 2 bedroom flats and 1 x 4 bedroom flat including 3 new private rear terraces for existing ground floor flats with glazed balustrades and glazed walkways, lowering of communal garden by 800mm and demolition of existing bin store (Amended description) in line with the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report. 

Minutes:

The Chair drew attention to tabled public documents in relation to this item.

 

The Planning Officer gave an illustrated presentation advising that the proposal was within the Sun in the Sands conservation area and was considered as an acceptable development in keeping with a similar development to a neighbouring property.

 

He responded to Members that the applicants architect could advise them as to whether sequential underpinning would be used.

 

The Panel accepted an addresses from two residents, both of whom spoke in objection to the proposal concerned at potential undermining of the structure of existing building.  That it was difficult to predict the effect such excavation work would have of the building or the nearby road. There was concerned at the effects on the residents and their properties, whilst the works were undertaken and that no assurance’s had been received from the applicant.  That a large amount of the existing garden and a number of trees would be lost.  Further, the report indicated that there was adequate parking to accommodate the application, however the existing parking spaces were currently and would not accommodate an increase in numbers of cars. In conclusion the proposal would also effect the street scape as no other property, in the area, had railings around light wells.

 

The Panel accepted an address from the applicant’s agent who advised that the applicant had willingly responded to any technical issues, such as commissioning and submitting a basement impact assessment which confirmed that it would have no significant or adverse impact on the ground water levels.  That a structural engineers report confirmed that construction could be carried out with minimal risk to the property or environment, as did the prepared construction plan.  That a traffic plan had been submitted outlining residents maintained access to the communal gardens.  That the application was policy compliant, including parking provision and that the basements, in principle, were not precluded within the conservation area and there were examples of this type of construction, in the area.  He noted that no objections to the application had been received from technical consultants, the Greenwich Conservation Group, the Council Conservation Officers, Transport & Highways, pollution and waste services.  Further, that the proposal was technically robust and policy compliant.

 

The Panel sought clarity, from the applicant’s agent as to the mitigations to be taken to minimise the impact of the family life of the existing resident; the position on the loss to the communal garden and trees and if there were sufficient parking to accommodate any new resident.

 

The applicants’ agent responded that the construction management plan committed to appointing a considerate contractor and controlled the hours of work as well as aspects of construction noise.  That the residential communal garden would be preserved and there would be set construction paths.  It would be a phased development so that not all the construction would happen simultaneously.  In respect of car parking he believed that the increase of three units would cause parking stress and noted that there was additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

24 Kinlet Road, London, SE18 3BY pdf icon PDF 199 KB

The Committee is requested to refuse full planning permissionfor the construction of a part 1/part 2-storey side extension for the reasons set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Refused full planning permissionfor the construction of a part 1/part 2-storey side extension.

 

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated presentation advising that officers were recommending refusal of planning permission, as set out in section 1 of the report and the matter was being presented to the Plannign Committee as the result of a Councillor call-in.

 

In response to Members questions, the Area Planning Manager (East) advised that there were other two story extensions in the area but not in cul-de-sac’s.  In terms of the developments within the cul-de-sac there are single story and some developments up to boundary lines, most of which were historical and before the Conservation Area was designated and all of which would not be considered acceptable now.

 

The Chair noted that the Conservation Area was designated and the Article 4 came into force.

 

The Panel accepted an address from the applicants Architect who advise that due to the applicant’s elderly mother coming to live with them as well as their daughter and her two sons, more rooms was needed by the family.  As they were not able to move they were seeking to increase the size of their current property.  That the design was based on the Shrewsbury Conservation Society Article 4 guidance direction note.  From submissions of the proposals in July 2016 only one written communication had been received from the Council Planning Officers, to confirm receipt and the Development Control Officer had until 22 September to deal with the application.  This meeting is one week short of the validation date and during the intervening period he had had a number of unproductive and unhelpful discussions with the case Plannign Officer.  He advised that, as one of the discussions the Planning Officer advised that they were mindful to recommend refusal but a smaller development may be considered in a positive light.  There were a number of similar side extensions in the area and all, but one, were abominable in design.  He continued that the only other communications that had been received were the invitation to the Planning Meeting and he felt that the Plannign Officers had not been supportive to the applicant and their experience had been very poor.    He took exception to officers’ description of the proposal as being of excessive width, scale and being over-dominant edition.  However, the ground floor development would be of standard size garage, at 8 feet, with supporting 9-inch brick piers, which was not of an excessive width and the rear garage wall is extended to the neighbouring boundary to design out an awkward useless space with a pitched roof and is identical to No.28.  Further, the proposal was set back at the officers’ recommendation, not the applicants.  He explained the proposals for the upper floor and internal layout.  He noted that there were not public objections to the proposal and that planning consent be granted.

 

The Applicant added due to the expansion of the family and note being in a position to move the only option was to seek approval for the extension of the property.

 

In determining the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.