The Royal Borough of Greenwich Local Planning Committee met to discuss planning applications, ultimately approving two applications with conditions, refusing one, and deferring another for further consideration. One application was withdrawn from the agenda.

17 Oakmere Road, Abbey Wood, London, SE2 0XX

The committee considered an application for the construction of a single-storey rear extension and the change of use of a single family dwellinghouse to a six-bedroom HMO¹ with cycle and refuse storage at 17 Oakmere Road, Abbey Wood. Due to concerns about parking and the methodology used in a parking survey, the committee voted to defer the decision.

Key points raised during the discussion:

• Parking Survey Concerns: Several councillors questioned the validity of the parking survey, which was conducted during school holidays, potentially skewing results. Councillor Dave Sullivan said:

I'm a bit unhappy that we actually conduct a survey whilst the school is not functioning. That concerns me.

He also expressed concerns about the Lambeth methodology[^3] used for the survey, questioning its applicability to Greenwich.

• Waste Management: Residents raised concerns about waste management and potential increases in fly-tipping².
• Operational Management Plan: Councillor Sam Littlewood expressed doubt about the applicant's competence to provide a robust operational management plan, essential for addressing waste and parking issues.
• Site Visit: Councillor Sullivan proposed a site visit to better understand the parking situation and the impact on neighbouring amenity.
• Enforcement Issues: Residents mentioned an ongoing enforcement case related to antisocial behaviour and littering at another property on Oakmere Road.
• Officer Response: Louise Macionis, a planning officer, clarified that the Lambeth methodology is standard practice and that the 30% capacity allowance in the parking survey should account for residents who may have been away during the school holidays. She also noted that fly-tipping is not an issue specific to HMOs.

The committee agreed to defer the application to allow for an updated parking survey during school term time and a site visit.

27 Hever Croft, Eltham, SE9 3HA

The committee approved an application for a change of use from a single-dwelling house to a six-bed HMO, including the construction of a single-storey rear extension at 27 Hever Croft, Eltham. The decision was made with additional conditions relating to noise and lighting, as well as an informative regarding insulation.

Key points raised during the discussion:

• Construction Materials: Councillor Roger Tester raised concerns that the materials used for the extension did not match the existing building, violating a proposed condition.
• Noise and Disturbance: Residents expressed concerns about increased noise from the HMO, particularly affecting a neighbour with a disabled child. Louise Watts, a local resident, highlighted the potential noise from an automatic closing front door and security lights.
• Parking: Councillor Tester noted the poor public transport access in the area and the potential impact on on-street parking.
• Officer Response: Ms Macionis stated that the planning team did not foresee a significant increase in noise disturbance compared to a family dwelling.

The committee approved the application with amendments to Condition 9, requiring additional commitments to ensure that the noise of the main entrance door does not impact neighbouring properties and for additional commitments identifying how security lights (if any) are set and positioned and designed in such a way so as to limit unacceptable impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties. An additional informative was added that sets out that further consideration should be given to providing adequate insulation to ensure neighbours peaceful habitation is not impacted by the noise from the ensuite facilities.

24 Eaglesfield Road, Plumstead, London, SE18 3BU

The committee refused an application for the change of use of a single-family dwellinghouse to a five-bed HMO at 24 Eaglesfield Road, Plumstead. The primary reason for refusal was the unsatisfactory layout for a parent and child's rooms and safeguarding issues.

Key points raised during the discussion:

• Child Safeguarding: Concerns were raised about a proposed bedroom for a child under 10 being located across the hall from the parent's room, with a shared bathroom. Councillors questioned the safety and suitability of this arrangement.
• HMO Licensing Standards: Officers referenced the council's HMO licensing standards, which include provisions for children in HMOs, but councillors remained unconvinced.
• Applicant Absence: The applicant was not present at the meeting to address the committee's concerns.
• Reasons for Refusal: The committee cited the unsatisfactory relationship between the parent and child room, safeguarding issues, and the design not providing enough safeguard for a child of under 10 in a house of multiple occupancy as the reasons for refusal.

The committee voted to refuse the application, citing concerns about the safety and well-being of a child living in the proposed HMO arrangement.

25 Gloucester Circus, Greenwich, SE10 8RY

An application relating to 25 Gloucester Circus, Greenwich, was withdrawn from the agenda. According to the supplementary agenda, this was to allow the council to seek internal legal advice on whether additional consultees were required for the proposal, which included the construction of a first and second floor side extension, external repair works, replacement of an existing rear lower ground floor door, landscaping works to increase a lower ground floor rear patio, construction of new access stairs, and installation of metal balustrades, as well as other associated works.

Other Matters

• Declarations of Interest: Members were asked to declare any personal and financial interests in items on the agenda, with reference to the council's code of conduct.
• Filming and Recording: The chair reminded attendees that filming and recording of the meeting were permitted.
• Apologies for Absence: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ashley Mohamed and Rajah Zeeshan. Councillor Jahida Spencer gave apologies for lateness.