Eight flats at Woodlands Heights, Blackheath, London SE3

What was proposed

The application proposed an additional floor containing eight flats, with balconies, cycle and waste storage, loading bays, pedestrian access, landscaping and tree removal.

“The Committee is requested to grant full planning permission for the following proposal: Proposed extension to existing 5-storey building to provide an additional floor of residential floorspace comprising of 2 x 2 bedroom and 6 x 1 bedroom units with respective private amenity spaces, provision of additional cycle and waste storage, new loading bays, new pedestrian access from Vanbrugh Hill, associated landscaping and tree removal, and all associated works.”

“As part of the above, the committee is also recommended to authorise the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in this report (Appendix 2), where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The existing five-storey building contains 42 flats and is beside conservation areas, woodland, community open space and locally listed buildings.

“The application relates to an existing five-storey plus part lower ground floor flatted development located to the west of Vanbrugh Hill and south of Restell Close. The existing building is an irregular ‘U’-shape with a footprint of approximately 838m2 and currently accommodates 42 one and two-bedroom flats. The building was originally constructed for use as a nurses’ home in 1927 and it is understood this was converted into private residential units in the early 2000’s.”

“ITEM NO: 6 PAGE NO: 4 3.4. Additionally, the south-western corner of the site adjoins the Westcombe Woodlands, a designated Site of Nature Conservation Importance (NC46) and an area of Community Open Space. Vegetated land immediately west of the site is designated as Community Open Space.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals were refused or withdrawn, while a later scheme was approved; the most recent similar proposal was refused and dismissed on appeal.

“Planning application 20/0710/F was refused on 11/02/2022, and the subsequent appeal APP/E5330/W/22/3304828 was dismissed at appeal on 22/09/2023 for “Proposed extension to existing 5-storey building to provide an additional floor of residential floorspace comprising of 2 x 1 bedroom and 6 x 2 bedroom flats, with two roof terraces. (This application may affect the setting of the Westcombe Park and Greenwich Park Conservation Areas).”

“The proposal is therefore contrary to the NPPF (2021) and to policies D3, D4 and HC1 of The London Plan (2021), policies H5, DH1, DH3 and DH(h) of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Adopted Core Strategy (July 2014), the Royal Borough of Greenwich Residential Extensions, Basement and Conversion Guidance SPD (2018), the Greenwich Park Conservation Area Appraisal (2010) and The Westcombe Park Character Appraisal (2010). This reason for refusal was dismissed at appeal.”

Officer report

Concerns raised

Objections focused on overlooking, enclosure, daylight, construction disruption, traffic, parking, ecology, tree removal, design and the absence of affordable or family housing.

“ITEM NO: 6 PAGE NO: 11 managed to minimise disruption during the construction process. Concerns raised regarding the developments impact on neighbouring amenity, including noise, daylight/ sunlight, overlooking, increased sense of enclosure and loss of privacy impacts. All of these concerns are assessed within the “Impact on Neighbouring Amenity” section of the report below. Concerns that the development does not bring forward any affordable housing.”

“Concerns that the proposal does not address the desire for family homes. This is discussed within the “Housing Mix” section of the report. Concerns about the removal of trees This is discussed within the “Trees and Biodiversity & Ecology” section of the report” Concerns about the impact on ecology and nearby protected species.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Objectors, residents, amenity representatives, a ward councillor and the applicant’s agent addressed the committee about amenity, access, history, design and construction.

Members’ debate

Members differed over whether the revisions resolved earlier concerns, while discussing housing need, neighbour amenity, design, engagement and construction controls.

“11 A Member felt the application addressed the points raised in the previous appeal decision and accepted the applicant’s willingness to ongoing engagement with the residents’ association, including flexibility around the construction management plan. They noted the wider need for additional housing and the scale of the proposal was justified within that context.”

“Another Member stated they considered the revised proposal more intrusive than the previous scheme due to increased roof bulk and visual impact and would be overly dominant in its setting. They raised concerns about loss of daylight and the absence of clear, quantified evidence to demonstrate impacts on neighbouring properties and concerns in respect of the applicant’s communication with residents, site management, access, and emergency evacuation, expressing a preference…”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted to grant permission with an amended construction management condition, with four members in favour, two against and no abstentions.

“The Chair proposed strengthening planning Condition 4 relating to the Construction Management Plan suggesting that it be tightened to include clearer controls over scaffolding, access arrangements, and the location of welfare facilities, ensuring these do not obstruct entrances or adversely affect nearby residents, particularly those on the ground floor which the Area Planning Manager (West) advised could be incorporated.”

“The Chair put the recommendation to grant planning consent with the proposed amendment to Condition 4 to the vote with 4 Members in favour 2 Members against 0 Members abstaining…”

Minutes

The decision

Full planning permission was granted for the additional residential floor and associated works, with stronger controls on scaffolding and welfare facilities.

“Thay full planning permission be granted for the extension to existing 5- storey building to provide an additional floor of residential floorspace…”

“That consent be granted with the amendment to Condition 4, that the Construction Management Plan include specific details in relation to scaffolding so as to not block access and site staff welfare facilities, including portoloos, be located away from existing residential homes.”

Minutes