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 Board.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received for Councillors Adams, Bird, Cornforth and Dillon.

 

Apologies for lateness were received for Councillors Khaireh and Mardner.

2.

Urgent Business

The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda.

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

 

The Chair advised that she would be taking item 6, Saxon Wharf, as the first application for consideration.

 

The Planning Board noted and accepted the Planning Officers addendum reports, circulated in advance of the meeting, in relation to;

Item 5 - Brenntag UK Ltd, 215 Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich. Ref:18/1999/H

Item 6 -   Saxon Wharf, Norman Road, Greenwich.  Ref:18/1594/F

Item 7 – Temporary Depot, Phase 6 Kidbrooke Village.  Ref:18/2747/F

 

Further, that public submissions had been circulated, in advance of the meeting, in relation to items 6 and 8.

 

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 46 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 84 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2018

 

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 Planning Board held on 2 October 2018 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

5.

Brenntag UK Ltd, 215 Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich, SE10 0QW - Ref: 18/1999/H pdf icon PDF 660 KB

The Planning Board is requested to authorise officers to submit a statement of case setting out that the application for the continuation of the Hazardous Substances Consent would have been approved had the application not been called in by the Secretary of State.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to authorise officers to submit a statement of case setting out that the application for the continuation of the Hazardous Substances Consent would have been approved had the application not been called in by the Secretary of State.

 

Subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and as amended in the addendum report.

Minutes:

Members noted that two officer addendum reports, which were circulated on supplementary agendas, in advance of the meeting.

 

The Chair advised that the Planning Board was not being asked to make a decision on the application, as it had been called in by the Secretary of State.  The Planning Board was being asked to advise if they would have approved the application or not, had it come before them.

 

The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation advising that Planning Officers were seeking authorisation to submit a statement of case to the Secretary of State in respect of the Board’s determination of the application for the  continuation of the Hazardous Substances Consent, had it not been called in.

 

A Member sought clarification as to the position in relation to the 2012 application to store Sodium Hypochlorite on the site, which the HSE had advised against. The 2012 application had not been determined to date and it appeared that the storage of Sodium Hypochlorite was unauthorised.

 

In response to the Member’s question the Planning Officer advised that Sodium Hypochlorite had always been stored on site but was recently reclassified as a hazardous substance.  However, there were ongoing discussions with the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) over the appropriateness of storage of Sodium Hypochlorite on site.

 

The applicant’s agent addressed the Planning Board advising that the matter was largely technical.  There was now a required to reach a resolution as a result of TfL requiring use of part of the land for the development of the Silvertown Tunnel.

 

In response to Member’s questions the applicant’s agent advised that whilst there would be some impact, Brenntag UK Limited would be able to continue to operate.  They were in the process of submitting a compensation claim in respect of the loss of land area to TfL.

 

Counsel, as legal advisor to the Planning Board on this item, advised the Planning Board that the Secretary of State would deal with any claims for compensation.

 

The applicant’s agent responded to Members that, if adopted, there would be a condition prohibiting  the storage of Hydrofluoric Acid within 45metres of the site boundary.   He assured Members that the chemicals being stored on site were permitted as the quantity stored was below the conditioned threshold.

 

 

The Chair put the resolution to authorise the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control to submit a statement of case in line with the officers’ report to the vote, with 6 Members in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

 

Resolved –

 

That the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control be authorised to submit a statement of case setting out that the application for the continuation of the Hazardous Substances Consent would have been approved had the application not been called in by the Secretary of State.

 

Subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and as amended in the addendum report.


6.

Saxon Wharf, Norman Road, Greenwich, SE10 - Ref: 18/1594/F pdf icon PDF 1 MB

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a part 13 / part 17 storey building to provide 401sqm (GEA) of B1(a, b and c) and A3 floorspace at lower and upper ground floor level and 145 residential units with associated refuse and recycling storage, cycle parking, car parking, access, provision of public realm and landscaping, as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to defer considering the application in order to conduct a site visit.

Minutes:

Members noted the public submissions and officers’ addendum report, which were circulated in advance of this meeting.

 

Members considered that they felt that there was a need for a greater understanding of the site.

 

The Chair proposed that a site visit be undertaken with 6 Members in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

 

Resolved –

 

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

7.

Temporary Depot, Phase 6 Kidbrooke Village, Land north of Moorhead Way - Ref: 18/2747/F pdf icon PDF 438 KB

The Planning Board is requested to grant planning permission with a maximum time period of 3 years for the construction of Temporary Depot consisting of 144sqm office (Use Class B1), 800sqm storage facility (Use Class B8), external storage areas, waste and recycling storage, vehicle/car parking and associated access, servicing and landscaping for a temporary period of 3 years, as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to grant planning permission with a maximum time period of 3 years for the construction of Temporary Depot consisting of 144sqm office (Use Class B1), 800sqm storage facility (Use Class B8), external storage areas, waste and recycling storage, vehicle/car parking and associated access, servicing and landscaping for a temporary period of 3 years.

 

Subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and as amended in the addendum report.

Minutes:

Members noted the Officers addendum report, which was circulated in advance of this meeting.

 

The Planning Board accepted an illustrative presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, who advised that the applicant was developing a permanent site in Bromley and were seeking consent for temporary use of the Kidbrooke site.  That there would be no gas stored on the temporary site and Condition 4 required a site management plan to protect resident’s amenities.

 

In response to Members questions the Senior Planning Officer advised that SGN would have a three year lease on the site, which would not be required for redevelopment for residential use until 2021.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from a local resident, who advised that he was speaking in his own right and on behalf of a number of residents of the area in objection of the application.  He stated that;

·       He was confused that Berkley Homes, a housing company, were making the application rather than SGN, who were a gas provider and would be using the site.

·       The application was only being put forward as Berkley Homes were unable to proceed with the development of the site.  He suggest that Greenwich Council should find a new developer who could deliver housing on the site.

·       The proposal would cause light; noise and waste nuisance with 30 cars visiting the site every day, as well as other vehicles.

·       The site was not currently used as a vehicle depot and was rarely used by any vehicle.

·       There would be no real restriction on weekend working due to the clause to allow use for emergency call outs.

·       Residents were supportive of the site being developed for housing but not as an industrial development, which had never been proposed.

 

In response to Members questions the resident accepted that the proposal was for temporary use, but mentioned that the Eiffel Tower was also only supposed to be temporary.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from the applicant who advised that they were proposing to grant a lease to SGN, to be landlord of the site for three years.

 

In response to Members questions the applicant advised that the B16 and 178 buses turned in front of the gates of the site but otherwise the access road to the site was not used by school traffic.  The site was currently used for the storage of logistics for Masterplan development and there had been significant vehicle movement in the recent months.

 

The representative for SGN advised Members that, whilst the proposal was for 3 years’ temporary use, SGN intended to be off site by December 2020.  The main Gasholder would be located in St Mary’s Cray and all the administration staff would be relocated from their current offices straight to St Mary’s Cray. 

 

The applicant confirmed that no trees were being removed, with 75% to 80% of the site being enclosed within a 2.5metre hoarding and the temporary buildings would not be any greater than this in height, which would avoid the potential of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

36-38 Artillery Place, Woolwich, London, SE18 4AB - Ref: 18/0992/MA - Ref: 18/0992/MA pdf icon PDF 299 KB

The Planning Board is requested to approve permission for an application submitted under Section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 for a minor material amendment in connection with the planning permission ref: 17/2546/F,  dated the 7th of March 2018 for the 'Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of two 6-storey buildings to provide 65 residential flats (25x1-bed, 20x2-bed and 20x3-bed) with associated landscaping, amenity space, cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage, and the provision of six on street disabled car parking spaces', as set out in the report.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to refuse permissionfor an application submitted under Section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 for a minor material amendment in connection with the planning permission ref: 17/2546/F,  dated the 7th of March 2018.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Khaireh left the meeting at the commencement of the consideration of this application. 

 

Councillor Mardner attended the meeting, arriving during the Planning Officers’ presentation of this application.

 

Members noted the public submission and applicant’s additional submission, which were circulated to them in advance of the meeting.

 

The Planning Board accepted an illustrative presentation from the Planning Officer who advised that the proposal before them was for the revision of the tenure split, with a commuted sum of £300,000 to offset the proposed 3 affordable rent units changing to shared ownership. 

 

In response to Members’ questions, the Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant initially offered £72,000 to offset the loss of the 3 affordable rent units.  This had been increased following further discussions with Officers.

 

The applicant and the representative for the Registered Provider, Optivo, were both in attendance to respond to Members questions.

 

The applicant responded to Members that the amendment was sought as a result of the practicalities of the scheme in order to attract a Registered Provider housing management company.  He continued that Registered Providers wanted all the social rented properties in one block, for ease of management.

 

The representative for the Registered Provider added that it was usual to delineate properties to create a manageable situation.  As it was not possible to delineate by blocks, in this case, it was acceptable that delineation be by floors.  He noted that the blocks would still be of mixed tenure, with the Social rented units on the lower floors and shared ownership in the top 3 floors.

 

The applicant confirmed to members that, if consent were granted they were anticipating that the Registered Provider would be taking up operation of the social rented units in May.  He added that, whilst a number of Registered Providers had been approached, only Optivo had agreed to become the management company but on the bases of the proposed amendments that ground, 1st and 2nd floor were all affordable units and floors 3, 4 & 5 would be the shared ownership units. 

 

The representative for the Registered Provided added that all the wheelchair adapted units and family units would be retained as social rent.

 

A Member raised concern at the implication that if a separate entrance was incorporated for social tenants this would have made it easier to find a registered Provider and was concerned at the potential implication of a ‘poor door’ and sought assurance that the quality of the housing units would be the same for private as for social rented.

 

The applicant assured Members that the building would look exactly the same as the original agreed proposal and there would be no difference in quality between the units or floors.  Further, if different cores were created, as required by most Registered Providers, the number of properties would have had to be reduced in order to accommodate this.

 

The representative for the Registered Provider responded to Members that it was for reasons of practicality to have all the social rented units  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.