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 Councillor M. James

 

Apologies for lateness were received for Councillors O’Mara, Scott-McDonald and A. Smith.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business for consideration.

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 81 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 January 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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair advised the Committee that the minutes for the Planning Board Meeting of February were presented on the agenda in error.

 

Further, that the Minutes for the Greenwich Area Planning Meeting of 20 January 2016 were tabled and asked Members if they felt that these could be agreed or if they would prefer deferment for presentation at the next meeting?

 

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Greenwich Area Planning Committee held on 20 January 2016 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

5.

32 Kidbrooke Gardens, Blackheath, London, SE3 0PD pdf icon PDF 33 KB

Planning permission is sought for the construction of a single storey rear/side extension. The proposal is a resubmission following the refusal of planning application 15/0831/F.

Additional documents:

Decision:

That full planning permission is granted for the construction of a single storey rear/side extension in line with the conditions set out in the report and the additional conditions in respect of;

·       That the bedroom windows in the east elevation looking towards the rear garden of 34 Kidbrooke Garden will be obscured glazed.

·       That additional, landscaping be planted along the boundary with 34 Kidbrooke Garden.

 

And that a planning informative stating that the proposed development was approved taking into consideration the existing outbuilding/garage situated on site and the proposal does not set a precedent for similar developments.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation, advising the Committee that the rear garden was 11 metres wide by 13 metres deep, with an existing outbuilding on-site, which would be demolished as part of the application.  That the new build would be set at a minimum of 4.4 metres off the boundary to 34 Kidbrooke Gardens and noted that if it were built under permitted development, could be built up to the boundary and could measure 3 metres in depth to a maximum height of 4 metres by 10 metres.  He confirmed that the height of the proposed building had been reduced to 3.7 metres and the scale and bulk had all been reduced and it was felt that the redesign was more in keeping with the existing building.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) reminded the Committee that, with regards to the impact on the conservation area, in this case the main consideration would be if they felt that the impact of the new development would be greater than that of the building currently existing on-site.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that acoustic and sound insulation was not a normal issue of consideration in residential developments, and would be dealt with under building regulations.

 

He confirmed that agreement had been reached to provide obscured glazing to the bedroom windows to the east elevation, looking towards the rear garden of 34 Kidbrooke Gardens.

 

The Committee accepted addresses from four speakers, including the occupant of 34 Kidbrooke Gardens, a representative from the Blackheath Park Conservation Group and a representative from the Blackheath Society, who all spoke individually in objection to the application. 

 

Objections were raised on the basis of the bulk and scale of the extension which it was felt to be an overdevelopment which dwarfed the existing building on site in terms of height; width and length.  Further, that the adjustments to roof profile was an improvement but that it was strongly felt that the changes made did not overcome the previous reasons for refusal. 

 

Speakers felt that the application to replace a garage with a bungalow was in line with previously submitted applications.

 

That there would be overlooking to and by neighbouring properties, to the living room area of the extension.  Further, that the development would be over dominant in the garden space, destroying the architectural symmetry of the property; character and appearance and that there would be an impact on light to neighbouring properties and loss of garden area. 

 

Speakers accepted that the conifer trees on the garden boundary would give some privacy, but the remainder of the boundary was low fencing and easy to see through.  Further, if further foliage was lost or removed the screening there now could be eliminated.

 

It was believed that gardens were an integral aspect of the conservation area and should not be diminished and the conservation areas were being stripped away.

 

It was felt that the proposed building was an incongruous development, looking like  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

The Lord Hood, 300 Creek Road, London, SE10 9SW pdf icon PDF 343 KB

Planning Permission is sought for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a part 4 / part 5-storey building, plus basement accommodating a replacement public house (A4 Use Class) on the ground floor and basement level, and 8 dwellings on the upper floors (2 x 1-bed, 6 x 2-bed). 

Additional documents:

Decision:

That full planning permission is granted for the demolition of an existing building and construction of a part 4 / part 5-storey building, plus basement accommodating a replacement public house (A4 Use Class) on the ground floor and basement level, and 8 dwellings on the upper floors (2 x 1-bed, 6 x 2-bed) subject to:

 

(i)              The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement  (obligations set out in section 24 of the main report); and

(ii)             Conditions set out in Section 4.2 of the main report.

 

That it be agreed that the reason for condition 19 be strengthened to include policy EA(b) of the Council’s Core Strategy, in order to protect the ground floor and basement use as a public house.

Minutes:

The Assistant Area Manager gave an illustrated presentation advising that the building was adjacent to the Up the Creek Comedy Club, which was a listed building.  That the site was a last century Public House, which had been vacated since January 2016 and was not listed or part of the World Heritage or Conservation Area.

 

In response to questions from Members, the Assistant Area Manager advised that the rear beer garden would have a glazed roof to mitigate noise to existing and proposed properties.

 

The Committee accepted addresses from four speakers, including representatives from the Greenwich Conservation Group and CAMRA, who all spoke individually in objection to the application. 

 

Speakers felt that the proposed development was higher than the existing building and closer adjacent building, giving a sense of expansion.  Further, that there had been previous agreement of a shared open area to Bardsley Lane which now appeared as an enclosed beer garden.  However, one of the speakers welcomed the inclusion of a patio area.

 

A speaker felt that that the Heritage Statement was not an independent piece of work, as the company which carried it out was appointed by the developers.  It was felt that the images presented were misleading as they showed the Lord Hood covered in scaffolding without stating that this was due to the building being redecorated.  Further, there was no reference or images of the interior of the pub.

 

It was noted that whilst no loss of a pub was welcomed, the proposal was not like-for-like as a community pub was being lost.  Further, whilst the Pub Management Strategy was welcomed it was questioned if this would achieve what was intended given that it was not required before the pub opened by which point it would be difficult to amend.  The pub had been operating for 100 years and was used by local people and it was felt that history and local culture should be respected.

 

Further, it was felt that additional assurances should be given relating to the community role of the public house and a request was made that the application be deferred until the management strategy had been agreed. 

 

It was noted that whilst English Heritage had not listed the building due to lack of support and a speaker asked that the Committee considered it as a heritage asset and felt that the existing building was of a higher quality than the proposed development which would be out of character to the Creek Road area.

 

It was commented that the pub was very English in style, with a quality interior, unlike many eateries in the area. Further, that the new development may respect the construction of DLR Cutty Sark Station, but it was not felt that these were meaningful architectural development styles to aspire to and a request was made that the Committee visited Creek Road to see how the current building benefited the street scene and to consider if the new design was how they wished Greenwich to be perceived. 

 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.