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 were received from Councillors Mark James and Chris Lloyd.

 

Councillor Cherry Parker extended apologies for having to leave early.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

It was noted that Addendum Reports had been produced in relation to items 5, 7, 8 and 9 on the Agenda and were provided on a Supplementary Agenda.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 33 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 80 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 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.

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Greenwich Area Planning Committee held on 12 December 2017 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

5.

36 Kidbrooke Grove, Kidbrooke, London, SE3 0LG - 17/0285/F pdf icon PDF 181 KB

The Committee is requested to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing outbuilding to the front and minor modification of the external elevation, excavation of basement including the formation of a light well, sunken courtyard, boundary treatments and installation of new wrought iron gate.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission for the demolition of existing outbuilding to the front and minor modification of the external elevation, excavation of basement including the formation of a light well, sunken courtyard, boundary treatments and installation of new wrought iron gate.

 

Subject to the

  1. Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report;
  2. Amendment to Condition 9, as set out in the second addendum report; and
  3. Additional conditions ensuring no work at weekend and that no vehicles associated with the development access the Lane

Minutes:

The Committee noted the officers Addendum Report, published on a supplementary agenda, and a document submitted by the Blackheath Society which was emailed to the Members and was available for view at the meeting.

 

The Planning Committee received an illustrated presentation on the application from the Area Planning Manager (West) who advised that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the host locally listed building or the wider area.  He also drew the Committee’s attention to the amended Condition 9 as set out in the 2nd Officers addendum report.

 

In response to Members questions the Area Planning Manager (West) confirmed that the wording, set out in Condition 9, relating to construction method statement, had been agreed with the Applicant and their Agent.  The applicant had confirmed that they would provide to the owners of 38 and 44 Kidbrooke Grove a copy of the Basement Construction Method Statement.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the representative from the Blackheath Society who drew Members attention to the Society’s proposed amendment and was pleased that Officers had accepted the Society’s proposals. 

 

He continued that the Society shared the concerns raised by directly affected residents currently living in the host building, particularly the assertion that there would be no impact on residents amenity as a result of the change in internal arrangement.  That there was no noise insulation between floors and the bathroom and water pumping equipment would be placed directly over another residents living room.  As no assessment of noise level had been undertaken, it was requested that a detailed scheme of noise insulation between floors be conditioned.  The Society also requested that standard working hours’ be amended to remove Saturday working, to allow the other residents of the building some respite. Finally that it be ensured that the correct boundary treatment if timber fencing be enforced.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the resident of the directly adjoining property who expressed great concern at the potential impact on the stability of the building and subsidence.  They were shocked and saddened that the basement element, which was the main structural concern, was still being proposed.  That there would be unacceptable noise levels impacting on her living rooms, bedroom and other habitable rooms and would result in those rooms being unusable during periods of demolition and construction work as well on the long term peaceable habitation of the rooms.

 

Further, once the works were completed the applicants shower would be directly above her living room and, as there was no noise insulation the noise would be intrusive, particularly given the proposal to have wood flooring. It was requested that an acoustic specialist was engage to advise on the most effective sound proofing to be used and that it was installed. She also requested that the hours of working be amended to remove all and any Saturday working to allow the residents a period of peace.

 

The Committee accepted an address from an independent Structural Engineer engaged by the resident of the directly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Majestic Wine Warehouses Ltd, 123 Greenwich South Street, Greenwich, London, SE10 8NX - 17/1914/F pdf icon PDF 375 KB

The Committee is requested to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of nine flats (comprising 1 x studio, 5 x one bed, 2 x two bed and 1 x three bed) over retail unit, in a two/three storeys building, with parking to rear and vehicular access off Lindsell Street.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of nine flats (comprising 1 x studio, 5 x one bed, 2 x two bed and 1 x three bed) over retail unit, in a two/three storeys building, with parking to rear and vehicular access off Lindsell Street.

 

Subject to the;

  1. Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report; and
  2. An additional condition requiring further details concerning the window details.

Minutes:

The Committees attention was drawn to additional documents submitted by residents, which had been provided to them in advance of the meeting.

 

The Planning Committee received an illustrated presentation on the application from the Area Planning Manager (West) who advised the application site was bounded by but not within the Greenwich or Ashburnham Triangle Conservation area, though it was close to listed buildings.  The proposal would retain the Greenwich South Street building line with the retail element relocated to the front of the building and retained by Majestic Wine.   The rear car park would be for the use of the retail element only and not accessible to residents.

 

In response to questions from the Committee Members the Area Planning Manager (West) advised that the number of available parking spaces were reduced from 7 to 5 and these would be solely associated with the retail element.  As the development had good access to public transport (PTAL) it was acceptable as a car free scheme and it would be conditioned that none of the residents would be able to apply for Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) permits.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) responded to Members that it was not possible for the new build to be built to the same height as existing due to changes in floor to ceiling height requirements for business and residential units.  He noted that, as this was in line with current policy requirements, this would not be a reason for refusal.

 

The Committee accepted addresses from 4 residents all of whom were speaking in objection to the application and it was commented that the new building would be taller than its neighbours and there was concern that this was an overdevelopment for the site. 

 

The speakers felt that the height of the building would have a negative impact on existing properties in Greenwich South Street and Lindsell Street in terms of overlooking into residents bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens, particularly with balconies on the Lindsell Street side being higher than the existing resident’s rooms.  One resident expressed specific concern at a balcony opposite their property which would remove privacy as the living room and bedroom would be directly overlooked.

 

Further, that the height of the new building would have a devastating effect on the level of daylight and sunlight to properties in Greenwich South Street, effectively removing all light from all 6 windows to the front of the buildings opposite the new build, including the basement kitchen.  The reflected light from the white side wall of the existing building would also be removed, and the overall level of loss of light to existing residents was unacceptable.   It was understood that a light study had been undertaken but speakers felt that it had been insufficient and did not capture the reality of the situation.

 

Speakers felt that having the new building up to the pavement edge would create a hard frontage and without a small front garden or green area would be out of keeping with the neighbouring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Land adjacent to 51 Troughton Road, Charlton, London. SE7 7QF - 17/2248/F pdf icon PDF 384 KB

The Committee is requested to grant full planning for the construction of a 2-storey 3 bed detached dwelling house.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Deferred.

 

Minutes:

The Committee noted the officers Addendum Report, published on a supplementary agenda, and additional documents submitted by the public which had been provided to them in advance of the meeting. 

 

Before giving an illustrated presentation the Planning Case Officer advised the Committee that paragraph 14.4 of the main report needed correction as the car free development was not being secured by a Section 106 agreement, but via a planning condition.

 

The Planning Case Officer gave an illustrative presentation, confirming that the application would be a car free development.

 

The Committee accepted addresses from 3 residents, all speaking in objection to the application and whilst the need for social housing was understood it was not correct that this parking area be used.  Speakers advised the Committee that the London & Quadrant Housing Association (L&Q) residents had a contract with L&Q for the use of the parking area, the charge for which was included with their rent.  Further, whilst the parking spaces were unallocated the parking area was used daily and often full overnight and L&Q had provided the gate to the area.   The residents expressed anger that the car park was being taken away without speaking to or consulting the local residents and users.  Further, that the applicant appeared to be taking no account of the residents’ and car park users concerns.

 

Concern was expressed that, if the application were granted, this would not only displace existing residents parking but also increase parking by way of the new residents cars.  The road was already under pressure from parking for Charlton Train Station; Charlton Football Ground; displacement from controlled Parking Zones (CPZ) in the area and people parking for the new Sainsbury’s and M&S, as it was difficult to find spaces or get in/out of the retail area.  Further, that any CPZ brought into the road should be charged on an assessment of ability of householders to afford. 

 

Speakers advised that the plot was used by the London Fire Brigade, as they had to park an engine there as it was the only way to reach a garage fire.  An access way would also be removed, which allowed properties in Rathmore Road access via their gardens, and this was used to collect disabled and elderly residents where cars and taxis could not park on Rathmore Road, due to double yellow lines.

 

A speaker stated that properties in Rathmore Road, which backed onto the site, had short gardens and daylight and sunlight would be restricted to the living room and blocked to the back garden, which was enjoyed by one of the housebound residents.  Further, the use of the gardens would be restricted by the noise and pollution from construction work.

 

In response to a question from the Committee one of the speakers confirmed that they held a rental agreement with L&Q and that the use of the car park formed part of the current and previous rent.  Adding that it was resident’s parking spaces that were being taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Greenwich Hotel, Catherine Grove, Greenwich, SE10 - 17/0954/F pdf icon PDF 364 KB

The Greenwich Area Planning Committee is requested to grant full planning permission for alterations to existing housekeeping area and construction of a 2-storey extension to be used as additional housekeeping facilities.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Deferred

 

Minutes:

The Committee noted the officers Addendum Report, published on a supplementary agenda, and documents submitted by a resident, which had been provided to them in advance of the meeting.

 

Prior to the Officer’s presentation Councillor O’Mara proposed that the matter be deferred for a site visit.  The Proposal was seconded by Councillor Brighty.

 

Members moved straight to a vote on the proposal to defer the application for a site visit with 5 Members for, 0 Members against and 0 abstentions.

 

Resolved Unanimously –

 

That a decision on the application be deferred in order to allow Members to undertake a site visit to consider any possible adverse impact on the surrounding conservation area.

9.

Unit 1, 2 and 3 The Peltons, Blackwall Lane, Greenwich, London, SE10 9PQ - 17/1617/F pdf icon PDF 338 KB

The Committee is requested to grant planning permission for flexible change of use from A1 (retail), A3 (restaurant), B1 (offices) and D1 (non-residential institution) use classes to A1 (retail), A3 (restaurant), B1 (offices) and D1 (non-residential institution) and D2 (assembly and leisure) use classes including the installation of a new shop front, 4 external air conditioning condenser units and 6 ventilation grills.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission for flexible change of use from A1 (retail), A3 (restaurant), B1 (offices) and D1 (non-residential institution) use classes to A1 (retail), A3 (restaurant), B1 (offices) and D1 (non-residential institution) and D2 (assembly and leisure) use classes including the installation of a new shop front, 4 external air conditioning condenser units and 6 ventilation grills.

 

Subject to the;

  1. Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.
  2. Changes to Condition 5 & 6, as set out in the addendum report.

 

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrative presentation of the application drawing Members attention to the Addendum Report, published on a supplementary agenda which, should Members resolve to grant planning permission, replace Condition 5 with an amended Condition on ‘Mixed use - Commercial/residential sound insulation (All other Planning Uses)’.  Further, he clarified thatthe D2 use would be for a gym only and D1 use would exclude use as a place of worship.

 

The Committee accepted addresses from 2 residents, both speaking in objection to the application, with one speaker advising the Committee that a petition, signed by 50 residents, had been submitted to Planning Officers against the 24/7 hour-365 day gym.  Concerns were raised at the noise that would be produced both by the gym and the AC Units.

 

The speakers advised that the ‘rear’ of the building contained a small communal garden, which was also a quiet space, and it would be negatively impacted by affixing 4 AC Units to the building wall, in this area.  It was also questioned as to how permissions could be granted for affixing the AC Units to the wall, when residents were not permitted to affix anything to the walls.  It was requested that the AC Units be moved to the car Park area, as has been done for similar units.  Concern was also expressed that the peace of the garden would also be destroyed by people using it in ancillary to the gym and as a work site.

 

A speaker expressed extreme concern at the developer’s poor track record of adhering to conditions and exampled that car parking spaces for residents were being re-assigned to the commercial units and not to residents.  Further, the developer was conditioned to and had agreed to provide residents with 5 year free access to a car club, which they had not done.  There were concerns that, as the applicant had not been compliant to past conditions what assurances were there that they would do so now.

 

The Committee accepted an address from the applicant’s representative who advised that they had been actively marketing the commercial units with limited response except from gym companies.  The four AC units would allow the gym to function as well as support the use of the other commercial units. She advised the Committee that all the permissible operation hours of all the commercial units was 24/7.

 

In response to Members questions the applicant’s representative advised that she was not aware of issues around past agreements and would have to take these concerns back to her employer.

 

In respect of moving the AC units to the car park, the applicant’s representative advised that if it was technically possible she was sure this could be done.  The Area Planning Manager (West) cautioned that it was highly possible that there would be technical issues which may mean that re-locating the AC units would not be possible.

 

The applicant’s representative responded to Members that all gym operators required the ability to operate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.