Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes.

Venue: Rooms 5 & 6 Town Hall, Wellington Street, Woolwich SE18 6PW

Contact: Jean Riddler  Email: jean.riddler@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or tel: 020 8921 5857

Note: Emergency Mtg 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Maureen O’Mara and Chris Lloyd.

 

Councillor Sarah Merrill gave apologies for lateness (6.10pm).

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

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

Item 4 - Thames Tideway Tunnel Development Greenwich, SE10 – Ref 18/3473/G, 18/3486/G and 18/37493G.

 

Further, that public submissions had been circulated, in advance of the meeting, in relation to item 4.

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.

Thames Tideway Tunnel Development, Greenwich, SE10 - Ref: 18/3473/G; 18/3486/G & 18/3493/G pdf icon PDF 73 KB

The Greenwich Area Planning Committee is requested to discharge the requirements as set out in the original main report submitted to the meeting of 19 February 2019, appended to the addendum report on this agenda.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to agree to reject the Officer recommendations to discharge the requirements for applications 18/3473/G; 18/3486/G;18/3493/G for the alternative Vehicle Holding Area as outlined.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the item advising that the application was deferred from the meeting held 19 February 2019, to enable the applicant to review alternative possible locations for the Vehicle Holding Area and the variation of the HGV vehicular route. The applicant had provided information, presented in the Appendix, detailing why the eight alternative sites were not acceptable. The request was therefore to route lorries from Blackheath Hill on to Greenwich South Street, then left on to Greenwich High Road with the Vehicle Holding Area sited outside numbers 106-120 Greenwich High Road. The lorries would exit the excavation site west along Greenwich High Road.

 

He continued, monthly reports would be published on the Thames Tideway Tunnel website, noise and pollution monitoring would be reported to local community group meetings and the Council, the fleet of vehicles would comply with ultra-low emission zone legislation, the eight identified groups would be written to prior to the works commencing. Any complaints relating to the works should be sent to the Council or to the applicant via the Thames Tideway Tunnel website. He concluded that Officers proposed that the amendments were acceptable and asked Members to consider their recommendations.

 

A Committee Member queried why the spoil was not removed by barge via the Thames rather than using HGV vehicles. The Planning Manager responded, it had been agreed that all spoil for the shaft excavation would be by road. The applicant sought in future to remove 25% by barge, but this was tide dependent with a window of only two hours per day.

 

The Chair thanked the Assistant Director Transportation for attending to address any questions.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an address from a representative of the Ashburnham Triangle Association who objected to the application. He said they appreciated the difficulty of removing the spoil, that the project had short-term negative impact versus long-term gain but having spoken to many residents, the Greenwich South Street route was unacceptable. The original route had only been for 400m within the Triangle, the alternative one added a further kilometre. The area included three older people’s residencies, was a major pedestrian route to Greenwich Main line / DLR station, had two primary schools close by, a community hall and two doctor’s surgeries. The Association were of the opinion that the other alternative routes were not rigorously tested.

 

He added the pedestrian crossings would need to be urgently re-assessed and feedback provided to stakeholders. He said that to his knowledge 90% of affected residents were not aware of the proposal.

The Association supported the five measures proposed by Mr McSweeney;

·               Refuse amended planning application 18/3486G

·               Approve the original A2 route planning application

·               Relocate or remove the VHA

·               Request TTT / CVB implement greener solutions

·               Set up independent pollution monitoring.

 

The Planning Committee accepted addresses on behalf of Queen Elizabeth College representatives who expressed concerns regarding exposing residents to unacceptable levels of air and noise pollution and vibration. The route was directly outside the College where vulnerable elderly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.