Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes.

Venue: Rooms 4 & 5, Town Hall, Wellington Street, Woolwich SE18 6PW

Contact: Daniel Wilkinson  Email: daniel.wilkinson@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or tel: 020 8921 5102

Items
No. Item

1.

Appointment of Vice-Chair

Members to elect a vice-chair for the municipal year.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Merrill proposed and was seconded by Councillor Dillon that Councillor Perks be Vice-Chair.

 

Councillor Cousins proposed and was seconded by Councillor Fahy that Councillor Cousins be Vice-Chair.

 

The nominations were put to the vote and, with 3 votes to 5 for Councillor Perks and 5 votes to 3 for Councillor Cousins, it was

 

Resolved -

 

That Councillor Ann-Marie Cousins be Vice-Chair of the Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee for the municipal year 2018-19.

2.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.

Minutes:

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor John Fahy.

3.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.

4.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 137 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.

5.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 79 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 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 Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee held on 17 July 2018 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

6.

21 Griffin Road, Plumstead, London, SE18 7QG pdf icon PDF 258 KB

Planning permission is sought for change of use from Residential to Guest House.

Decision:

Refused planning permission for change of use from C3(Residential) to C1 (Guest House).

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Planning Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Officer replied that if the authority was notified that occupants were residing for longer than 30 days contrary to condition then enforcement action could be taken; at present such notification was the only way the authority would be aware of breach of the condition. Under use C3 temporary accommodation could be given for 90 days in a year, but not under use C1. He clarified that there was no extra parking as the area had a high PTAL rating; the Committee could impose an extra condition that there be no long term parking. There was no provision for disabled parking. He said that it was understood that there was to be a 24-hour on site manager / receptionist.

 

The Committee was addressed by the applicant’s agent. He explained that the guest house would be leased out and run by a management company. The company was experienced in such matters, and it would be operated in accordance with any planning conditions. He indicated that provisions would be made for the disabled in accordance with the law.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant’s agent replied that the premises would be leased to the management company for about ten years. He clarified where the office facilities would be based, and that the washing would be done off-site. He explained that there would be a person on site 24-hour; the booking of rooms would take place online and so there would be no reception facility at the site. The reception and the dining area was the same place; breakfast would be the only food provided.  He explained that the expected clientele were short stay persons on holiday or working. It was thought the maximum occupancy would be 60/70%. As occupants were expected to arrive by public transport it was considered that there would be no impact on neighbours’ parking. The applicant was prepared to accept a condition that occupants not arrive after a certain time such as midnight.

 

In response to a query from the Committee the Assistant Director Planning and Building Control (Regeneration Enterprise and Skills) advised that guest house standards did not come under planning.

 

There was a discussion of the matter.

 

It was noted the premises was sited in a residential area. It was felt that there would be noise and disturbance for neighbouring residents and it was queried how parking would be monitored. Concerns were expressed about the facilities and layout of the premises. It was felt not enough thought had been given to the proposal. The Chair proposed with the agreement of the Committee that they vote to refuse the application.

 

The matter was put to the vote and it was unanimously

 

Resolved -

 

That planning permission for change of use from C3 (Residential) to C1  (Guest House) be refused.

 

Reason:

 

Condition 1

The proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposed use would not have an adverse  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

20 Kings Highway, Plumstead, SE18 2NL pdf icon PDF 242 KB

Planning permission is sought for the retention of a Granny Annexe in the rear garden.

Decision:

Granted full planning permission for the retention of a Granny Annexe in the rear garden subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

Minutes:

Additional correspondence from the applicant was circulated.

 

The Planning Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the Planning Officer replied that there was no requirement for the annexe to be physically connected to the house. It did not set a precedent, and there were other buildings in the area which could be similarly changed under permitted development. It was understood that the annexe dated from 2010.

 

The Committee was addressed by the applicants. It was explained that the building was converted from a workshop to a granny annexe over 2009-2011. It had been thought that it was acceptable under permitted development but following a complaint from a neighbour the retrospective application had been submitted.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicants stated they had only become aware last year that it was not acceptable under permitted development. The building was to be used for a parent. It was confirmed that it had the same footprint as the previous workshop. There had been no comments from neighbours at the time of the conversion of the workshop into a granny annexe.

 

In response to a query from the Committee the Assistant Director Planning and Building Control (Regeneration Enterprise and Skills) advised that there was no monitoring of such sites, the authority relied on the public telling them.

 

During discussion of the matter Members indicated that they considered the proposal acceptable.

 

The matter was put to the vote and it was unanimously

 

Resolved -

 

That full planning permission for the retention of a Granny Annexe in the rear garden subject to the Conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the reportbe granted.

8.

Plumstead Railway Station, Walmer Terrace, Plumstead, SE18 7EA pdf icon PDF 344 KB

Prior approval is sought for the demolition of existing footbridge, installation of a replacement footbridge with new lifts shafts, associated lift motor rooms, creation of a new access walkway and construction of a new bin store.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Deferred the item until 14 November to

·        allow the applicant to consider whether the footbridge could be modified and still meet their statutory requirements;

·        make available the report which considered the options available for this development

 

Minutes:

Additional correspondence from objectors was circulated.

 

The Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant could remove the current bridge whenever they wanted. He clarified that what had changed from the previously refused application was that the design of the new bridge would now incorporate brick cladding to match the existing station.

 

The Committee was addressed by four residents in objection to the design of the proposal, but all supported the need for the step free access. It was not felt that the reason for the previous refusal had been addressed. It was felt the design ignored the aesthetics of the bridge, it did not properly reflect its industrial heritage nor the engineering of Joseph Westwood & Co, but would instead resemble a motorway service station style bridge. It was considered that the removal of the Victorian footbridge was unnecessary as the bridge was still fit for purpose, and there were alternatives. It was emphasised that there was plenty of space for alternatives including re-siting the lifts. It was felt that other options had not been properly considered. With regard to fear of crime as a reason for the proposed design it was noted that at present the bridge and steps were clearly visible from within the station and without; it was noted in comparison that the new enclosed bridge at Church Manor Way had attracted crime and anti-social behaviour since opening. There was no evidence to suggest trespass was an actual problem. With regard to the issue that had been raised about potential future installation of overheard cables, it was noted that they were not currently being considered and in any case that would be part of a larger cost as a great number of road bridges along the line would also need to be removed. It was requested the matter be deferred to allow further discussion.

 

The Committee was addressed by the representative of Positive Plumstead. It was contended that there were alternatives. It was suggested that the work done at Denmark Hill should be used as the model. It was requested the matter be deferred to allow further discussion.

 

In response to questions from the Committee, the representative of Positive Plumstead replied that with regard to the issue of crime and anti-social behaviour as a reason for a new bridge, Positive Plumstead had not seen any evidence from the Police or Safer Neighbourhood Team to substantiate the argument. It was queried whether people had been asked if they would feel more safe in an enclosed rather than open bridge. The representative of Positive Plumstead clarified how they themselves had consulted with local residents. It was noted that there were a minority who preferred the proposed new design. They could not comment on the views of other groups.  Positive Plumstead accepted that works had to be done but it was contended that, for example, Denmark Hill was an alternative model.  They had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.