Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

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:

There were no apologies for absence.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

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

Item 6 - VIP Trading Estate and the VIP Industrial Estate, Anchor and Hope Lane, Charlton, SE7 - 16/4008/F

Item 7 -   Deptford Creek, Norman Road, Greenwich, London, SE10 9QF - 18/0615/F

Item 8 -   Land at Meridian Quays off Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich, SE10 - 18/1285/F

Item 9 - Kidbrooke Village Centre, Kidbrooke Park Road, Kidbrooke, SE3 - 18/0358/MA

 

Further, that public submissions had been circulated, in advance of the meeting, in relation to items 5 and 7.

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.

East Greenwich Gas Holder, Millennium Way, Greenwich, London. SE10 0PT - 18/1295/H pdf icon PDF 336 KB

The Board is requested to authorise the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills to make an Order to revoke the Hazardous Substances Consent in respect of the East Greenwich Gas Works Site, Blackwall Lane, Greenwich SE10;  to serve notice on those persons affected by the Order and submit the Order to the Secretary of State for confirmation as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved not to authorise the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills to make an Order under section 14(1) and Section 14(2) of The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 ("the Act") to revoke the Hazardous Substances Consent deemed to have been granted by the Council  under Section 11 of The Act and granted by express consent on the 17th May 2000 (ref 00/0465/HS) and continued by a further express consent granted on the 12th September 2002 (ref 02/1938/HS)  in respect of the East Greenwich Gas Works Site, Blackwall Lane, Greenwich SE10; 

 

1.1.1     Authorise the Director to serve notice on those persons affected by the Order; and

 

1.1.2     Submit the Order to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Development Control Manager - Major Projects gave an illustrated presentation of the report and drawing Members attention to the addendum report which addressed the questions previously raised by Members.  She also drew their attention to the letter, received from SGN who owned the land, confirming that they would not be seeking compensation.  She further advised that as any compensation would be paid on any damage to the value of the land as it currently stands, it was highly unlikely that any compensation would be payable.

 

In response to Members questions in relation to the St Mary Magdalene School, the Development Control Manager - Major Projects confirmed that the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) had recommended the condition prior to consent being granted for the school.  Further, the condition on the school, preventing its use until the Hazardous Substances Consent was revoked could not be removed.

 

She further advised that SGN had already received consent for the demolition of the gas Holder, which they could undertake at any time.  However, the Hazardous Substances Consent applied to the land, not the holder itself as gas could still be stored on site under the Order, therefore, even if the gas holder was removed it would not remove the blast zones in which the School is located and the HSE’s condition on use of the School site; the development of the land, the use of Silvertown tunnel or any other construction in the area.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from Ward Councillor Stephen Brain, who noted that whilst not wedded to the past this was an opportunity to make something new of the gas holder, either on its current site or elsewhere and asked that the matter be deferred to consider the future use of the gas holder.

 

The Chair advised that the matter before the Planning Board was not an application for the demolition of the gas holder, as SGN could have and can still remove it at any time.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from a Borough resident who advised that the site had been used to store a number of hazardous substances, not just gas which would remain an issued even with the removal of the Hazardous Substance Consent.  In response to Members she noted that the gas holder had operated for almost 100 years without the Hazardous Substances Consent, which was imposed after the Buncefield Oil Refinery disaster.

 

In considering the request before them Members sought further clarification on a number of issues, to which the Development Control Manager - Major Projects advised that the Transport for London (TfL) contactor had not, at this time, been appointed so details on the constructor compound were not known, other than the say it would be within the boundaries of the Development Consent Order. Further, SGN had indicated that they were not considering the type of developments on site until the Hazardous Substances Consent had been removed.

 

The Development Control Manager - Major Projects reiterated that the consent for demolition of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

1a And 1c Eynsham Drive, Abbey Wood, London, SE2 9RQ - 17/4080/F pdf icon PDF 83 KB

The Board is requested to grant Full Planning Permission for the demolition of existing car wash and pet hospital and any associated structures and the re-development of the site for construction of a residential-led mixed use development, including 4 buildings ranging from 3, 8, 14 and 17-storeys, a ground level pet hospital, commercial floorspace, 59 car parking spaces, 450 cycle parking spaces, new hard and soft landscaping measures including playspace provision and refuse and recycling facilities as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to refuse full planning permission for the demolition of existing car wash and pet hospital and any associated structures and the re-development of the site for construction of a residential-led mixed use development, including 4 buildings ranging from 3, 8, 14 and 17-storeys, comprising  272 new homes, a ground level pet hospital (D1) floorspace, flexible A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/D2 commercial floorspace, 59 car parking spaces, 450 cycle parking spaces, new hard and soft landscaping measures including playspace provision and refuse and recycling facilities.

Minutes:

The Chair drew Members attention to the model of the development, provided by the applicant.

 

The Planning Board noted the circulated submission from a resident, in relation to this application.

 

The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation confirming that the existing water culvert would be retained and be accessible for maintenance and repair.  That the development met the Council’s 35% social housing element which, if GLA funder was secured, could be increased to 40% and provided revised shadow diagrams demonstrating protection of light to Godstowe Road Properties to the north. He noted that there had been no reduction in height of the development, since it was previously considered by Members and that it fell outside of the location identified for tall buildings in the Council’s Core Strategy.

 

In response to Members questions regarding the Peabody development on Thamesmead, the Planning Officer explained that outline consent set out the maximum height and volume for developments on the site but did not give actual permission for detailed designs of development.  Subsequently submitted applications proposals would set out the final height, scale and appearance of the developments.  He concurred that the development before Members was higher than the outline consent for Peabody developments.

 

The Assistant Director Planning & Building Control responded to Members concern at the use of Greenwich Council Right to Buy (RTB) receipts on a private development, in that whilst a 35% affordable element was being offered this could be increased to 40% through GLA funding or use of RTB receipts, but the development would need to comply with requirements.  Further, whilst 35% was being offered at no cost to the Council, this could increase the affordable housing for residents of the Borough

 

The Development Control Manager - Major Projects confirmed to Members that the level of CIL payable was fixed and not available for review.

 

Planning Board Members noted that the outline consent for the Peabody development was between 54 and 57 meters and sought the officer’s confirmation as to whether the proposal before them was higher than this, or not.  The Planning Officer confirmed that at 59 Meters, it was.

 

Planning Board Members sought clarification as to whether Bexley Council had the same or different Planning rules and policies and if Greenwich, in this area, need to follow or comply with them. 

 

The Planning Officer responded that the two Authorities’ planning guidelines were broadly similar under the London Plan, however, core strategies may have individual policies specific to each borough. He further advised that the Abbey Wood / Thamesmead Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) had been created in co-ordination and cooperation between Bexley and Greenwich Boroughs.

 

The Assistant Director Planning & Building Control added that the Planning Board should consider the application before them against Greenwich Council’s Core Strategy, whilst keeping in mind the context of the proposals in the wider area.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from the Ward Councillor, Councillor Cousins, speaking in objection to the application and advised that she had participated in the consultation for this development,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

VIP Trading Estate and The VIP Industrial Estate, Anchor and Hope Lane, Charlton, SE7 - 16/4008/F pdf icon PDF 886 KB

The Board is requested to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 11 buildings ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height as set out in the report; alterations to existing vehicular access and creation of new pedestrian access from Anchor and Hope Lane and the riverside, creation of new areas of open space and landscaping together with the provision of associated car parking, cycle spaces, refuse and recycling storage, plant and all other associated works'.

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

Resolved to refuse grant of planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 11 buildings ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height for Class C3 residential use (771 units), with flexible uses comprising Class B1 (Business), Class A1- A3 Retail / Restaurant), Class D1 (Community) and Class D2 (Leisure) at ground floor and first floor level, alterations to existing vehicular access and creation of new pedestrian access from Anchor and Hope Lane and the riverside, creation of new areas of open space and landscaping together with the provision of associated car parking, cycle spaces, refuse and recycling storage, plant and all other associated works.

 

 

Minutes:

The Planning Officer gave an illustrated presentation, drawing Members’ attention to the addendum report before them which detailed additional representations received and a revised affordable housing offer. The Planning Officer also gave a further verbal update explaining the following:

 

    No comments had been received from SGN and therefore point (vi) of the recommendation should be deleted;

    One further representation should be noted but this raised no new issues;

    A revised daylight and sunlight assessment had been received however the results of this showed no significant change;

    The list of drawings and documents at Appendix 1 should be updated to reflect the additional documents received.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Officer confirmed that there would be a reduction in employment floor space, overall but there would be a total of 3,236sqm of new commercial floorspace all but 150sqm of which would be restricted   to Class B1only.  The applicant estimated that the current number of jobs on site is 90 and the proposal would increase this to between 209 and 212 jobs, based on a mixed of uses including Class B1 and Class A.

 

In respect of the development’s over density, the Planning Officer advised that the site was located in an Opportunity Area where higher densities were encouraged.  The development as a whole is considered, including design, provision of amenity space, quality of accommodation as well as density and whilst elements of the development exceed the London Plan and SPD the development, as a whole, was considered acceptable.

 

The Planning Officer responded to Members that the proportion of family units in the scheme was lower than envisaged at 17% but was considered acceptable as should the number of 3 or 4 bedrooms be increased the viability and return on the scheme would be reduced. The Planning Officer added that larger units would take up more space on site and thus reduce the overall number of units.

 

Members questioned if the developer discussed with the Council the housing requirements within the Borough and if this had an impact on the design.  The Planning Officer responded that the policy in relation to property size and mix was set out in the Council’s Local Plan and further guidance was provided by the Charlton Riverside Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).  Whilst there was a requirement for larger 3 and 4 bed units there were no targets for each site.  Further, the percentage of family homes was to be delivered across the entirety of Charlton Riverside Masterplan development.

 

In respect of Members’ concern at the height of the blocks within the development the Planning Officer confirmed that  Plot A was recommended in the SPD at 3 to 5 storeys and was proposed at 2 to10 storeys,  (10 storeys at the rear element).   Plot B was recommended at 4 to 5 storeys at the northern end and was proposed at 7 to 10 storeys.  In the southern end of the plot, near Charlton Station, the proposal was in compliance with the recommendation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Deptford Creek, Norman Road, Greenwich, London, SE10 9QF - 18/0615/F pdf icon PDF 416 KB

The Board is requested to grant full planning permission in order to facilitate and increase the potential for use of the river to transport excavated material from the Tideway Greenwich Pumping Station site it is necessary to remove the tidal constraints, as set out in the report.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to grant full planning permission in order to facilitate and increase the potential for use of the river to transport excavated material from the Tideway Greenwich Pumping Station site it is necessary to remove the tidal constraints.  In line with the required the following works to be undertaken:

 

Proposed works comprising:

o   Checking the pile line for potential obstructions and removing any encountered;

o   Installation of circa 100m sheet pile retaining wall adjacent to Phoenix Wharf;

o   Installation of 9no. mooring / fender piles adjacent to Phoenix Wharf;

o   Capital dredging between the Network Rail Bridge and Creek Road Bridge (A200);

o   In-river maintenance measures to maintain the baseline (post capital dredging works) river bed profile. This includes maintenance dredging, local bed levelling, installation of scour protection (rip-rap or similar) and reactive dredging;

o   Construction of a gravel campshed alongside Phoenix Wharf including placement of stone gabion baskets to form part of the campshed;

o   Placement of permanent scour protection to protect the downstream abutments of the Network Rail Bridge, including provision for walking access across the scour protection by the Creekside centre;

o   Placement of permanent stone riprap scour protection to protect the toe of RW524 (opposite Thanet Wharf);

o   Installation of marine safety equipment / ladder access and navigational;

o   Placement of a temporary floating platform between mooring piles and river wall to prevent material being loaded into barges from falling into the creek;

 

On completion of Thames Tideway Tunnel works the following works will be undertaken to restore the creek;

o   Full removal or cropping of mooring piles to 1m below existing bed level;

o   Full removal or cropping of sheet piles to 1m below existing bed level;

o   Removal of temporary floating platform.

Minutes:

The Planning Board noted the circulated submission from a resident, in relation to this application.

 

The Planning Officer gave an illustrated presentation, drawing Members attention to the addendum report which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.  He advised that the works were necessary to allow barges to access and egress along the estuary, which would replace circa 10,000 lorry deliveries to the development site, upstream.

 

In response to Members questions, the Planning Officer confirmed that the construction was temporary until the expected time of completion of the Tideway Tunnel, in 2023.  Whilst the works may, in the long term, increase the viability of the river for future use, that was not part of the consideration before Members.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address by a resident who spoke in favour of the application but questioned the removal of the temporary platform at the end of period and if it were possible to condition that further consultation be undertaken with the stakeholders on its long term future.

 

The Planning Officer advised the Board that it would not be feasible to implement this speaker’s request.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from the Applicant who advised that the land that the temporary platform would be erected on was being leased and it would be for the land owner, at the end of the lease, to decide on the future use of the site.

 

The Chair put the proposal to grant planning permission to the vote with 11 Members in favour, 0 members against and 0 abstentions.

 

Resolved Unanimously –

 

Resolved to grant full planning permission in order to facilitate and increase the potential for use of the river to transport excavated material from the Tideway Greenwich Pumping Station site it was necessary to remove the tidal constraints.  In line with the required the following works to be undertaken:

 

Proposed works comprising:

o   Checking the pile line for potential obstructions and removing any encountered;

o   Installation of circa 100m sheet pile retaining wall adjacent to Phoenix Wharf;

o   Installation of 9no. mooring / fender piles adjacent to Phoenix Wharf;

o   Capital dredging between the Network Rail Bridge and Creek Road Bridge (A200);

o   In-river maintenance measures to maintain the baseline (post capital dredging works) river bed profile. This includes maintenance dredging, local bed levelling, installation of scour protection (rip-rap or similar) and reactive dredging;

o   Construction of a gravel campshed alongside Phoenix Wharf including placement of stone gabion baskets to form part of the campshed;

o   Placement of permanent scour protection to protect the downstream abutments of the Network Rail Bridge, including provision for walking access across the scour protection by the Creekside centre;

o   Placement of permanent stone riprap scour protection to protect the toe of RW524 (opposite Thanet Wharf);

o   Installation of marine safety equipment / ladder access and navigational;

o   Placement of a temporary floating platform between mooring piles and river wall to prevent material being loaded into barges from falling into the creek;

 

On completion of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Land at Meridian Quays off Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich, SE10 - 18/1285/F pdf icon PDF 549 KB

The Board is requested to approve full planning permission for the construction of a temporary (10 Years) two storey multi-purpose event centre (Class D2) to host a range of functions such as conferences, brand events, exhibitions and live music with associated landscaping and car and cycle parking.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to defer the item for consideration at a specially convened meeting of the Planning Board on 19 July 2018.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the application be defer for consideration at a specially convened meeting of the Planning Board on 19 July 2018.

 

 

 

9.

Kidbrooke Village Centre, Kidbrooke Park Road, Kidbrooke, SE3 - 18/0358/MA pdf icon PDF 916 KB

The Board is requested to grant planning permissionfor an amendment to condition 1 of the planning permission dated 27th March 2015 (14/2607/F) to amend the approved plans in order to allow for changes to the landscaping of the village square and reconfiguration of loading bays.

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to defer the item for consideration at a specially convened meeting of the Planning Board on 19 July 2018.

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the application be defer for consideration at a specially convened meeting of the Planning Board on 19 July 2018.

 

 

10.

Barnfield Estate, Plumstead, London, SE18 3BD - 18/0886/F pdf icon PDF 347 KB

The Board is requested to grant Planning Permission for the redevelopment of the Barnfield Estate including hard and soft landscaping works, bin storage, signage, bespoke seating, replacement of existing and installation of new external lighting and the creation of additional car parking and cycle spaces.

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to defer the item for consideration at a specially convened meeting of the Planning Board on 19 July 2018.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the application be defer for consideration at a specially convened meeting of the Planning Board on 19 July 2018.