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

Note: To consdier items deferred from 9 July Plannign Board 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Board.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received for Councillors Babatola, Cornforth and Mardner.

 

Councillors Williams and Perks gave apologies for leaving early.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

Members accepted the Planning Officer Addendum report’s, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting on a supplementary agenda, in relation to Item’s;

4 – Land at Meridian Quays off Tunnel Avenue.

6 -  Barfield Estate.

 

The Chair advised that she was changing the running order of the meeting and would be taking Item 7 – East Greenwich Gas Holder, as the first application for consideration.

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:

Councillor Ivis Williams made a personal declaration, in respect of Item 6 – Barfield Estate, as a resident of the Estate and had been consulted, as a resident.

 

Resolved –

 

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies be noted.

 

Noted Councillor Williams declaration.

4.

Land at Meridian Quays off Tunnel Avenue, Greenwich, SE10 - 18/1285/F pdf icon PDF 39 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, as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved 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.

 

Subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and addendum and the additional condition that the number of events hosted per annum be no more than; 20 conferences; 10 Awards; 25 corporate parties; 12 brand events; 8 music concerts and 8 exhibitions.

 

 

Minutes:

The Senior Principal Planner gave an illustrated presentation of the application before Members, advising that officers recommended agreement to the proposal.

 

In response to Member’s question’s the Senior Principal Planner confirmed that the venue would hold approximately, 1,400 seated patrons or 3,000 standing but not both simultaneously. That crime prevention would be addressed by the Secured by Design condition.

 

He confirmed that the number of types of events, listed in the report were as provided by the applicant.  The Development Control Manager - Major Projects, added that the applicant had proposed a minimum of 8 music concert events each year which Planning Officers considered acceptable given the minimal residential units in the area.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from the applicant’s agent who advised that the space would comfortably accommodate 3,000 attendees for non-seated events and there should be no noise issues as the events would be indoors.  All events would be held in consultation with the Intercontinental and O2 events venue, to avoid any clash of events.  He noted that neither the Intercontinental nor the O2 had submitted objections, as the events being held would be of a complementary not competitive in nature.

 

The applicant’s agent continued that the development of residential units across the Peninsula area was being undertaken in a phased program with the site of the venue not scheduled for development for another 8-10 years.  He believed that the style of fabrication of the temporary building and distance from existing residential units would mitigate any issues of noise pollution whilst creating around 100 jobs, most of which would be placed through GLLaB.  Further, any work apprenticeship placements would only be offered, via GLLaB, to Greenwich residents.

 

In response to Members questions the applicant’s agent responded that the hours of operation would vary dependant on the event, exampling that a conference would run mainly through the day ending around 7pm, where-as a music event would run mainly through the evening ending around 11pm.  He noted that the events license, attained through the Licensing process, would condition the hours of operation.

 

In respect of security concerns the applicant’s agent confirmed that in addition to the design of the building there would be a 24 hour security team on site supported by active CCTV monitoring. 

 

A Member noted that the management for the venue mainly managed nightclub facilities, noting that Branded Events often became nightclub events.  The Senior Principal Planner confirmed that nightclub use required a specific use classification, which was not attached to this premises.

 

In determining the application the Planning Board Members considered that the venue was in an appropriate surrounding, on the basis that it would be for temporary use until planned residential units were developed.

 

It was considered that there was a need to restrict the number of events and ensure that the venue would not be used as a nightclub or for Branded Events.  Further, that, whilst predominantly a licensing issue, Planning had the scope to condition the number and type of events.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Kidbrooke Village Centre, Kidbrooke Park Road, Kidbrooke, SE3 - 18/0358/MA pdf icon PDF 40 KB

The Board is requested to grant planning permissionfor the an amendment to condition 1 of the planning permission dated 27 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, as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved 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.

 

Subject to:

(i)         The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Deed of Variation; and

(ii)       Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and addendum reports.

Minutes:

Members noted the Planning Officers addendum report and felt that they had enough information to move straight to the vote.

 

The Chair put the application to the vote with 6 Members for granting permission, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

 

Resolved unanimously -

 

That planning permission be granted for 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.

 

That consent be subject to:

(i)         The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Deed of Variation; and

(ii)       Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and addendum reports.

6.

Barnfield Estate, Plumstead, London, SE18 3BD - 18/0886/F pdf icon PDF 40 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, as set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved 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.

         

Subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and the additional condition set out in section 1.1 of the Addendum.

 

 

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrative presentation drawing the Boards attention to the additional condition, as set out in the addendum report.  He advised that the proposed works also included street lighting which could accommodate CCTV use, to be installed at a future point.

 

Before the Planning Board accepted an address from a resident, who wished to speak in favour of the application, the Chair advised them that the Board Members had seen and read his submission regarding CCTV, which had been circulated in advance of the meeting.  The Chair advised that the installation of CCTV was not a planning consideration or a matter that the Planning Board could condition.

 

The resident addressed the Planning Board stating that security and personal safety were key concerns for residents who felt that CCTV should be included for reasons of safety and to give peace of mind.  He noted that a murder had taken place on the estate but due to lack of witness or CCTV the police were unable to make an arrest.  He advised that residents felt that the Royal Borough of Greenwich should consider the safety of their residents more important than that of the big TV in Woolwich.  He noted that the regeneration works included the facility to install CCTV and residents were concerned that if it was not fitted now it would be overlooked.

 

A Member advised that, in respect of the example given, two arrests were made.  Members expressed their awareness of the need to protect the residents of the Borough and that Planning Officer were aware of the requirement for CCTV.

 

The resident responded to Members that whilst residents of the estate appreciated the works being undertaken and that the lamppost would be CCTV capable they could not see why it could not also be fitted at the same.

 

The Chair advised that whilst sympathetic to the position it was not within the powers of the Planning Board to condition or enforce the fitting of the CCTV.  She added that, as Members, they would support the Ward Councillor in pursuing this issue.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from the applicant’s agent who advised that they would be continuing to pursue the installation of CCTV as soon as possible but in addition a lot had been done to try and design out crime on the estate.  That planters, used to hide weapons, had been removed, sight lines had been improved and some trees had been removed to increase light levels to open spaces.

 

The Chair put the application to the vote with 6 Members in favour of approval, 0 against and 0 abstentions.

 

Resolved Unanimously -

 

That Planning Permission be granted 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.

         

That consent be subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

East Greenwich Gas Holder, Millennium Way, Greenwich, SE10 pdf icon PDF 96 KB

The report will be issued under separate cover in due course.

 

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved 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; 

·        serve notice on those persons affected by the Order; and

·        submit the Order to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

 

Resolved that the Assistant Director, Planning & Building Control, makes a commitment to write to SGN, on behalf of the Planning Board to encourage their engagement in pre-application consent discussions with Planning Officers, including the future retention of the  gas holder.

Minutes:

The Chair noted that the Planning Board had previously received an in-depth Officer presentation on this item and Members agreed to proceed without re-taking the illustrative presentation.

 

The Assistant Director Planning and Building Control responded to Members that the landholder, SGN, had indicated that they would look to redevelop the site but had not progressed this, to date, due to the Hazardous Substances Consent order.

 

The Chair confirmed that that possibility of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) removing the St Mary Magdalene School from the Control of major accident hazards (COMAH) zone had been investigated, but the Council was bound by the HSE condition.

 

The Development Control Manager - Major Projects added that the HSE Condition could not be removed as long at the Order remained, as the authority to store gas remained and gas could still be stored on site in the future. 

 

Members expressed that, whilst understanding why the matter had been brought back to them there was concern that, given it was clear the decision that the Board was going to make that they were not given legal information or advice at the meeting.  Further, that if the Planning Board were at such great risk of being judicially reviewed on the decision they should have been appropriately advised, at the time.

 

The Chair stated that she was sympathetic to this views and had discussed the situation with the relevant officers but that this was not the forum to comment further.

 

The Councils appointed Independent Legal Advisor stated that he felt that it had not been clear to him that Members were about to make the decision they did. He noted that it was also highly unusual to give legal advice, of that nature, in public forum.  Further, it was not his decision to give that advice in the public addendum.

 

Members noted that whilst SGN had permission to and intended to dismantle the gas structure there was a lot of public concern at the potential loss of this heritage artefact.  They questioned if it would be possible to include a condition that SGN talk to the Council about the future of the structure and if it were not possible to retain the actual holder itself then the architecture around it be carefully de-constructed before removing it and stored appropriately.

 

The Chair advised that the gas holder could be demolished under permitted development, which the Planning Board had no powers over, and the Council had to give consent for the method of construction as there were no grounds for refusal.  However, she concurred that as a Borough all that could be done should be to engage with SGN on the possibility of maintaining at least the steel structure around the outside of the holder. 

 

The Development Control Manager - Major Projects confirmed that if SGN made any approaches for pre-application discussions, Planning Officers would discuss the future of the gas holder with them.  However, to date and despite Planning Officers approaches to SGN they are not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.