Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes.

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

Contact: Jasmine Kassim  Email: or tel: 020 8921 5146

No. Item


Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Board.


An apology for absence was received on behalf of Councillor Matthew Clare.


Urgent Business

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


There was no urgent business.


Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 55 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:


The Chair, Councillor Mark James, declared a personal interest as an employee of Transport for London (TfL).  It was noted that TfL had made representation on planning matters in regards to traffic and travel arrangements.


Resolved –


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


Minutes pdf icon PDF 65 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting of Planning Board held on 14 December 2016.


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.

Additional documents:


Resolved -


That the minutes of Planning Board meetings held on 22 November 2016, and 14 December 2016, be agreed and signed as true and accurate records.


Buildings 10, 11 and Royal Carriage Square, Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, SE18 (Ref: 16/2807/F) pdf icon PDF 229 KB

Members to consider planning application for change of use and alteration of two Grade II Listed Buildings to provide mixed use development comprising 146 residential units with refuse/recycling and cycle parking, 2150 sqm commercial use and a public square with vehicle access and drop off, and landscaping. (2nd Reconsultation - revised proposals for servicing and the public square).

Additional documents:


Resolved –


That Full Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent be granted for change of use and alteration of two Grade II Listed Buildings to provide mixed use development comprising 146 residential units with refuse/recycling and cycle parking, 2150 sqm commercial use and a public square with vehicle access and drop off, and landscaping.


Subject to:


(i)           Referral of the application to the Mayor of London as required under the terms of The Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008;

(ii)         The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement; and

(iii)       Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report




·                     Amendments in the Addendum Report tabled at the meeting.


The Planning Manager (Major Developments) gave an illustrative presentation to the report, recommending to the Board to approve the proposal therein.  It was stated that the applicant required Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent to change the use of, and make alterations to two Grade II Listed Buildings.


The Board noted the report.  It was recognised that the proposal was related to an application for the construction of a mix-use development that would comprise of 146 residential units, and associated amenities.


In considering the proposal, the Board received guidance from the Planning Manager that the application was a resubmission following a deferral at its meeting on 22 November 2016, in order for the applicant to clarify areas for servicing activities, and accessing and manoeuvring of vehicles on the proposed site.  It was suggested that the report should therefore be considered in conjunction with the addendum to it circulated at the meeting, and documentation in the published Supplementary Agenda.


The meeting was addressed by sixteen residents who spoke individually against the proposal.  The objectors advised the Board to reject the recommendation in the report because the proposal was contrary to the relevant planning policies and guidelines, and that concerns expressed by residents during the consultations were not adequately addressed in the report.  It was also the view of the objectors that the officer’s presentation at the meeting was misleading because it failed to highlight the extent of the impact of the proposed development.  The objectors advised the Board that residents believed that the proposal would divert from the specifications of approved masterplan for the Royal Arsenal to create an overdevelopment in the environment.  It was stated that the dominance would lead to an unacceptable overshadowing onto existing properties, particularly when set against East Carriage House, West Carriage House, and Bentham House.  Therefore, residents were concerned about potential financial losses by a fall in property prices in the area, and adverse impact on their health and living conditions due to loss of daylight, sunlight, and privacy.


The Board was further advised by the objectors the Traffic Plan in its current state would be inadequate, because it would lead to an increase in air pollution in the environment.  It was the view of the objectors that proposal for managing vehicle movements during construction work, and upon delivery of the scheme would create chaos at exists and entrances on the surrounding roads.  The Board was advised that the arrangements for managing the operations after the implementation of the proposed Crossrail station were also insufficient.


Councillor John Fahy addressed the meeting on behalf of his constituents, echoing statements made by the objectors who spoke earlier on at the meeting, and advising that the proposed development would not respect the quality and setting of the historic Royal Arsenal.  Councillor Fahy stated that residents were not against the regeneration of the local area, but that what had been proposed would create an over-development, with adverse impact on their health and living conditions.  Therefore, the Board  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.