Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes.

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

Contact: Jasmine Kassim  Email: jasmine.kassim@greenwich.gov.uk or tel: 020 8921 5146

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Board.

Minutes:

The meeting noted an apology for absence on behalf of Councillor Hayley Fletcher, and an apology for leaving early by Councillor Ray Walker.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business to consider.  The Chair, Councillor Walker, advised that Item 5, “Hotel, Block C, Creekside Village West, Creek Road, SE8”, and Item 9, “The O2, Peninsular Square, Greenwich, SE10”, would be considered as the last items.  The meeting noted that the Vice Chair chaired the meeting in respect of these two items.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 41 KB

Members to declare any personal and prejudicial 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 Chris Roberts declared a prejudicial interest in relation to:

·                    Item 6, “Shree K S Swarminarayan Temple, St Margarets Grove, Plumstead, London SE18 7RL” as he had had close relations with members of the Temple; and

·                    Item 9 “The O2, Peninsula Square, Greenwich, SE10”, as he had had discussions with the developers.

 

Councillor Chris Roberts took no part in the discussions or votes in respect of the above matters, and he left the meeting whilst the items were considered.

 

Resolved –

 

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

4.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 94 KB

Members are requested to confirm as accurate records the minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 201, and 12 January 2012 [To Follow].

 

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:

Minutes:

Resolved –

 

That minutes of meetings of the Planning Board held on 20 December 2011 and 12 January 2012, be agreed and signed as accurate records.

5.

Hotel, Block C, Creekside Village West, Creek Road, SE8 pdf icon PDF 172 KB

The Board is requested to grant full planning permission for a change of use of the commercial floor space from B1 (Office) to C1 (Hotel).

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

That full planning permission be granted for change of use of the commercial floor space from B1 (Office) to C1 (Hotel).

 

Subject to:

 

(i)                Conditions set out in section 3.2 of the report

 

and

 

A supplemental S106 agreement as set out in 3.4 of the report.

Minutes:

The Vice Chair, Councillor Offord, chaired this item.

 

The Area Planning Manager (Development Team) gave an illustrated presentation to the report, recommending to the Board to grant full planning permission for change of use of the commercial floor space on the application site from B1 (Office) to C1 (Hotel).

 

The Board noted the report, and that the existing planning consent for the Creekside West scheme included a broad range of community benefits comprising of affordable housing and wheelchair accessible units.

 

Members expressed satisfaction that the developer would be working within the Greenwich Local Labour and Business (GLLab) programme to create jobs and training opportunities for local residents.

 

In response to questions raised, the Area Planning Manager stated that community open space and new public realm, public safety, sustainable enhancements, monitoring and fees would result from the existing planning consent for the Creekside West scheme.  Other benefits included financial contributions to improve education, health, public transport and affordable childcare, and the securing of cultural uses through subsidised rent.  In addition, a supplemental legal agreement would allow for the allocation of resources towards the provision of a theatre space.

 

Members discussed the application and welcomed opportunities and benefits for residents.  It was

 

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That full planning permission be granted for change of use of the commercial floor space from B1 (Office) to C1 (Hotel).

 

Subject to:

 

Conditions set out in section 3.2 of the report

 

and

 

A supplemental S106 agreement as set out in 3.4 of the report.

6.

Shree K S Swarminarayan Temple, St Margarets Grove, Plumstead, London SE18 7RL pdf icon PDF 212 KB

The Board is requested to grant conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing building, and planning permission for the construction of a new temple ranging in height from two to four storeys.

Link to Planning Document

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That conservation area consent for the demolition of the existing building and full planning permission be granted for the construction of a new temple ranging in height from two – four storeys, subject to conditions set out in section 3.2 of the report, in light of additional information tabled at the meeting, which is attached, and

 

Requirements:

 

·        To amend a 14 month’s stipulation to 6 months follows:

 

That within 6 months of the occupation of the temple details for the monitoring and review of the different modes of transport used to access the site as well as details of the Travel Plan Coordinator be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

And

 

·        To reduce the umber of cars visiting the site.

Minutes:

Councillor Chris Roberts declared a prejudicial interest in relation to this Item, as he had had close relations with members of the Temple.  Councillor Roberts withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the discussions or vote on the proposal in respect of this Item.

 

The meeting noted two objections to the proposal which were circulated at the meeting, together with amendments Condition 3 and Condition 26.  Thereafter, the Assistant Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated presentation to the report, recommending to the Board to approve the proposal. 

 

The Board noted the report and the tabled items.  It was recognised that the proposal related to the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new temple.  The application site formed part of the Plumstead Common Conservation Area.

 

Three residents who addressed the meeting individually expressed an objection to the proposal, with similar concerns in relation to dusts and noise.  It was stated that the proposed construction activities would affect the health of local residents, including children attending the school close to the site.  Sleeping patterns of residents doing shift work would be also distorted by digging activities and deliveries from large lorries.

 

Commenting on the proposed building, the residents pointed out that it would be higher than the existing one, and they questioned whether the land would be adequate to carry the height and mass of the structure.  The colour of bricks to be used would be incompatible with existing houses on the road.  The domes and towers to be erected would be dominant when set against other properties in the area.  Thus, residents’ privacy would be compromised by overlooking.  The Board was further advised that no provision had been made for soft landscaping, and that the boundary for the proposed development would encroach onto public land.

 

The residents concluded that there was the potential for increased visitors numbers, given the size of the proposed temple.  The environment was inappropriate to cope with large numbers of people, particularly during religious festivals and weddings.  The problem with parking issues had not changed since1985, when an application was turned down because of “lack of provision for off-street parking to the detriment of local residents and road safety”.  The residents suggested that the Board should defer consideration of the proposal pending an independent risk assessment about the suitability of the application in light of concerns raised.

 

The fourth resident to address the meeting stated that he was supportive of the proposal, in spite of the fact that his property was situated at the back of the proposed site.  The resident advised the Board that he believed that the proposed activities to be operated from the temple would not be excessive to the current arrangements.

 

The latter view was echoed by Councillor Don Austen.  Speaking under Standing Orders, he commented that the temple had been in operation for over 20 years, and that there had been few complaints.  Councillor Austen stated that he was supportive of the proposal,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Kings Highway Garage, Kings Highway, Plumstead, London, SE18 2BH pdf icon PDF 317 KB

The Board is requested to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide 87 residential units comprising 16 one-bed, 50 two-bed, 18 three-bed and 3 four-bed units with private and communal amenity space, associated car parking, cycle parking, and the formation of a two-way access road, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the imposition of various planning conditions and informatives.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

That planning permission be granted for the redevelopment of the site to provide 87 residential units comprising 16 one-bed, 50 two-bed, 18 three-bed and 3 four-bed units with private and communal amenity space, associated car parking, cycle parking, and the formation of a two-way access road, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the imposition of various planning conditions and informatives set out in the report and revised conditions tabled at the meeting, which are attached.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated presentation, recommending to the Board to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the site on the north side of Kings Highways, close to the junction with Wickham Lane.

 

The Board noted the report.  The comments of the Greenwich Conservation Group, and an amendment to Condition 39 in the published report were circulated at the meeting.

 

Three residents who addressed the meeting individually on various issues expressed objections to the proposal.  The first resident to speak stated that the density of the development would lead to pollution and over-crowding in the locality.  There would be increased pressures on local community facilities, including schools and hospitals.  Crime and anti-social behavioural activities would likely increase.  The second resident advised the Board that the development would lead to over-parking on the road and the surrounding streets.  The shortage of car park spaces and increased traffic flows could lead to air pollution, accident fatalities or deaths.  The third residents was of the view that the proposed construction activities could result in subsidence, as there had been a history of chalk mines in the area.  Furthermore, the digging of the site could impact adversely on the structural framework of residential homes and devalue properties in the surrounding area.

 

In considering submissions made at the meeting, a number of Members commented that they voted against a planning permission for the redevelopment of the application site in 2009.  They stated that the inappropriateness of the current proposal in respect of the scale and character, and problems of overdevelopment were similar.  The meeting noted views by other Members that the development was appropriate.  The issue of subsidence was not a planning matter, however, a verification report should be submitted about the effectiveness of the remediation works for approval by the Local Authority prior to commencement of the construction work.

 

The Board voted with a result of 2 against and 6 in favour of the proposal and, it was

 

Resolved –

 

That planning permission be granted for the redevelopment of the site to provide 87 residential units comprising 16 one-bed, 50 two-bed, 18 three-bed and 3 four-bed units with private and communal amenity space, associated car parking, cycle parking, and the formation of a two-way access road, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Legal Agreement and the planning conditions and informatives set out in the report and revised conditions tabled at the meeting.

8.

Land r/o 40 Victoria Way, Charlton, SE7 pdf icon PDF 285 KB

The Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the demolition of existing warehouse building (9,625 sq.m.) and the construction of part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6 storey buildings comprising 20 houses (17x3-beds and 3x4-beds), 189 flats (81x1-beds; 80x2-beds and 28x3-beds), 3 live/work units (2-beds), car-parking for 182 vehicles, 234 cycle spaces and associated access and landscaping

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

That full planning permission be granted for the demolition of existing warehouse building (9,625 sq.m.) and the construction of part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6 storey buildings comprising 20 houses (17x3-beds and 3x4-beds), 189 flats (81x1-beds; 80x2-beds and 28x3-beds), 3 live/work units (2-beds), car-parking for 182 vehicles, 234 cycle spaces and associated access and landscaping subject to referral to the Mayor of London, the satisfactory completion of a planning obligations agreement, the conditions set out in the report, additional conditions tabled at the meeting which is attached, and with further requirements to include the following:

 

·        Specific provision for under 5 children’s plays space;

·        That no more than 50% of the dwellings shall be occupied until all the public realm areas and play place areas have been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority 

·        No more than 50% of the units facing the A102 or the southern railway line shall be occupied until adequate internal noise and air quality testing have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority by a suitably qualified and competent company to ensure an acceptable internal living environment.

·        A requirement that future occupiers of the development cannot apply for on-street parking permits to park a vehicle in the vicinity of the application site.

Minutes:

The Assistant Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation to the report, highlighting to the Board the planning history in respect of the application, and specifically mentioned the appeal that was lost by the Council in 2010 (on noise and air quality grounds). 

 

The Board noted the report.  It was recognised that the latest proposal comprised of four blocks and a row of terraced houses arranged around the site boundaries interspersed by areas of green spaces, courtyards, gardens and play spaces.

 

Four residents who addressed the meeting individually expressed an objection to the proposal and raised similar issues.  It was stated that local people were supportive of improvement regeneration activities, but that the proposed development was still excessive and would result in significant highways and parking issues.

 

The residents expressed specific concerns about overdevelopment of the site, loss of light and privacy to nearby properties, increased traffic congestion and poor air quality.  They advised the Board that dust and noise pollution from the proposed construction work would put local people’s health at risk.  There would be insufficient local provision for school places due to increased demands on schools and other community services.  Local objectors explained that, despite the September 2010 appeal, the density of the proposed buildings was still excessive.  The number of flats proposed on the site would create an inappropriate housing mix in the locality.  The Board was asked to impose conditions for the development to be scaled down, to provide large green community space, improved ecology facilities, and access to Victoria Way.

 

Another resident who commented on the proposal made a request for the replacement of the steel fence, and he highlighted the need to address future parking arrangements in the area.

 

Speaking on the proposal under Standing Orders, Councillor Mary Mills suggested to the Board that, in complying with the decision by the Secretary of State, it should ensure improvements to the environment for the benefit of local residents.

 

The applicant also addressed the meeting, highlighting to the Board that the configuration of proposed development had been revised to include family houses with gardens, and public access to green communal spaces.

 

In response to questions raised, the applicant stated that the development contained a mixture of private and affordable houses, as well as employment floorspace in the form of 3 live-work units.  He gave an assurance that the proposed scheme was deliverable, and that it would be implemented within planning guidelines.  Work had commenced with environmental experts on ventilation and air quality matters.  A methodology would be developed to ensure compliance with approved construction standards, including the management of dust and noise control.

 

The applicant further advised the Board that access to the site from the surrounding street was considered, but that access to the development from Fairthorn Road was appropriate because of the previous findings of an appeal inspector in 2010.  The developers would work within the Greenwich Local Labour and Business programme to create jobs for local residents.

 

Members considered submissions made, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

The O2, Peninsula Square, Greenwich, SE10 pdf icon PDF 129 KB

The Board is requested to grant planning permission for minor revisions to the erection of a walkway to be known as “The Skywalk” across the arch of the O2 with two ancillary pavilions at its northern and southern ends.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That planning permission be granted for minor revisions to the erection of a walkway to be known as “The Skywalk” across the arch of the O2 with two ancillary pavilions at its northern and southern ends, subject to:

 

(i)                Conditions set out in sections 3.2 of the report

 

and

 

The satisfactory completion of a Supplemental Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in section 3.3 of the report.

Minutes:

The Vice Chair, Councillor Offord, chaired this item.

 

Councillor Chris Roberts declared a prejudicial interest in relation to this Item, as he had discussions with the developers.  Councillor Roberts withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the discussions or vote on the proposal in respect of this Item.

 

The Area Planning Manager (Development) gave an illustrated presentation to the report, recommending to the Board to approve the proposal for minor revisions to a scheme which had received planning permission for the erection of a walkway to be known as “The Skywalk”.

 

The Board noted the report, and that the revisions were to allow implementation of the new attraction.  It was

 

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That planning permission be granted for minor revisions to the erection of a walkway to be known as “The Skywalk” across the arch of the O2 with two ancillary pavilions at its northern and southern ends, subject to:

 

(i)                Conditions set out in sections 3.2 of the report

 

and

 

The satisfactory completion of a Supplemental Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in section 3.3 of the report.

10.

Greenwich Millennium Village - Phases 3, 4 & 5 pdf icon PDF 568 KB

The Board is requested to grant planning permission for a hybrid outline planning application for 1746 residential units and 6902m2 non-residential floor space comprising A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 and D2 uses and, Full details of 459 of the residential units, an energy centre, open space, hard and soft landscaping, associated car parking, servicing, highways and transport works and ancillary works, subject to the 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; the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement; and, various planning conditions and informatives.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved

 

That full planning permission be granted 12/0022/0) for:

 

(A)       A hybrid outline planning application for 1746 residential units and 6902m2 non-residential floor space comprising A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 and D2 uses.

And

 

(B)       Full details of 459 of the residential units, an energy centre, open space, hard and soft landscaping, associated car parking, servicing, highways and transport works and ancillary works.

 

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 Legal Agreement to secure the range of planning obligations set out in the addendum tabled at the meeting and early provision of community facilities and play equipment in Southern Park, all play equipment to be provided in perpetuity, ongoing engagement with the Council in respect of façade design development of the eastern and northern terrace buildings and full involvement of the residents in respect of the management of the CHP system including access to relevant financial information.

 

(iii)            Conditions and informatives set out in sections 3.2 and 3.3 below:

 

(iv)       Members confirming in their decision that account has been taken of environmental information, as required by Regulation 3(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

 

(v)        A statement being placed on the Statutory Register confirming the main reasons and considerations on which the Planning Board decision was based were those set out in the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills as required by Regulation 24 (1) (c.) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

And

 

The addendum tabled at the meeting, which is attached.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (Development) gave an illustrated presentation to the report, recommending to the Board to grant planning permission for a hybrid outline application for the redevelopment of Phases 3, 4 and 5 of the Greenwich Millennium Village on the Greenwich Peninsula.

 

The Board noted the presentation, and an addendum report which was circulated at the meeting. 

 

Speaking at the meeting under Standing Orders, Councillor Mary Mills suggested to the Board that the Millennium Primary School should be consulted about lighting issues and the ecological management plan prior to implementation.

 

The agent and applicant also addressed the meeting and, in response to questions raised, they stated that discussions had commenced with the Millennium Primary School about issues raised by Councillor Mills.  The Board also received confirmation that additional affordable housing would be delivered across the scheme as and when additional grants become available.

 

Members considered submissions made at the meeting.  It was stated that the development lacked adequate community facilities, particularly in relation to play areas for children.  Residents had not had information about contracts in relation to energy costs.  Members suggested that the long-term view of the appropriateness of the development should be addressed through ongoing dialogue with Officers for a reassurance of satisfactory completion of the project.

 

The Board voted with a result of 1 against and 7 in favour of the proposal and, it was

 

Resolved

 

That full planning permission be granted 12/0022/0) for:

 

(A)       A hybrid outline planning application for 1746 residential units and 6902m2 non-residential floor space comprising A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 and D2 uses.

And

 

(B)       Full details of 459 of the residential units, an energy centre, open space, hard and soft landscaping, associated car parking, servicing, highways and transport works and ancillary works.

 

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 Legal Agreement to secure the range of planning obligations set out in the addendum tabled at the meeting and early provision of community facilities and play equipment in Southern Park, all play equipment to be provided in perpetuity, ongoing engagement with the Council in respect of façade design development of the eastern and northern terrace buildings and full involvement of the residents in respect of the management of the CHP system including access to relevant financial information.

 

(iii)            Conditions and informatives set out in sections 3.2 and 3.3 below:

 

(iv)       Members confirming in their decision that account has been taken of environmental information, as required by Regulation 3(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

 

(v)        A statement being placed on the Statutory Register confirming the main reasons and considerations on which the Planning Board decision was based were those set out in the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills as required by Regulation 24 (1) (c.) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.