Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies from Members of the Committee.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gary Dillon and Matt Hartley.

Apologies for leaving early were given by Councillor Mahid Rahman.

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

There were no items of urgent business.

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.

Resolved-

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

governing bodies be noted.

2.            That the following declarations be noted:

·        Councillor Majid Rahman declared an interest in item 6, as a Trustee of the Greenwich Charities of William Hatcliffe and the Misses Smith

·        Councillor Christine St Matthew-Daniel declared an interest in item 6, as a Trustee of the Greenwich Charities of William Hatcliffe and the Misses Smith

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2024.

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

Resolved –

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Greenwich Area Planning Committee held on 12 March 2024 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

Planning permission is sought for the change of use of ground floor commercial unit and part of the surface and basement car parks to a vehicle rental office (Sui Generis) including a vehicle rental office, rental vehicle wash bay, car parking (including rental vehicle storage), and minor associated works

Resolved –

Application A – (22/2931/F)

Planning permission is refused for Change of Use of ground floor commercial unit (Class E) and part of the surface and basement car parks (Sui Generis) to a vehicle rental office (Sui Generis) including a vehicle rental office, rental vehicle wash bay, car parking (including rental vehicle storage), and minor associated works.

Reason for refusal

The proposed development, by reason of the intensification of the use of the surface level car parking spaces above the existing lawful situation on site, and the operational requirements associated with the proposed change of use of these spaces, would result in unacceptable transport and highways safety impacts, and would result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of Dundas Court nearby. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy T4 and D11 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DH1 and IM4 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014)

Full details of the reasons for refusal will be set out in the decision notice.

Resolved –

Application B – (22/2932/A)

Advertisement consent is refused for the Installation two (2) illuminated fascia bands, two (2) non-illuminated wall mounted signs and two (2) pole mounted stall signs (Revised Description).

Reason for refusal

The proposed advertisements would not reasonably relate to any approved operation within the wider site. As such, these would exist as excess and unnecessary clutter which would cause harm to the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies DH1, DH(e) and DH(f) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies

Full details of the reasons for refusal will be set out in the decision notice.

Additional correspondence regarding the item was circulated.

The Senior Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report. He advised that more objections had been published since the publication of the addendum report, but they were in line with those originally received. He emphasised that there was not a car parking space for every flat currently, and the parking spaces at surface level were not designated to any specific person; the parking was generous in contrast to what would be considered acceptable under current development plan policy. He summarised the parking technical note which explained how car parking spaces were allocated. He confirmed that other than the installation of the adverts no physical change was proposed.

In response to questions from the Committee, the Senior Principal Planning Officer replied that the car club operation was part of the proposal along with the rental operation and it was the same operator for both. Car club spaces were in the original planning consent so the current proposal was in effect those car club spaces finally being delivered. He clarified that the gates to the estate were currently open from dawn until dusk, the operator Enterprise would have to come to an agreement with Galliard Homes about accessing the estate outside of that period. Rental cars would be returned to the public part of the car park then a member of staff would later move then into the private part of the underground car park. He indicated that there were no surface electric charging points at present. He commented that with regard to impact on privacy from use of the surface car parking spaces, the car parking space use already existed; vans of any size currently lawfully parked in the parking spaces. Drivers unfamiliar with the layout of the road and pavement could currently access the site.

The Committee was addressed by the representatives of the Empire Reach Residents group, Beacons Point Residents group, the Canary View Residents group and the NewCapital Quay Leaseholders group. Concerns were raised about probable increase in service charges. It was highlighted that the applicant, Enterprise, and the estate management, Galliard, were different entities. Enterprise would rent the space from Galliard,but leaseholderswould bethe onespaying forthe maintenancecosts. Galliard had not told residents what was going to happen with the proposed operation and had blocked residents sending notifications to all other residents about the application throughtheir portal. It was queried how allowing 24 hour access to Enterprise customers was consistent with the concept of a private, gated, pedestrianised development; how would customersgain accesswhen thegates were locked, and how would the operator ensurethat residents were not disturbed or security impacted by the 24 hour access of those customers? Claims about current use and empty parking spaces was disputed. The effect of the space taken up by van parking was demonstrated through photographs which had been circulated to the Committee. Current road pavementdamage wasdue totraffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The meeting was adjourned from 9.02pm to 9.15pm

Planning Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a 5-storey building comprising of a commercial use at ground floor and a range of flexible residential uses on first, second, third and fourth floors, either Use Class C3, Use Class C4, Use Class Sui generis or Use Class Sui Generis and associated external works and alterations.

Resolved –

Planning permission is refused for the demolition of the existing building and construction of a 5-storey building comprising of a commercial use at ground floor (Use Class E) and a range of flexible residential uses on first, second, third and fourth floors, either Use Class C3 (Residential), Use Class C4 (small HMO), Use Class Sui generis (7 Person HMO) or Use Class Sui Generis (8 Person HMO) and associated external works and alterations (Re-consultation - revised description, Revised Drawings and Documents), for the reasons set out in Appendix 2 of the report (as below) and to be detailed in the notice of determination.

Reasons for Refusal - Application Reference 22/0993/F:

1.       The proposed development, due to the cumulative impact its height, scale,  mass and poor design, would appear as an incongruous and overbearing development as seen from the surrounding streetscape to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As a result, the proposed development would be contrary to the NPPF, Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), Policies DH1 and H5 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014) and the Royal Greenwich Urban Design Guide SPD (2023)

2.       The proposed development due to the excessive size of Units 8 and 9 would result in a development which does not make efficient use of the land and therefore optimise the housing potential of the site, including the provision of affordable housing.  As such the proposed development would be contrary to the NPPF, Policies GG4, H1, H2, H4 and H10 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy H2 and H3 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (2014).

Informative(s) for Application Reference 22/0993/F:

1.   Positive and Proactive Statement: The Council engages with all applicants in a positive and proactive way through specific pre-application enquiries and the detailed advice available on the Council’s website. On this particular application, preapplication advice was sought and advice was given regarding the proposal being unacceptable. Discussion took place in trying to find a solution, but no solution was possible.

The Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control is authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended reasons for refusal, as set out in Appendix 2 of the report where the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice

Having declared an interest Councillor Christine St Matthew-Daniel withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the item.

The Senior Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report. He highlighted the changes that had been made to the scheme since its previous appearances before the Committee.

The Committee was addressed by Councillor David Gardner. He stated he had discussed the matter with fellow Greenwich Peninsula Ward Councillors and with East Greenwich Ward Councillors and they had indicated that they had received no objections themselves to the application. He contended that the application met the policies and guidance in the Local Plan. He felt the proposal would fit in with the streetscape and would compliment the East Greenwich District Centre. The proposal would provide larger accommodation which many developments failed to do, and he noted there was no maximum size standard. He highlighted that while there were no proposed affordable housing units the Charity was a non-profit organization and the surplus went to their almshouses and to sustain their other charitable works.

In response to questions from the Committee Councillor Gardner reiterated that while no social housing was proposed the applicant was a non-profitmaking charity and any surplus would help their low rent almshouses and support their other charitable works and that was what made it different from a typical developer just looking for profit.

The Senior Principal Planning Officer advised that the identity of the applicant was not a material consideration that could be taken into account as the application was not submitted as an enabling development. The Area Planning Manager (West) added that any grant of planning permission would be to the land and not to the applicant.  As such if planning permission were granted the applicant could immediately sell the land with the granted planning permission.

The representative of the applicant addressed the Committee. He detailed the works of the charity which were sustained by the revenues of its property portfolio, and added that the they were seeking to expand their charitableactivities which would require more funding. He said that by not adding a few affordable housing units to the development they would be able to support many more affordable units, the almhouses. He felt the size of the building was in keepingwith theother buildings in the street. The proposal did seek to address Planning Officers’ concerns regarding design, size and bulk. He explained larger units were proposed because there was a demand for them, and he noted that while there were minimum size requirements there were no maximum size requirements other than they should not be excessive.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee. He said theoverall heightof thescheme was in keepingwith the characterand appearanceof thearea and he noted that the Council’s Design Officer now supported the proposals. He said the proposed units were well proportioned for families, or for a group of adults.

The Senior Principal Planning Officer commented that the issue for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing garage/annex and rear conservatory, removal of first floor "turret", construction of a part 1, part 2 storey side and rear "wrap around" extension including basement extension and extensions to the loft space addition of external terraces and lightwells, facade alterations including alterations to windows and doors, landscaping works and associated external alterations.

Resolved –

Planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing garage/annex and rear conservatory, removal of first floor "turret", construction of a part 1, part 2 storey side and rear "wrap around" extension including basement extension and extensions to the loft space addition of external terraces and lightwells, facade alterations including alterations to windows and doors, landscaping works and associated external alterations, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report to be detailed in the notice of determination.

The Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control is authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in this report, where the Assistant Director of Planning and Building Control considers it appropriate.

Additional correspondence regarding the item was circulated.

The Principal Planner gave an illustrated introduction to the report.

In response to questions from the Committee the Principal Planner confirmed the new garage was 30 centimetres lower than the previous one and indicated that the impact of the proposed raised terrace was considered to be acceptable by the Planning Inspectorate

The Committee was addressed by a neighbour in objection. It was contended that objections had been entirely disregarded resulting in anxiety for the community. Residents were concerned about impacts from pollution, extreme noise and amenity damage. It was felt the Planning Inspectorate’s ruling was based upon incorrect and incomplete information.An independent noise, vibration, structural and dust report was requested. A report was requested on the impact on the horse chestnut tree. A number of mitigatory measures were requested with regard to works to reduce noise pollution and harmful emissions and to ensure safe vibration levels.

The Principal Planner and the Area Planning Manager (West) highlighted that a Basement Impact Assessment Condition and a Construction Management Plan Condition were proposed.

In response from questions from the Committee the neighbour confirmed that the main concerns were about the construction process. More defined conditions were sought that covered the risks and damage both to house and to sewer. It was perceived that the line was blurred between planning control and building control.

The Committee was addressed by a neighbour in objection. It was suggested that the proposal contravened planning guidance and would set a precedent. It was felt the proposal was bulkyand oversizedfor theplot; the new footprint wasthree timesthat ofthe original house. The Basement Impact Assessment and Structural Method Statement which the Planning Inspector had seen containedno sitespecific investigationand containedfactual errorsand omissions,making no mention of the sewer and the Kidbrooke watercourse. It was felt that there had been no attempt to evaluate the structural risks and that there should be anindependent analysis assessment of the risk to adjacent buildings. Suitable screening would also be required to prevent overlooking. It was requested that the application be rejected.

In response to further questions from the Committee, the Principal Planner clarified that the proposed Basement Impact Assessment Condition indicated that the sewer line, theflood risk and the structural stability of neighbouring properties must be considered. The Planning Inspector had considered the development, including screening and it being set back, and considered it would not impact the amenity of neighbours. It was stated that theBasement Impact Assessment would need to demonstrate that they can build the basement without affecting the stability of the adjoining properties; if the Assessment showed partywall impacts then a partywall agreement would have to be made but that was a different procedure to the planning permission.  The Construction Management Plan meant that the applicant had to demonstrate that the residential amenity of adjacent occupiers would be respected during the construction process.  The Area Planning Manager (West)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of existing garages on site and construction of a three-bedroom detached dwelling with associated works including landscaping.

Resolved –

Planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing garages on site and construction of a three-bedroom detached dwelling (Use Class C3) with associated works including landscaping, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report and in Section 6 of the addendum report to be detailed in the notice of determination.

The Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control is authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in the report and in the addendum, where the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.

Additional correspondence regarding the item was circulated.

The Planning Officer gave an illustrated introduction to the report.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Planning Officer explained how light impact was assessed.

The Committee was addressed by a neighbouring resident. His basement was his main living area, and the development would render the light to it insufficient. He requested a light survey prior to any decision. He queried the impact on neighbours during the demolition of the concrete World War II shelters beneath the garages.

In response to comments made the Senior Principal Planning Officer said Officers had considered the light impact submitted by the applicant to be acceptable.

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee. He explained why the garages on site were no longer viable, and detailed the benefits of the proposed dwelling. He said the proposal would achieve a high standard of accommodation without significantly impacting on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, and detailed the BRE compliant daylight sunlight study which had been submitted. He added a Flood Risk Assessment had also been submitted. He considered the proposed development would respect the character and the appearance of the conservation area and the adjacent grade II listed building.

The Chair put the matter to the vote and it was unanimously 

Resolved –

Planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing garages on site and construction of a three-bedroom detached dwelling (Use Class C3) with associated works including landscaping, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report and in Section 6 of the addendum report to be detailed in the notice of determination.

The Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control is authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in the report and in the addendum, where the Assistant Director of Planning & Building Control considers it appropriate, before issuing the decision notice.