Agenda, decisions and minutes

At the commencement of the meeting, the Chair announced the procedure which would be followed for considering the item(s) before the Board and confirmed the names of those who had registered to speak, clarifying that only those included on the register would be called to address the Planning Board. 

To receive apologies from Members of the Board.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Majella Anning, Sandra Bauer, Peter Baker, Clare Burke-McDonald, and Danny Thorpe.

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

The Planning Board accepted the Planning Officers’ addendum report’s, circulated in advance of the meeting, in relation to -

·        Item 5 – Enderby Place, Telcon Way, Greenwich, London, SE10 0AG

Ref: 23/3911/F

·        Item 6 – Kidbrooke Village, Phase 5, Building A & B and South Cator

Park, Kidbrooke, London, SE3 9YG - Ref: 23/3976/F

The Planning Board also accepted the applicant’s submissions in respect of Items 5 and 6 and public submission to Item 6.

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-

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

Members are requested to consider and confirm as an accurate record the appended Minutes of the Planning Board meetings held on 5 March 2024, 19 March 2024 and 16 April 2024.

Resolved -

That the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Board held on the

5 March 2024, 19 March 2024 and 16 April 2024, be agreed upon and signed as a true and accurate record.

Ward: East Greenwich

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the erection of part-3, part-23, part-35 storey buildings, providing up to 564 residential apartments (Class C3), light industrial (Class E(g)(iii)) and community / café use (Sui Generis), and associated highways, landscaping and public realm works.

Resolved that determination of the application be deferred in order to allow the applicant to address concerns raised in respect of the height of the tallest element of the proposal.

Planning Board Members noted the Applicants submission and Planning Officers addendum report, circulated in advance of the meeting.  They accepted an illustrative presentation of the application from the Planning Officer.

The planning Officer confirmed the Strategy Objectives Document was yet to be adopted by the Council. The lower ground podium area addressed flood concerns and housed utilities.   Whilst the Cruise Liner Terminal would not be built, the 35-floor tower was still considered to be in line with the tall elements of Morden Wharf, forming a cohesive a cluster.

The comments of the Urban Design and Conservation Officers were explained and it was accepted there would be a degree of harm to the Greenwich World Heritage Site (GWHS), which, on balance of the developments benefits, was considered acceptable.  The Senior Principal Planning Officer Major Developments added there was no policy or guidance on the cumulative impact of tall buildings on World Heritage Sites.  The planning test was if a development would cause substantial or less than substantial harm, if less than substantial harm this had to be balanced against the benefits of the scheme.

The planning Officer confirmed Telcon Way was a private road.  The Thames Clipper won’t increase the PTAL level but bus improvements had the potential too.  The applicant had agreed a financial contribution towards Public Transport and to improve cycle and pedestrian routes, across the site and to the Thames Riverbank.

In respect of overshadowing the Planning Officer set out the negligent impact on sun and daylight levels to adjacent properties.  The Senior Principal Planning Officer Major Developments explained developments in the Borough had been approved with sunlight at similar levels of 48% with the lowest being 45.6%, on the Peninsula.

The Planning Officer confirmed the Education Team had expressed no concerns on school provision and funds had been secured from applicant towards improved active travel route.  The pollution level along school routes could not be mitigated by the applicant alone and various routes and mitigations were being considered that would minimise pedestrians exposure to road pollution.

The Planning Board accepted an address from Councillor Rowshan Hannan, Ward Councillor, who read a statement from the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Coordinator setting out their concerns at the cumulative effect of tall buildings on the Greenwich World Heritage Site (GWHS), the buffer zone and wider setting.   The idea of building heights “stepping down” to mitigate the impact was being undermined by the proposal which would have visual prominence, creating a “table topping” effect with the Morden Wharf Tower.

Councillor Hannan expressed her concern that the cumulative impact could lead to the stripping of World Heritage Status, like Liverpool.  Whilst there were positives to the proposal the tall block should be lower to reduce the impact on the GWHS and conservation areas.  She noted taller buildings created greater levels of CO2, due to mechanical ventilation, lifts, tumble dryers etc., contrary to the Councils carbon neutral objectives.  The commercial units should not be used for ‘last mile’ delivery services.

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

NB – The Board adjourned at 8.55pm, reconvening at 9.04pm

Ward: Kidbrooke Village and Sutcliffe

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission the erection of residential units, publicly accessible open space and associated access, car parking, cycle parking and landscaping, erection of a new pavilion building within the park.

Resolved that full planning permission be granted for the erection of residential units, publicly accessible open space and associated access, car parking, cycle parking and landscaping, erection of a new pavilion building within the park.

Consent 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 (obligations set out in Section 23 of the main report); and

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

That the Assistant Director, Planning & Building Control, be authorised to:

(i)           Make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and the addendum and the minutes of the Planning Board meeting, where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the final decision notice

(ii)         Finalise the detailed terms of the section 106 agreement (including appended documents) and form of the planning obligations as set out in Section 23 of the main report and the addendum and the minutes of this Planning Board meeting

(iii)        Consider, in the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within three (3) months of the date of this Planning Board resolution, whether consent should be refused on the grounds that the agreement has not been completed within the appropriate timescale, and that the proposals are unacceptable in the absence of the recommended planning obligations; and if the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, to determine the application with reasons for refusal which will include the following:

·     In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the necessary obligations regarding Affordable Housing, Wheel Chair units, Transportation, Healthcare, Telecommunication and radio signals, Play space, Employment and Training, and Sustainability, the development would fail to mitigate its impact on local housing supply, amenities and infrastructure, environmental sustainability and open space contrary to policies H1, H4, H5, H6, SI 2, SI 5, ad S4 of the London Plan (2021) and H3, H5, H(e), and E1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (Adopted July 2014), and the Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance SPD (July 2015).

Planning Board Members noted a public submission and that of the applicant and an addendum report was produced by Planning Officers which were circulated in advance of the meeting They accepted an illustrative presentation of the application from the Planning Officer.

The planning Officer confirmed the onsite trees had been assessed by and arborist, were of mixed variety and quality, which the Council’s Tree Officer was aware of.  The replacement trees would be semi mature and any which died within 5 years would be replaced.  Further, it was confirmed that where the residential units were proposed, was not designated Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and the principle of development in this location had been established by the existing permission.  The developer had also agreed to make a financial payment in line with that requested by the NHS.  Any further road or cycle path improvements would be captured by the s106 agreement.

Planning Board accepted an address from 2 residents who, speaking in objection to the proposal raised that the felling of 86 mature trees did not support a healthy air quality or the Councils’ climate change objectives.  That the buildings should be moved back in order to save all the trees.

The objectors also flet that theKidbrooke Villagedevelopment wasoverdeveloped and had seen an increase of 30%, on the approved plans. There was insufficient infrastructure and amenities, such as Doctors surgery’s, schools, etc., to support a further 10,000people ina relativelysmall area.  Train services from Kidbrooke Station to central London had been reduced. Alton Road was full of parked cars and congested, by parents taking children to the only primary school, rated high level, in the area.

That the design style was different to the existing development and needed to look more organic and be of a lower height.  Consent would make it difficult for the Planning Board to refuse amendments to the plan for the Blackheath Quarter.  The affordable housing offer would not be truly affordable to residents of the Borough on an average income.

In response to questions from Members, the speakers stated there was at least one Oak tree on site and several of the trees were substantially mature trees.  Whilst there were other schools in the area, they needed uplifting.

Planning Board accepted an address from two representatives from Thomas Tallis School who read a letter from the parent of a child at the school, which raised concerns that the felling of mature trees would add to emissions posing a health for children.  Students felt the area should be retained as common land and not be developed.

They said that Berkeley Homes had not contacted Thomas Tallis school about the development. The new trees would not bea satisfactoryexchange, for established trees capable of surviving dry weather.  They felt the removal of green spaces contradicted the LondonPlan andthe Councils’ Greener Greenwich Strategy and no replacement was proposed for loss of wildlife habitats.

The poor public transport, including overcrowded busses was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.