Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies from Members of the Board.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Olu Babalola and apologies for lateness for Councillor Lade Hephzibah Olugbemi. 

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 4 – 2B Rathmore Road.  Ref: 23/4073/F

·        Item 5 – 1A & 1C Eynsham Drive. Ref: 24/0146/F

·        Item 6 – Land to the west of West Parkside and east of Millennium Way.  Ref: 24/1874/F

The Planning Board also accepted the applicant’s and public submissions in respect of Items 4 and 6.  Further late submissions was received from the applicant’s agent for Item 4 and 5 and public submission for Item 6, these were not circulated to Members but were forwarded directly to the Chair and Planning Officers.

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.

Councillor Gardner advised that he objected to and had called-in the application forland to the west of west Parkside and east of Millennium Way. Ref: 24/1874/F and, would recluse himself for this item.  

Resolved–

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

That Councillor Gardner’s declaration of pre-determination in respect of Item 6 be noted.

Ward: Greenwich Peninsula

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development comprising residential units (Use Class C3) and storage facility (Use Class B8) with associated amenity space, cycle and refuse storage.

Resolved that the matter be deferred to allow the applicant to reconsider the design and massing of the building, to revisit the proposed storage use with the aim of improving the development’s viability, and to provide further details of the proposed storage use and the viability of the development.

Members noted the Planning Officers addendum report and public submission and accepted the Planning Officer’s illustrative presentation of the application, recommending consent.

The Planning Officer confirmed to Members the ground floor storage facility was a required re-provision of industrial use and employment, currently a garage, and must be delivered prior to occupation of housing units.  The Gateway building at 2A Rathmore Road was of a unique architectural design for the area thought was not a National or Locally Listed building.  It was considered the proposal should be of a modern design rather than a pastiche of The Gateway, which would be constructed of brick and Planning Officers would agree the construction materials and colour pallet prior to commencement.  The entrances to both the storage and residential units were located in Rathmore Street, set back with new greening and footpath upgrades secured by s106.  There would be no change to the Victoria Road pavement and the visible trees were on Network Rail land, behind the site.  

The viability of the scheme had undergone two independent reviews, on behalf of the Council, and there would be an early and late stage review viability review.  The Planning Manager (Major Developments) added that the s106 payments were based on fixed figures set out by the London Plan formular and would be used to compare against any actual uplift in value.  Further, the offsite affordable housing offer would be ring fenced for New Build social housing.

Planning Board accepted address from two residents, who speaking in objection to the proposal, advised the garage was a thriving independent business, with a 5^th employee starting in December and there were 3 storage units within 600 metres.  That the council had a duty to protect successful business and this could set a president for closing such.  At five storeys it would be out of keeping with the heights of the properties in Rathmore Road and create overlooking and overshadowing of existing homes and gardens and it should be reduced to 3 storeys.  The design did not reflect the Edwardian architecture of Rathmore way or Victoria Way and there was no play provision on site.

In response to Members questions the speakers stated that the housing opposite would have direct views into the development as they could already clearly see the top of the garage building.  The proposal was too high, too dense and the limited footpath space on the corner would be exacerbated.  That the illustrations did not accurately show the natural typography of the land, which increase up Victoria Way, it would be unique building, but not in a good way.

Planning Board accepted an address from the applicant’s agent who set out the history, design, and development details, reiterating the offer of the proposal.  In response to Members Questions they advised that an operator for the storage units had not been engaged yet, so it was not possible to confirm the number of units. That assessments on deliveries to the units was based on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Ward: Abbey Wood

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the demolition of existing car wash and pet hospital and any associated structures and the re-development of the site for a mixed-use development, including buildings, comprising a re-provided pet hospital (E(e)) floorspace, co-living accommodation (sui generis), hotel accommodation (C1 use), car parking spaces, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping measures including playspace provision and refuse and recycling facilities.

Resolved that full planning permission be granted for the demolition of existing car wash and pet hospital and any associated structures and the re-development of the site for a mixed-use development, including buildings, comprising a re-provided pet hospital (E(e)) floorspace, co-living accommodation (sui generis), hotel accommodation (C1 use), car parking spaces, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping measures including playspace provision and refuse and recycling facilities.

That consent is 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 32), as set out in the report and its addendum.

(iii)         The Conditions set out in Appendix 2 and its 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 the report (Appendix 2), its addendums and the minutes of this 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 this report (Section 32), its addendums 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, transport and highway works, cycling infrastructure, public realm improvements, employment and training and sustainability the development would fail to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities and infrastructure, environmental sustainability and open space contrary to policies H1, H4, H5, SI 2, SI 3, T2, T4, T9 and DF1 of the London Plan (2021) and H3, EA(c), E1, CH(a), IM1, IM4, IM(a), IM(b) and IM(c) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (Adopted July 2014), and the Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance SPD (July 2015).

Members noted the Planning Officers addendum report and accepted the Planning Officers illustrative presentation of the application, which recommended approval.

The Planning Officer confirmed the proposal will be the same scale and similar number of units as the extant consent and the active travel route, to the train station, had been assessed and an active travel contribution had been secured.  That co-living developments were not required to provide on-site affordable housing.

The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control, added that co-living provided self-contained double bedrooms with managed onsite facilities and services with long term rental periods and was not aimed at families.  Co-living was different to family home conversions to HMO’s. 

The Planning Board accepted a residents address who speaking in objection advised they were not against development or changes to the area, but it needed to be the right sort of development.  The previous residential proposal for the site had been refused by the Planning Board, in 2018, being overturned and approved on referral to the Mayor of London, however, it remained an overdevelopment of the site, creating overshadowing and unacceptable mass and would not be in line with the SPD, which sought to preserve the village nature of Abbey Wood.  Co-living was not an alternative to social housing, seeking to raise profit and the cost of viability and the off-site housing offer should be ring-fenced to family housing provision in Abbey Wood.  The consultation level was low and the development will need the support of local residents, further, it should be conditioned that a management agent, for the co-living element, should be engaged before the development commences.

In response to Members questions the speaker asked that the Board not take account of any previous decision, as this was not material to the current proposal.  There was a greater need for family housing to meet the needs of people on the housing waiting list.

The Planning Board accepted an address from the Head of Estates for the PDSA (Peoples Dispensary for Sick Animals) who set out the services and community provided by the PDSA Abbey Wood Clinic and speaking in supported of the application welcomed the modern, improved reprovision of the PDSA clinic and 34 jobs that would be retained.

In response to Members questions the Head of Estates for the PDSA advised a phased development approach would allow the Clinic to continue to operate.  The PDSA had experience of colocation provision with housing and an established and robust waste management process.  The level of parking sought was deemed acceptable for the use of both staff, who would be working unsocial hours and patients who had large pets or needed emergency attendance and had to travel across the Borough.

The applicants Planning Consultant and Architect addressed the Planning Board who set out the history, design, development details and engagement process and reiterated the offer of the proposal including how co-living functioned for the residents and the support from and to the PDSA.

In response to Members Questions the applicants  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Ward: Greenwich Peninsula

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the Retention of Temporary Decked Car Park for a period of up to 10 years.

Resolved that full planning permission be granted for the retention of Temporary Decked Car Park for a period of up to 10 years.

That Consent was subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2 its addendum.

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

Councillor Gardner advised that as he objected to, and had called-in the application, he recused himself as a voting Planning Board Member, for this item.   

Members noted submissions from members of the public and the applicant, supplied to them in advance of the meeting and accepted the Planning Officers addendum report, published in advance of the meeting, and an illustrative presented of the application, which recommended approval.

The Planning Manager (Major Developments) confirmed the proposal was up to 10 year’s temporary use and earlier release of the land for development relied on achieving trigger points in the wider development.

As Councillor Lade Hephzibah Olugbemi left the meeting for a period, during the Officers presentation, she was unable to participate further in the debate or vote on this application.

The Planning Board accepted an address from Councillor David Gardner as a Greenwich Peninsula Ward Councillor, who in speaking in objection raised the parking level on the Greenwich Peninsula exceeded the 2000, as agreed in the Greenwich Plan, and was greater than the rest of the Borough.  The area fell within the highest PTAL level of public transport.  The area exceeded the WHO pollution levels and more action should be taken to mitigate the pollution or particulate levels from electric cars, such as greening.  He considered the car park was unsightly and, if agreed, the structure should be fitted with Solar Panels or other renewables power.  The original consent was for 10 years and the site should now be developed for housing.

In response to Members questions, Councillor Gardner felt that there were sufficient parking spaces without the retention of the car park.  The coach parking was leased out and not used for O2 events. 

The Planning Board accepted an address from the applicant’s representative who re-iterated the proposal advising it was in line with legal agreements and the effective use of land to provide properties quickly, explaining the position of land plot usage as part of the overall Peninsula development.

In response to Members questions the applicant’s representative’s and Agent advised that it was a functional car park, with no changes in appearance proposed.  Any additional landscaping would also be temporary and would redirect money from the housing redevelopment in the Peninsula .  As a temporary structure, without a roof, solar panels may not be possible but further investigations would be made into this.  The development of the Peninsula was a phased approach, working to the centre and the temporary car park would be released as soon as possible.  The re-configuring of roads and bus routes would negate any issues in relation of congestion with public transport. 

In determining the application, a Member noted that the O2 and Knight Dragon were important partners to the Borough and it could be considered unreasonable to expect them to beautify a temporary structure.  They expressed concern at the request for 10 years, rather than a shorter period and possibility of further extensions.

The Chair put the recommendation to grant temporary planning consent to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.