Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Board - Tuesday, 23rd July, 2024 6.30 pm

Venue: Committees Rooms 4, 5 & 6 - Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Jean Riddler  Email: committees@royalgreenwich.gov.uk

Note: SPEAKERS - The deadline to request to speak at this meeting is 5pm, Monday 22 July 2024. All requests to speak must be emailed to committees@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or in writing, handed in at the Town Hall, and received by 5pm on Monday 22 July 2024. An equal maximum of 7 speakers requests to speak in objection or support will be allowed, with priority to local residents. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS – Any and all photos, documents or written submissions must be emailed to committees@royalgreenwich.gov.uk no later than 5pm Thursday 18 July 2024 No further documents, photos, maps, etc. will be accepted for consideration at the meeting. This applies equally for public submissions and those of the applicant. It does not relate to Planning Officer’s addendum reports .  

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies from Members of the Board.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Maisie Richards Cottell.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Board accepted the Principal Planning Officers’ Addendum Report’s, circulated in advance of the meeting, in relation to -

·      Item 5 – Bridge House, 11 Crossmead, Eltham, London, SE9 3AA - Ref: 23/1950/F

·      Item 6 - Development Site at former Kidbrooke Park Primary School, Hargood Road, London.  SE9 1TD – Ref: 24/1164/F

 

The Planning Board also accepted three public submissions in respect of Item 5 – Bridge House, Ref: 23/1950/F.

 

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 48 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:

Minutes:

Resolved-

 

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

 

4.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 51 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record of the Minutes of the Planning Board meetings held on 23 January 2024 and 21 May 2024.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved –

 

That the Minutes of the meetings of the Planning Board held on 23 January 2024 and 21 May 2024 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

5.

Bridge House, 11 Crossmead, Eltham, London, SE9 3AA - Ref: 23/1950/F pdf icon PDF 656 KB

Ward: Mottingham, Coldharbour and New Eltham

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for development comprising demolition of existing dwelling and construction of part five/part three-storey residential development, with lower ground floor, including landscaping, amenity space, cycle parking, refuse and recycling facilities and other associated works.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that full planning permission for the development comprising demolition of existing dwelling and construction of part five/part three-storey residential development, with lower ground floor, including landscaping, amenity space, cycle parking, refuse and recycling facilities and other associated works be refused.

 

Reasons for refusal -

 

1.    The proposed development by reason of its overall scale, bulk, mass, and height would fail to respect the prevailing character of development within Crossmead and the verdant character of the Tarn. That harm when considered together with the lack of affordable housing would not outweigh the benefits of providing 31 additional dwellings within the site and would be contrary to policies DH1, DH(I) and H5 of the  Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies and policies H4 and H5 of the London Plan.

 

2.    The development by reason of its height, mass and proximity to neighbouring properties would result in an unreasonable loss of privacy and sense of overbearing, which would be significantly detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring occupants contrary to policy H(c) and DH(b) of the Core Strategy.

 

3.    The development by reason of  the scale and mass of the physical development and by introducing 31 additional households in such close proximity to The Tarn would fail to protect this as an important green space contrary to policy G6(a and d) and G1 of the London Plan which seek to protect London’s green open spaces and ensure development proposals manage impacts on biodiversity and Policy DH1 and OS(4) of the Core Strategy which seeks to ensure that the Boroughs biodiversity and geodiversity will be protected, restored and enhanced.

Minutes:

Planning Board Members confirmed receipt of submissions of written comments and photos from three residents and noted the Principal Planning Officers addendum report, circulated in advance of the meeting, and accepted an illustrative presentation of the application.

 

In response to Members questions the Principal Planning Officer advised there was norequired tomeet 10% biodiversity as this requirement came in after it scheme was submitted.

 

The application had been assessed against the London Plan carbon reduction guidance and was beyond the 35% reduction required which would continue to be reviewed during the demolition and construction phases.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed the viability report was a public document and had been published online with the application, the independent review was not in the public domain.  He assured Members the viability had been robustly tested by the Councils independent consultants who agreed, in planningterms, that the scheme could notprovide anyaffordable housingon site.   A payment in lieu, agreedby the independent assessorsas a reasonable amount,had been offered and noted this was becoming an increasingly common situation due to rising construction costs.

 

The Planning Manager (Major Developments) added that London Plan Policy H5 & H4, allowed viability to be tested and in exceptional circumstance, such as this one, the schemes could still be considered acceptable.  She also noted there were challenges finding a Registered Provider to take on single isolated units.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed the proposal would be viewable from The Tarn as were existing dwellings in Crossmead.  The Planning Manager (Major Developments) added it was felt the proposal would not be substantially out of character for the area notinga four story block in Court Road, a 3 storey block adjacent the proposal and a 4 to 5 storey building approved across the railway line in Middle Park Road.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed the development would occupy a larger footprint than the existing building, with some tress removed and replaced elsewhere on site.  The proposal was a car free development and the Highways Department had advised residents would not be eligible for controlled parking permits for the area.  There was one disabledparking bayon the public highway.

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed Thames Water and the Councils Flood Team were consulted regardingflooding and pressure on the sewers with no overriding objection to the principle of the proposal.  The Flood Team recommended a condition requiring a fully detailed scheme of drainage submitted, should planning consent be granted. 

 

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed there would be a separation of 3.22 metres between the flank wall of the development and 13 Crossmead.  The applicant had conducted a BREAM daylight and sunlight assessment which showed 13 Crossmead would still receive acceptable light levels to the front and rear primary windows with some light loss to the flank wall windows.  Due to orientation of the buildings, there would be negligible overshadowing, in the late afternoon to the garden of 13 Crossmead.

 

The Planning Manager (Major  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

 

N.B – At the culmination of consideration and vote on Item 5, Councillor Olu Babtola gave his apologies and left the meeting.

 

6.

Development Site At Former Kidbrooke Park Primary School, Hargood Road, London. SE9 1TD - Ref: 24/1164/F pdf icon PDF 519 KB

Ward: Kidbrooke Park Ward

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission be granted for redevelopment to provide a new SEN School (Use Class F1(a)) with access from Hargood Road and associated, parking, pupil drop off, external play spaces, roof top MUGA, hard and soft landscaping.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that full planning permission be granted for Redevelopment to provide a new SEN School (Use Class F1(a)) with access from Hargood Road and associated, parking, pupil drop off, external play spaces, roof top MUGA, hard and soft landscaping’

 

Consent Subject to:

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

(ii)      The satisfactory completion of a Director’s Agreement as per the head of terms set out within section 22 of this report.

 

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 Director’s Agreement (including appended documents) and form of the planning obligations as set out in this report (Section 22), its addendums and the minutes of this Planning Board meeting.

 

(iii)     Consider, in the event that a Director’s 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 Director’s agreement to secure the necessary obligations regarding carbon off-setting (alongside travel plan provisions and highway works), the development would fail to mitigate its impact climate change and would be contrary to policy SI2 of the London Plan 2021 and policy E1 of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (Adopted July 2014) and the planning Obligations (s106) Guidance SPD (adopted July 2015).

Minutes:

Planning Board Members noted the Principal Planning Officers addendum report, circulated in advance of the meeting, and acceptedan illustrativepresentation ofthe application.

 

In response to Members questions the Principal Planning Officer advised the London Plan Car Parking Policy did not apply to educational facilities.  That benchmarking assessments had been made against the level of onsite car parking provided at other SEN schools and the level proposed was acceptable.

 

A Member noted they were aware of a similar special needs school, with less parking, resulting in car parking issues in the area, for both residents and teachers.

 

A Member noted that there were no objections submitted and whilst it was accepted there was a climate emergency there was also an essential need for Special Educations Needs education provision in the Borough.

 

The applicants representatives were in attendance and responded to Members that the proposed level of parking provision was appropriate given that the catchment area for specialist teachers was wide and it was considered more neighbourly to have the parking on site.  Further, teachers had to be in attendance some time before pupils and the area had a low PTAL public transport rating.  The development was ready for building out, upon consent.

 

The Chair put the proposal to grant planning consent to the vote with -

8 Members in favour

0 Members against

0 Members abstaining

 

Resolved unanimously -

 

That full planning permission be granted for Redevelopment to provide a new SEN School (Use Class F1(a)) with access from Hargood Road and associated, parking, pupil drop off, external play spaces, roof top MUGA, hard and soft landscaping’

 

          Consent Subject to:

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

(ii)      The satisfactory completion of a Director’s Agreement as per the head of terms set out within section 22 of this report.

 

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 Director’s Agreement (including appended documents) and form of the planning obligations as set out in this report (Section 22), its addendums and the minutes of this Planning Board meeting.

 

(iii)    Consider, in the event that a Director’s 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 Director’s agreement to secure the necessary obligations regarding carbon off-setting (alongside  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.