Venue: Committees Rooms 4, 5 & 6 - Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Jean Riddler Email: committees@royalgreenwich.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence To receive apologies from Members of the Board. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Olu Babatola, Sandra Bauer, and Danny Thorpe. |
|
Urgent Business The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda. Additional documents: Minutes: The Plannig Board accepted the Planning Officers’ addendum report(s), circulated in advance of the meeting, in relation to all applications presented on the agenda.
The Plannign Board also accepted the applicant’s and public submissions in respect of Items 5 and 6. |
|
Declarations of Interest 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.
|
|
Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2024. Additional documents: Minutes: Resolved –
That the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board held on 23 July 2024 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record. |
|
Enderby Place, Telcon Way, Greenwich, London, SE10 0AG - Ref:23/3911/F Ward: East Greenwich The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the erection of part-4, part-24, part-24, part-33 storey buildings (with basements), 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 [Amended Description]. Additional documents:
Decision: Resolved that full planning permission be granted for the erection of part-4, part-24, part-24, part-33 storey buildings (with basements), 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 [Amended Description]
That it be noted that this application is an EIA development and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement Addendum.
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 Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section 30); and (iii) The Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and the addendums;
Minutes: The application was considered by the Planning Board meeting of 21 May 2024. It was resolved to defer the matter to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to concerns regarding the height of the tallest component of the proposal. The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the amended proposal.
The Planning Officer informed Members the applicant had confirmed they had rights of access over Telcon Way, in respect of the access arrangements to and from the site. A further day and sunlight assessment was undertaken, factoring in the proposed Morden Wharf development as originally tested and considering the proposed amendments to the scheme. This was considered acceptable and in-line with the original assessment. In addition to the S106 the applicant had agreed a financial contribution to support NHS infrastructure in the area.
Planning Board accepted an address from the East Greenwich Residents Association (EGRA) representative speaking in objection to the proposal. They raised concern at the inadequate maintenance of the flood defences and Thames foreshore within the area, noting that components had been eroded, compromising the defences. That also set out the development should not process until the flood defences were repaired.
Planning Board accepted an address from the Greenwich Society representative who expressed that at 33 floors the tallest block would continue to adversely impact the integrity of the Greenwich World Heritage Site, retaining concern that UNESCO would remove World Heritage Status, as they had in Liverpool and felt there should be further hight reduction, creating a lower, uniform height across the development. Further, that the Greenwich Society, with other organisations, was in discussions with the Morden Wharf developer regarding a potential reduction in the height of the yet-to-be-constructed towers and should not be considered as a de-facto height.
Members noted the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Co-ordinator had withdrawn their objection. The Greenwich Society representative advised that, to their knowledge, neither the Co-Ordinator nor the applicant had informed UNESCO of the proposed development height. The Planning Board received an address from a resident of an adjacent block who was concerned that the minutes of the previous meeting set out that the Planning Officer had indicated a separation distance of 16 metres between their home and the development, when the diagrams demonstrate an actual distance of 12.9 metres. They referred the Members to the 2023 Supreme Court’s Tate Gallery ruling which addressed public nuisance concerns in relation to separation distances. Further, the proposal represented an overdevelopment of a small site and failed to achieve a balance of taller buildings alongside mid-rise blocks and should align with the existing tallest building in Enderby wharf, at 13 stories. The removal of the cruise liner terminal had removed the rational for the construction of a landmark building.
In response to Members questions the speaker indicated there would be a significant negative impact on the light and privacy of their home, primarily affecting the living room and the second bedroom.
Planning Board received a further address from a resident ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
NB - Planning Board adjourned at 08.15pm; reconvening at 08:38pm Additional documents: |
|
Ward: Greenwich Peninsula The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for redevelopment of the site to deliver a mixed-use development comprising residential units (Use Class C3) with ground floor commercial space (Use Class E), a nursery (Use Class E), Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (Use Class Sui Generis), a new self-storage facility (Use Class B8), light Industrial workspace / incubator units (Use Class E(g)(iii)) and other associated infrastructure.
Additional documents:
Decision: Resolved that full planning permission be granted for the redevelopment of the site to deliver a mixed-use development comprising residential units (Use Class C3) with ground floor commercial space (Use Class E), a nursery (Use Class E), Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (Use Class Sui Generis), a new self-storage facility (Use Class B8), light Industrial workspace / incubator units (Use Class E(g)(iii)) and other associated infrastructure.
That it be noted that the application is an EIA development and is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and Environmental Statement Addendum.
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 Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section 30); and (iii) Conditions set out in Appendix 2 and the addendums and following additional · Informative - That the applicant and Studio 338 engage in constructive consultations moving forwards to establish positive ongoing relations in order that both Studio 338 and the proposed development can co-exist successfully.
· Condition 25 – C -those alternative finishes and external materials to the shelf storage unit be proposed with the view to softening the building’s appearance and making it an iconic design.
That the Assistant Director- Planning and 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 (including appended documents and form of the planning obligations as set out in this report (Section 30), its addendums and the minutes of this Planning Board meeting
(iii) Consider, in the event that the Section 106 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, health and education infrastructure, transport and highway works, public transport enhancements, public realm improvements, employment and training, 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, H7, H8, S2, SI 2, SI 3, T2, T4, T9 and DF1 of the London Plan (2021) and H3, H5, H(e), EA4, EA(c), OS1, E1, CH(a), IM1, IM4, IM(a) and IM(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (Adopted July 2014), and the Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance SPD (July 2015).
Minutes: Planning Board noted the Planning Officers addendum report and accepted an illustrative presentation of the proposal from the Senior Principal Planning Officer who confirmed the self-storage unit was for individual households and small business and integral to the development; the comments of the Urban Design Manger were presented in the report. A trip assessment had been verified and the Highways Department and TfL had no objections. A contribution had been secured to improved sustainable travel and the Health & Safety executive (HSE) had withdrawn their objection following further discussions with the applicant over fire concerns in relation to the covered car park.
The Planning Manager (Major Developments) confirmed that the S106 monies were linked to occupation levels and were detailed to be spent on the scheme and could be used to increase cycling safety.
The Assistant Director, Planning and Building Control clarified that the self-storage unit formed part of the totality of the scheme and could not be separated off, however, Members could propose a change of colour or material in relation to the self-storage element.
The Senior Principal Planning Officer advised that the addendum report addressed the issues raised in document from Dadds LLP Solicitors for Studio 338, submitted to the Board after the deadline for such, as it had previously been submitted directly to Planning.
Planning Board accepted an address from the representative for the East Greenwich Residents Association who noted that EGRA did not normally object to Greenwich Peninsula developments but were concerned as the proposal for residential units between and adjacent to the 12-lane A2, accessing the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels, and the Millenium Way dual carriageway. It was considered there would be a significant health risk to the residents, due to the extremely polluted environment and references the coroners findings relating to a child’s death from asthma which was aggravated by pollution from the South Circular Road.
A Member sought EGRA’s comments on the condition of foot paths and roadways in terms of use for cycling and walking around the Tunnel Avenue area, to which they responded that the foot bridge was strewn with broken glass and debris. Tunnel Avenue was used by HGVs and poorly maintained and many people avoided using it if alternatives were available.
The Solicitor for Studio 338 Nightclub addressed Planning Board, advised it was recognised as on the of the top six nightclubs globally, attracting around 3,000 people each Friday and Saturday night and operated with a 24 hour licence to generate music. He highlighted Condition 24, mandating noise mitigation scheme(s) in relation to music and amplified noise emissions from Studio 338 which should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. He expressed great concerns regarding transparency, emphasising the importance of Studio 338’s involvement in discussions, urging Members to amend the Condition to require this be evaluated by the Planning Board rather than Officers, citing the Members' responsibility to safeguard Studio 338 in accordance with the Agent of Change principle. He advised that previous noise complaints had been ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
2B Rathmore Road, Charlton, London, SE7 7QW - Ref: 23/4073/F 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.
Additional documents:
Decision: Resolved that, due to time constraints consideration of the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Planning Board. Minutes: Members acknowledged the addendum report from the Planning Officers, which was distributed prior to the meeting. They expressed that, given the time (approximately 10:30 PM) and the depth of inquiry deemed essential for a thorough evaluation of the application, they would postpone the application for discussion at the subsequent Planning Board meeting.
The Chair put the proposal to defer consideration of the application to the vote with 6 Members in favour 0 Members against 0 Members in favour
Resolved –
That consideration of the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Planning Board.
|
|
Victoria House, 405 Shooters Hill Road, London, SE18 4LH - Ref: 23/2747/F Ward: Woolwich Common The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the partial demolition of the existing building and addition of rear, third floor of accommodation, and basement extensions with retention of the existing front façade, gable ends and part of the rear façade for a change of use from Sui Generis to provide a care home (Use Class C2), with parking, access, landscaping, and other associated works. Additional documents:
Decision: Resolved that full planning permission be granted for partial demolition of the existing building and addition of rear, third floor of accommodation, and basement extensions with retention of the existing front façade, gable ends and part of the rear façade for a change of use from Sui Generis to provide a care home (Use Class C2), with parking, access, landscaping and other associated works.
That consent be subject to: (i) The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section 24); and (ii) Conditions set out in Appendix 2 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 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 24), 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 transportation and public realm improvements, employment and training, affordable care home bedspaces, sustainability, and healthcare the development would fail to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities and infrastructure, environmental sustainability, heritage and conservation, and open space contrary to London Plan (2021) Policies HC1, DH3, DH4 T2, T4, T5, SI 2, SI 7, SI 4, GG3, DF1, the Mayor’s Eliminating Violence Against Women and Girls (EVAWG) strategy, Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (Core Strategy) (2014) Policies CH2, DH(h), DH(j), DH1, DH3, EA(c), E1, IMI, the Royal Borough of Greenwich Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance SPD (July 2015), the Greener Greenwich Supplementary Planning Document (2016), Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2023). Minutes: Members noted the Planning Officers addendum report, which was distributed prior to the meeting and informed the Chair that they had reviewed the report and did not need a presentation from the Planning Officer.
The Planning Officer advised that the original historic main façade and gable ends would constitute the frontage along Shooters Hill Road and Academy. Although a roof extension would be partially visible from the street, it was deemed acceptable.
The Chair put the Planning recommendation to grant full planning consent to the vote with 6 Members in favour 0 Members against 0 Members abstaining
Resolved unanimously -
Tthat full planning permission be granted for partial demolition of the existing building and addition of rear, third floor of accommodation, and basement extensions with retention of the existing front façade, gable ends and part of the rear façade for a change of use from Sui Generis to provide a care home (Use Class C2), with parking, access, landscaping, and other associated works.
That consent be subject to: (i) The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section 24); and (ii) Conditions set out in Appendix 2 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 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 24), 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 transportation and public realm improvements, employment and training, affordable care home bedspaces, sustainability, and healthcare the development would fail to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities and infrastructure, environmental sustainability, heritage and conservation, and open space contrary to London Plan (2021) Policies HC1, DH3, DH4 T2, T4, T5, SI 2, SI 7, SI 4, GG3, DF1, the Mayor’s Eliminating Violence Against Women and Girls (EVAWG) strategy, Royal Greenwich Local Plan: Core Strategy with Detailed Policies (Core Strategy) (2014) Policies CH2, DH(h), DH(j), DH1, DH3, EA(c), E1, IMI, the Royal Borough of Greenwich Planning Obligations (s106) Guidance SPD (July 2015), the Greener Greenwich Supplementary Planning Document (2016), Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990, ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |