Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes.

Venue: Rooms 4 & 5, Town Hall, Wellington Street, Woolwich SE18 6PW. View directions

Contact: Jean Riddler  Email: jean.riddler@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or tel: 020 8921 5857

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Committee.

Minutes:

Apologies were received for Councillor Aiden Smith.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

It was noted that an Officers Addendum Report had been produced in respect of Item 5 – Blackheath Retail Park, which had been provided on a published Supplementary Agenda.

 

Members also noted that a public submission had been received in respect of Item 8 – The Golden Chippy.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 33 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:

Councillor Mark James declared a personal interest in Item 5 and requested Councillor Khan, as vice chair, took the chair for the entire meeting and he would not take part, as a Member of the Committee in the consideration or determination of the item 5.

 

Councillor O’Mara declared that she had reached a pre-determined decision on Item 8 and as such would take no part, as a Member of the Committee, in the consideration or determination of the item.  In line with Part 5,  paragraph 27 of the Council constitution she would be addressing the Committee as a Councillor. 

 

Councillor Scott-McDonald declared that she would not take part, as a Member of the Committee in the consideration or determination of

Item 9 as she would be making representation as a Ward Member. 

 

Councillor Lloyd declared a personal interest in Item 9, as an employee of Domino’s Pizza Co, but not the franchise the application related to. 

 

Resolved –

 

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

 

That the declarations made by Councillor’s M. James, O’Mara, Scott-McDonald and Lloyd be noted.

4.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 129 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2018.

 

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.

Minutes:

The Committee was advised that the vote in relation to Item 5 – 36 Kidbrooke Grove should have read 1 Member abstained.

 

Resolved -

 

That the amended minutes of the meeting of the Greenwich Area Planning Committee held on 16 January 2018 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

5.

Blackheath Retail Park, 100 Blackheath Road, Greenwich, SE10 8DA (17/3679/F) pdf icon PDF 315 KB

To consider granting planning permissionfor the construction of a single storey drive-thru coffee shop (Class A1/A3).

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to grant planning permissionfor the construction of a single storey drive-thru coffee shop (Class A1/A3), subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and as revised in the Addendum report.

Minutes:

The Planning Officer drew Members attention to the circulated addendum report and gave an illustrated presentation of the application which was based in a retail park adjacent to but not included in a Conservation Area.  That a transport plan had been submitted and the Council Transport Officers considered that the development could be accommodated.

 

In response to Members questions the Planning Officer advised that approximately four existing trees would be removed, none of which were covered by a Tree Protection Order (TPO) and would be replaced with new trees and landscaping.  He advised that there was no existing public footpath to the unit.

 

The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee who stated that in addition to the Councils Transport Officer, the TfL Officer found the proposal acceptable.  He confirmed that any trees removed would be replaced by new, as part of the landscaping.  The building was bespoke for Costa Coffee and development would commence as soon as construction was authorised by the Council.

 

In response to Members questions the applicant’s agent advised that the Coffee shop would be both ancillary to the retail park users and passing trade.  In respect of the possibility of HGV and large vehicles using the facility he stated that the drive through was height restricted but the retail park was not, but they were happy to look at this point further or it be conditioned.

 

In considering the application Members considered that the retail site would not be able to accommodate HGV’s or large vehicles but the proposed building was acceptable. 

 

Concerns were expressed that the drive through facility would generate more traffic and potential congestion on an already busy road.  Further, it did not fit in with the Councils active lifestyle policy.  Reservations were also expressed at the visual impact in relation to the adjacent Conservation Area.

 

The Chair reminded that Councillor M. James would not take part in the vote.

 

The Chair put the application to the vote with 3 Members for approval, 2 Members against and 8 abstentions.

 

Resolved –

 

That planning permission be granted for the construction of a single storey drive-thru coffee shop (Class A1/A3), subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and as revised in the Addendum report.

6.

Anchor Iron Wharf, Ballast Quay, Greenwich, SE10 (17/3124/F) pdf icon PDF 479 KB

To consider granting approve advertisement consent for the installation of a new shop front and two bi-fold doors.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to refuse approval for advertisement consentfor the installation of a new shop front and two bi-fold doors.

 

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (West) advised of a correction to the decision, as referenced at paragraph 1.1 of the report which should state that planning permission was sought, not advertising permission.   He gave an illustrative presentation of the application advising that the park and open space, in front of the entrance to the restaurant, had been secured as public open space under a s106 agreement.  An application had been received for the use of this area for table and chairs, which had been withdrawn.  He continued that officers felt that the fitting of bifold doors would offer symmetry to the building frontage. He noted that a number of the objections received were in relation to potential noise pollution with the doors open and the applicant had agreed to the hours during which the doors could be open be conditioned.          

 

In response to Members questions the Area Manager (West) confirmed that the application was not seeking a change of use and would be retained as a restaurant.  If agreed, the granting of the application would not authorise the use of the public open space for seating.  However, Planning Officers were aware of the previous concerns and that planning permission had previously been refused.

 

At the request of the Chair the Licensing Officer address the Committee advising that a condition existed, as part of the Licensing Agreement, that the doors and windows were to be closed and air conditioning be used instead.  That the License covered the playing of recorded music but not live music or entertainment and any breach of these conditions would affect the premises license not that of the Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS).

 

The Area Planning Committee accepted an address from a resident speaking in objection to the application for bifold doors which would open up the front of the building stating that there was currently no noise issue from the restaurant.  However, the restaurant had only recently opened, soundproofing between the restaurant and flats was good and all doors and windows were shut.  The bifold doors being opened in warmer weather would allow noise pollution and there would be a disproportionally negative impact on the residents.  Many residents were concerned that, in warmer weather, the bi-fold doors could be open from 9am to 11pm.  She noted that at the hearing to grant the premises licence a condition was applied that the applicant agreed that doors and windows should be kept shut and air conditioning used to address noise pollution from the premises.  She was concerned that the applicant would not comply with this agreement if the bi-fold doors were fitted. 

 

She further stated that many residents were concerned that the fitting of the bi-fold doors was the restaurants first step towards extending their activities onto the public open space, eventually seeking to use it for ancillary seating, as had been previously applied for. 

 

In response to a Members questions the resident advised that there had been a complaint made by residents in the flats above the restaurant regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Anchor Iron Wharf, Ballast Quay, Greenwich, SE10 (17/3125/A) pdf icon PDF 472 KB

To consider granting approve advertisement consent for the installation of an internally illuminated fascia sign.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to approve advertisement consent for the installation of an internally illuminated fascia sign, subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

Minutes:

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation of the application advising that the sign would be 200cd/m and the same style and dimensions as the existing one and was mainly just a change of name.  He advised at that paragraph 9.1 the previously approved scheme number should read 5/1923/F not 15/1924/A.

 

The Planning Committee Members moved straight to the vote with 6 Members for approval, 0 refusal and 0 abstentions.

 

Resolved unanimously –

 

That advertisement consent be approved for the installation of an internally illuminated fascia sign, subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

8.

The Golden Chippy - 62 Greenwich High Road (17/3320/A) pdf icon PDF 358 KB

To consider refusing advertisement consentfor the installation of externally illuminated 1.9m wide by 5.25m high wall sign (Retrospective).

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to refuse advertisement consentfor the installation of an externally illuminated 1.9m wide by 5.25m high wall sign (Retrospective).

 

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor O’Mara declared that she had reached a pre-determined decision on Item 8 and as such she would take not part, as a Member of the Committee in the consideration or determination of the item.  In line with Part 5, paragraph 27 of the Council constitution she would be addressing the Committee as a Councillor. 

 

The Planning Committee received an illustrative presentation from the Planning Officer who advised that the proposed advertisement was considered excessive.  It was illuminated by a 1.5 meter wide light at 267cd/m which was upward facing and creating light pollution to the adjacent residents.  She advised that paragraph 2.1 of the report, ‘public consultation’, should have read 12 letters of support and 1 letter of objection.

 

In response to Members questions the Planning Officer confirmed that there had been an advertising wall sign on the location, in the past, which had been smaller, not illuminated and not original to the construction of the building.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an address from Councillor O’Mara, Ward Councillor, who spoke in support of the Planning Officers recommendation of refusal.   That conservation areas were hard to achieve and needed to be preserved and granting of the application would undermine the conservation area, creating a precedent which could be used by other applicants.    She noted that the previous advertisement wall sign was there in the 1940’s and not relevant to this application.  She felt that Members had a responsibility to protect conservation areas which came as a package and it was not appropriate to pick and choose what was felt acceptable.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an address from a representative for the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area Group who spoke in support of the application advising that the Conservation Group shared the Ward Councillors regard for the Ashburnham Triangle but that the area must also reflect the present as well as the past.  That the notion of the area being retained as it was in the 19th century was not possible or appropriate.  That a petition in support of the advertisement wall sign had been signed by 400 residents living within the Ashburnham Triangle Conservation Area and a further 600 residents in adjacent areas.  The sign was not considered to be offensive either in character or appearance and did not harm the character of the Conservation Area or the nearby Grade II Listed Building.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an address from the applicant who said he was not aware of the issue of light pollution to the neighbouring flat and would ensure the illumination light was turned off and removed.  He showed the Committee a photograph of the 1940’s advertisement wall sign on the building and advised that the one he had erected was of very similar size and appearance.

 

In determining the application Members noted that there was a lot of support, via the petition and consultation responses for the advertisement wall sign and that the style of illustration was subjective. 

 

Comment was made that whilst it was a conservation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Domino Pizza - 201 Trafalgar Road (17/2223/F & 2649/A) pdf icon PDF 416 KB

To consider granting approve grant planning permission for the relocation of shop entrance door and installation of new roller shutters to shop front and installation of internally illuminated fascia signs and two internally illuminated projecting signs.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved to defer making a resolution on this matter.

Minutes:

Councillor Scott-McDonald declared that she would take not part, as a Member of the Committee, in the consideration or determination of

Item 9 but would be making representation as a Ward Member. 

 

Councillor Lloyd declared a personal interest in the item as an employee of Domino’s Pizza Co, but that he did not work for the applicant or any franchise within the Greenwich area.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an illustrated presentation from the Planning Officer

 

The Committee accepted an address from Councillor Scott-McDonald, Ward Councillor, who advised that a number of local residents had approached her regarding the application as there were long standing problems between the applicant and residents.  Not all the residents in Colomb Street had been consulted on the application. Residents were concerned that the level of antisocial behaviour, such as delivery drivers parking badly; noise from vehicle; drivers and staff shouting across the road to each other, had not been resolved, despite assurances from managers of the shop.  There was concern that the changes, proposed within the application, would only exacerbate this situation.

 

In response to a Planning Committee Members question Councillor Scott-McDonald stated that residents felt that the application should be refused and the applicant encouraged to engage with residents to address the issues relating to staff behaviour and delivery drivers parking in Colomb Street.

 

The Planning Committee accepted an address from a local resident who, in speaking in objection to the application, stated that the applicant had no respect or regard for their neighbours in Colomb Street.  That they had taken no steps to address the issues raised with them of the antisocial behaviour of customers and staff; deliveries arriving at 5am; constant parking issues relating to delivery drivers and the smell of overflowing rubbish.  The existing entrance could be adapted to level access and by moving the entrance to Trafalgar Road, the bins stored in that location would be moved to Colomb Street.

 

In response to Members questions the speaker clarified that the majority of antisocial behaviour related to parking, including car doors being slammed, shop staff and drivers talking and staff and drivers smoking in the street.  That all the residents’ bedrooms faced onto Colomb Street.  

 

The Assistant Director, Planning & Building Control, advised Members that whilst a number of concerns had been expressed relating to the operation of the premises Members should only consider the application before them.  Any planning conditions relating to the operation of the premises, which may have been or were breached could be enforced, otherwise, the Council had powers to address the issues of antisocial behaviour, parking and waste outside of planning.

 

In considering the application before them Members were concerned that the proposals would create a greater loss of amenity to the residents of Colomb Street through increased light pollution from the new shop signage.  By moving the main entrance to Trafalgar Road the waste bins would be moved to Colomb Street, creating a detrimental impact to residents.

 

Members noted that whilst the concerns around the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.