Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

Contact: Jasmine Kassim  Email: jasmine.kassim@royalgreenwich.gov.uk or tel: 020 8921 5146

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Board.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received on behalf of Councillor Sajid Jawaid.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There were no items of urgent business for consideration by the Board.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 48 KB

Members to declare any personal and prejudicial 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 David Grant declared a personal interest in relation to Item 4, “Sainsbury's and Former Comet Stores, 55 & 57 Bugsby's Way, Greenwich, SE10”, advising that he had expressed an opinion on the proposal as a Ward Member.

 

Councillor Steve Offord declared a personal interest in relation to Item 6, “Garages to Rear of 57 Coldbath Street, Lewisham SE13”, advising that he had expressed an opinion on the proposal by virtue of his responsibility as the Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing.

 

Councillor Chris Roberts declared a personal interest in relation to Item 7, “Phase 4, The Warren / Royal Arsenal, Plumstead Road, Woolwich, SE18 (Section 73)”, and Item 8, “Phase 4 (Block E), The Warren / Royal Arsenal, Plumstead Road, Woolwich, SE18”, advising that he resides within the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich.

 

The meeting noted that Councillors Grant, Offord and Roberts would leave the room during discussions on the issues for which they had declared an interest, and that they would not vote on the respective proposal(s).

 

Resolved –

 

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on Outside Bodies, Joint Committees and School Governing Bodies, be noted.

4.

Sainsbury's and Former Comet Stores, 55 & 57 Bugsby's Way, Greenwich, SE10 pdf icon PDF 311 KB

Members to consider planning application (all matters reserved except access and layout) for the redevelopment of the site to provide one non-food retail unit (Class A1) of up to 33,000 square metres gross floor area, service yard and associated infrastructure.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

That Outline Planning Permission (all matters reserved except access and layout) for the redevelopment of the site that is located within the Greenwich Millennium Retail Park be granted, in order to provide one non-food retail unit (Class A1) of up to 33,000 square metres gross floor area, service yard and associated infrastructure, subject to:

·                    Referral to the Mayor of London;

·                    The satisfactory completion of a planning obligations agreement;

·                    The conditions set out in section 4.3 of the report

 

And to include into the Section 106 Legal Agreement:

 

·                    A requirement for an independent review of the traffic impact of the development within a year of commencement of trading, and annually thereafter for a period of up to 5 years, in order to assess the effectiveness of the Travel Plan, and to undertake mitigation measures as appropriate; and

A requirement that the developer agrees the ecology details with the Planning Authority prior to undertaking construction work.

Minutes:

Councillor David Grant declared a personal interest in relation to this Item, advising that he had expressed an opinion on the proposal as a Ward Member.  Councillor Grant left the room and did not take part in the discussions or vote on the proposal.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrative presentation to the report, recommending to the Board to grant Outline Planning Permission (all matters reserved except scale and layout) for the redevelopment of the proposed application site within the Greenwich Millennium Retail Park. 

 

The Board noted the report and the additional conditions circulated at the meeting, together with correspondence received after the agenda was published.  It was recognised that the proposal related to the construction of one non-food retail unit, service yard and associated infrastructure to support the operation of an IKEA retail store.  The existing building on the site, from which Sainsbury’s was currently operating, was to be demolished for the proposed development to take place.

 

In light of an enquiry, the Officer advised an amendment to the report, stating that the opening times for “Saturday” under Condition 16 on Page 9 should read “09.00hrs to 22.00hrs”.  It was confirmed that the revision would be reflected in the Travel Plan.

 

Ten residents, together with representatives of community groups, namely, the Green Party, Charlton Society, Westcombe Society, East Greenwich Residents’ Association, Greenwich Conservation Group, and Charlton Central Residents’ Association addressed the meeting individually with their objections to the proposal.

 

The residents and group representatives expressed similar concerns to the Board.  It was stated that the design of the proposed building would represent a massive blue box, and that would create an overdevelopment when set against other retail properties in the environment.  It would be unreasonable to demolish the existing building in its current ecology and wildlife habitat setting and replace with the proposed development.  Members were also reminded that the existing building on the site had won an award for its design and sustainability.  The residents were also of the view that parking would be inadequate because additional provision had not been made in spite of the likelihood of increased vehicle movements in the area once the proposed IKEA retail store becomes operational. 

 

The residents and group representatives continued by advising the Board that, given that the types of merchandise commonly sold at IKEA stores were larger in size than normal retail purchases, it was a disservice of Council officers to specify in the report that a significantly higher proportion of journeys to and from the proposed site would be made by public transport, on foot or bicycle.  On the contrary, the operation of the proposed IKEA retail store would lead to increased vehicle movements in an already congested area, which would impact adversely on living conditions of residents.  The residents pointed out to the Board that the unacceptable congestion and deterioration in air quality would likely affect neighbouring areas at Trafalgar Road and the Blackwall Tunnel, and that could undermine the tourism  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Garages adjacent. to 25 Walnut Tree Road, SE10 pdf icon PDF 184 KB

Members to consider planning application for the demolition of existing and construction of 3x2-bed bungalows for people over 60.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That Planning Permission be granted for the demolition of existing garages and construction of 3x2-bed bungalows for people over 60, Subject to the conditions set out in section 3 the report, and a requirement to revise Condition 2 in the report, to include submission of a detailed design of the upper windows of the front elevation in order to facilitate the practicality of future occupants being able to operate and clean the windows without having to employ a window cleaner.

Minutes:

Councillor Steve Offord declared a personal interest in relation to this Item, advising that he had expressed an opinion on the proposal by virtue of his responsibility as the Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing.  Councillor Offord left the room and did not take part in the discussions or vote on the proposal.

 

On behalf of the Board, the Chair advised the meeting that this Item would be considered together with Item 6, “Garages of Rear of 57 Coldbath Street, Lewisham SE13”, because the proposals were related.  It was stated that both application sites were in the same vicinity to each other.  The dwellings on the sites would incorporate a butterfly roof design clad in zinc to relate to the type and colour of the existing Victorian houses in the locality.

 

In relation to this Item, the Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrative presentation to the report, recommending to the Board to grant Planning Permission for the demolition of the existing garages and the construction of 3x2-bed bungalows for people over 60 years of age.  It was stated that new houses would be single storey and would consist of a short terrace to the south of 25 Tyler Street.

 

The Board noted the report, and that dwellings to the south of 25 Tyler Street would have a maximum height of around 5.6 meters, and each unit would have a garden area of between 33 and 34 square metre.  No parking would be provided. 

 

Two residents addressed the meeting individually with objections to the proposal, and they expressed similar concerns.  The Board was advised that the designs of the proposed houses were out of keeping with existing residential dwellings in the neighbourhood.  The construction would result in the loss of green space and trees in the locality.  Also, because the proposed houses would be built in an already developed area, the sewage system would likely be overloaded. 

 

The residents further advised the Board that they were disappointed because responses to their concerns during the consultation exercise were pending.  Also, the developer had ignored residents’ suggestion at one of the consultation meetings to defer submission of the application for a site visit by Members of the Board, in order to enable them to assess the implications of the development in the surrounding environment.  Therefore, the Board should reject the application for inadequate and incomplete information.

 

In response to questions raised, the Officer advised the Board that adequate consultation was undertaken in relation to the application.  In addition to liaising with statutory bodies, 44 letters of notification were sent to individual residents in dwellings close to the site, and a site notice was published prior to submission to the Board for consideration.  Following the consultation, concerns expressed by residents about sewers, green space and trees and the design of the units were addressed, and the responses were outlined under Section 7 of the report across Pages 9 to13.

 

The architect for the applicant also addressed the meeting.  He clarified to the Board that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Garages to Rear of 57 Coldbath Street, Lewisham SE13 pdf icon PDF 158 KB

Members to consider planning application for the demolition of existing garages and construction of 4x2-bed bungalows for people over 60.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That Planning Permission be granted for the demolition of existing garages and construction of 3x2-bed bungalows for people over 60, Subject to the conditions set out in section 3 the report, and a requirement to revise Condition 2 in the report, to include submission of a detailed design of the upper windows of the front elevation in order to facilitate the practicality of future occupants being able to operate and clean the windows without having to employ a window cleaner.

Minutes:

Councillor Steve Offord declared a personal interest in relation to this Item, advising that he had expressed an opinion on the proposal by virtue of his responsibility as the Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing.  Councillor Offord left the room and did not take part in the discussions or vote on the proposal.

 

The Chair reminded the meeting that this Item had been considered under Item 5, “Garages adjacent to 25 Walnut Tree Road, SE10” because the proposals were related.  It was stated that both application sites were in the same vicinity to each other.  The dwellings on the sites would incorporate a butterfly roof design clad in zinc to relate to the type and colour of the existing Victorian houses in the locality. 

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) had advised that this Item related to a proposal for the construction of 4x2-bed bungalows for people over 60 years of age.  It was stated that although the new houses would be single store, they would be arranged as two semi-detached pairs fronting Russet Way and Nectarine Way. The Officer recommended that the Board should approve this latter proposal.

 

In regards to dwellings that would front Russet Way and Nectarine Way, the Board had noted that the maximum height would be approximately 5.6 metres, and that each unit would have a garden area of between 76 and 103 square meters.  It was recognised that one off street disabled car parking space would be provided, and that would be accessed from Nectarine Way.

 

The Board noted that the concerns expressed by the two residents under Item 5, “Garages adjacent to 25 Walnut Tree Road, SE10” applied to this Item, together with the response provided by the Officer in relation to the adequacy of the consultation on the application.  Except in this circumstance, the concerns expressed by residents and the responses were outlined in Section 7 of the report across Pages 9 to 13. 

 

Also in regards to this application, the architect for the applicant’s response to the Board only related to information that the pre-application assessment showed evidences that the drainage system in the area would not be affected as a result of the proposed development, and that the foundation of the new houses would be solid because the construction statement had been assessed as adequate.

 

The meeting noted that the Board had expressed satisfaction that the development relevant because it would provide additional affordable homes.  That would minimise demands on the Council’s housing waiting list.

 

It was recognised that the proposal to this Item was voted upon during consideration of Item 5, “Garages adjacent to 25 Walnut Tree Road, SE10”, and that the Board had

 

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That Planning Permission be granted for the demolition of existing garages and construction of 4x2- bed bungalows for people over 60, subject to the conditions set out in section 3 the report.

7.

Phase 4, The Warren / Royal Arsenal, Plumstead Road, Woolwich, SE18 (Section 73) pdf icon PDF 276 KB

Members to consider application for Minor Material Amendments and Variation of Condition 38 (Approved Plans) of Outline Planning Permission, dated 9.3.2012 (Ref: 11/2382/O), replacing drawing no. P1007 Rev. E (Residential Tenure Plan) with drawing no. AA3812/2.1/0104 (Proposed Residential Tenure Plan), increasing residential units from 592 to 631.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That application for Minor Material Amendments and Variation of Condition 38 (Approved Plans) of Outline Planning Permission, dated 9.3.2012 (Ref: 11/2382/O), replacing drawing no. P1007 Rev. E (Residential Tenure Plan) with drawing no. AA3812/2.1/0104 (Proposed Residential Tenure Plan), increasing residential units from 592 to 631be approved, subject to:

 

·                    The satisfactory completion of a Supplemental Section 106 Legal Agreement;

·                    The issuing of a new planning permission in respect of Ref: 11/2382/O for the construction of 631dwellings and 4,688m² of non-residential floor space (A1/A2/A3/A5/B1/D1) with full details of 165 Senior Living Units, 2 basement levels and ground floor commercial uses with associated landscaping, access, car parking, cycle parking and refuse and recycling facilities; and

·                    Conditions set out in Section 3.4 of the report.

Minutes:

Councillor Chris Robert declared a personal interest in relation to this Item, advising that he resides within the Royal Arsenal.  Councillor Roberts left the room and did not take part in the discussions or vote on the proposal.

 

The Board noted recommendation in the report that it should approve a Minor Material Amendments and Variation of Condition 38 (Approved Plans) of Outline Planning Permission dated 9.3.2012 (Ref: 11/2382/O).  The Board

 

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That application for Minor Material Amendments and Variation of Condition 38 (Approved Plans) of Outline Planning Permission, dated 9.3.2012 (Ref: 11/2382/O), replacing drawing no. P1007 Rev. E (Residential Tenure Plan) with drawing no. AA3812/2.1/0104 (Proposed Residential Tenure Plan), increasing residential units from 592 to 631be approved, subject to:

 

·                   The satisfactory completion of a Supplemental Section 106 Legal Agreement;

·                   The issuing of a new planning permission in respect of Ref: 11/2382/O for the construction of 631dwellings and 4,688m² of non-residential floor space (A1/A2/A3/A5/B1/D1) with full details of 165 Senior Living Units, 2 basement levels and ground floor commercial uses with associated landscaping, access, car parking, cycle parking and refuse and recycling facilities; and

·                   Conditions set out in Section 3.4 of the report.

8.

Phase 4 (Block E), The Warren / Royal Arsenal, Plumstead Road, Woolwich, SE18 pdf icon PDF 266 KB

Members to consider Reserved Matters application for appearance of internal layout and landscaping pursuant to Condition 1 of Outline Planning Permission, dated the 9th March 2012 (Ref: 11/2382/O) for 126 residential units within Block E.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That application for Reserved Matters for appearance, internal layout and landscaping pursuant to Condition 1 of Outline Planning Permission, dated the 9th March 2012 (Ref: 11/2382/O) for 126 residential units within Block E be approved, subject to:

 

·        Approval of application reference 13/3261/MA;

·        Conditions set out in the approved Outline Planning Permission for Phase 4, The Warren / Royal Arsenal (Ref: 11/2382/O), dated 9.3.2012; and

·        Conditions set out in Section 3.2 of the report.

Minutes:

Councillor Chris Roberts declared a personal interest in relation to this Item, advising that he resides within the Royal Arsenal.  Councillor Roberts left the room and did not take part in the discussions or vote on the proposal.

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Development) gave an illustrative presentation to the report, recommending to the Board to approve the proposal in the report.

 

The Board noted the report, and that the proposal related to a Minor Material Amendments and Variation of Condition 38 (Approved Plans) of Outline Planning Permission dated 9th March 2012 (Ref: 11/2382/O).

 

In response to questions raised, the Officer advised the Board that although no family-sized units were earmarked under the proposal, they would be delivered elsewhere as outlined in Paragraph 6.7 under the heading “Residential Mix” of Page 12 of the report.  The Board also received clarification by the Officer that the communal area of the proposed development would serve as a designated space for walking, sitting, and for children to play in.  The Officer further clarified to Members that it was unlikely that the concept of affordable housing would be undermined by excessive service charges because the developer had taken steps to minimise the cost by transferring the responsibility to the registered provider.

 

In considering submissions made at the meeting, Members welcomed the developer’s commitment to provide affordable housing over and above that required within the wider Royal Arsenal Masterplan.  Members also commented that the Council’s policy insisted on a significant number of family-sized units on new schemes, and that plans to deliver the missing element elsewhere as part of the wider Royal Arsenal Masterplan was welcomed.  The Board

 

Resolved –

 

Unanimously

 

That application for Reserved Matters for appearance, internal layout and landscaping pursuant to Condition 1 of Outline Planning Permission, dated the 9th March 2012 (Ref: 11/2382/O) for 126 residential units within Block E be approved, subject to:

 

·        Approval of application reference 13/3261/MA;

·        Conditions set out in the approved Outline Planning Permission for Phase 4, The Warren / Royal Arsenal (Ref: 11/2382/O), dated 9.3.2012; and

·        Conditions set out in Section 3.2 of the report.

9.

Callis Yard, Bunton Street, Woolwich SE18 pdf icon PDF 244 KB

Members to consider planning application for the partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 160 residential dwellings comprising of 62 x 1 bed, 66 x 2 bed and 32 x 3 bed accommodation together with a nursery facility, leisure use, associated landscaping and car parking.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved –

 

That Planning Permission for the partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide 160 residential dwellings comprising of 62 x 1 bed, 66 x 2 bed and 32 x 3 bed accommodation together with a nursery facility, leisure use, associated landscaping and car parking, be refused, because of :

1.       Inappropriateness of this site for concentrations of family accommodation; and

2.       Overall height of the development in the context of the area of the town centre.

Minutes:

The Assistant Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrative presentation, recommending to the Board to agree the decision required.

 

The Board noted the report, and that the proposal related to the partial demolition of the existing buildings on the application site, and a redevelopment of 160 residential dwellings, together with nursery facility, leisure use and associated landscaping and car park facility.  It was recognised that the proposed development would be located within the Woolwich Town Centre, on a site known as Callis Yard.  An addendum report setting out revisions to Conditions 35 and 54 was circulated at the meeting, together with correspondence that was received after the agenda was published.

 

The meeting was addressed by a representative of the Greenwich Conservation Group.  It was stated that the Group was opposed to the proposal because the proposed building would be inappropriate in the surrounding environment.  In particular, the height would be excessive, the allocation of play space provision for children would be inadequate, and the communal space would be compromised by traffic.  It was further stated that the Group also regretted that part of the existing historic building would have to be demolished for the proposed development to take place, in spite of the fact that the archaeological potential of the application site had not been adequately assessed.  Therefore, the Group was suggesting to the Board to defer consideration of the application until recommendations by the Greater London Authority were adequately addressed. 

 

In response to questions raised, the Officer clarified to the Board that the existing buildings on the site were in a derelict condition.  Although economic repair was unviable, the stable block would be retained and refurbished for use as a gym in order preserve its distinct features of clerestory windows and weather vanes at each end of the gable.   It was also clarified to the Board that the height of the proposed development would not impose unreasonably on existing buildings in the environment because it would be constructed in staggered levels of 3-storey to 20-storey in height, with the tallest building fronting Woolwich High Street. 

 

The agent for the applicant also addressed the meeting.  He highlighted the benefits of the proposed development to the Board and stated that the applicant was committed to contributing to the regeneration of the Woolwich Town Centre by providing affordable and private sale accommodation for the benefit of residents.   The agent also confirmed to the Board that the applicant undertook extensive public consultation on the proposal, and no objections were raised by residents during the exercise.

 

In light of a concern, the agent for the applicant gave an assurance to the Board that that the 21% of affordable housing to be provided in the proposed scheme was informed by an independently appraised viability assessment.  It was stated that the development concept, layout, height and bulk of the proposed scheme were also assessed as appropriate for construction within the Woolwich Town Centre.  10% of the proposed units would be constructed to accord with the Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Enderby Wharf, Christchurch Way, Greenwich, SE10 pdf icon PDF 374 KB

Members to consider planning applicatio for minor material amendments under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act to vary condition 1 of planning permissiondated 30th March 2012 (ref: 10/3063/F) for amendments including alterations to elevations, mix and tenure distribution, massing, layout, car parking and landscaping.

Link to Planning Document

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved

 

Unanimously

 

That Planning Permission be granted for minor material amendments under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act to vary condition 1 of planning permissiondated 30th March 2012 (ref: 10/3063/F) for amendments including alterations to elevations, mix and tenure distribution, massing, layout, car parking and landscaping, subject to:

 

i)          The satisfactory completion of a supplemental s106 legalagreement.

ii)         The issuing of a new planning permissions in respect of ref: 10/3063/F for the redevelopment of the site comprising the provision of a new jetty in the River Thames to provide docking for cruise liners and the Thames Clipper, a Cruise Liner Terminal, a 251 room hotel with conference, restaurant ancillary facilities (Use Class C1); skills academy (Use Class D1); 770 residential units (Use Class C3); commercial (Use Class B1); a crèche (Use Class D1) a gymnasium (Use Class D2); conversion and extension of Enderby House to provide tourist, community and retail facilities (Use Classes A1, A3, A4, B1, D1 and D2); the provision of vehicular access with associated servicing facilities; car, motorcycle and bicycle parking, provision of landscaping and public realm (including improvements to the Thames Walk); improvements to the river wall and other works within the river, including dredging, the provision of tidal gardens, piling, the provision of a pontoon and brow, and associated works.  

(iii)      Conditions and informatives set out in sections 3.2 and 3.3 respectively (as amended by the addendum report circulated at the meeting)

(iv)       an additional clause in the s106 legal agreement requiring discussions with local historic societies to provide a plaque or similar recognition outlining the historic nature of the site.

Minutes:

The Assistant Area Planning Manager (Major Development) gave an illustrative presentation, recommending to the Board to approve the proposal in the report.

 

The Board noted the report, and that the proposal sought permission for minor material amendments.  An addendum report setting out comments from the Environment Agency and the Port of London Authority was circulated at the meeting, together with amendments to conditions, and correspondence received after the agenda was published.

 

In addressing the meeting, Councillor Mary Mills commented that the heritage significance of Enderby Wharf should not be underestimated.  Councillor Mills suggested that the Board should utilise the opportunity that the proposal had presented to secure recognition of the historic nature of the site within the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

 

A representative from the Greenwich Conservation Group also addressed the meeting.  He advised the Board that the Group’s concern about the lack of the flood defence barrier was no longer necessary in light of an assurance that the proposed new alignment would provide adequate space for integration with the environment.  It was stated that the Group would want clarification in relation to the Thames Clippers service operating on the Enderby Wharf side of the river.

 

The agent and architect for the applicant also addressed the Board with a request that it approves the proposal in the report.  They highlighted the components of the revisions to the earlier application, and that there had been no change to the number of proposed affordable housing units.  The Board was further advised that the applicant would consider the erection of a plaque to show the historic importance of Enderby Wharf.

 

In response to a question, the Assistant Director (Planning) clarified to the Board that the delivery of a cruise liner terminal and pier was secured in the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

 

In considering submissions made at the meeting, Members stated that they were pleased to note that the developer would be willing to consider the erection of a historic plaque on the site.  It was advised that support from members of the local historic societies could further help to co-ordinate accurate heritage information of the area.

 

The Board voted on the proposal and

 

Resolved

 

Unanimously

 

That Planning Permission be granted for minor material amendments under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act to vary condition 1 of planning permissiondated 30th March 2012 (ref: 10/3063/F) for amendments including alterations to elevations, mix and tenure distribution, massing, layout, car parking and landscaping, subject to:

 

i)       The satisfactory completion of a supplemental s106 legal agreement.

ii)       The issuing of a new planning permissions in respect of ref: 10/3063/F for the redevelopment of the site comprising the provision of a new jetty in the River Thames to provide docking for cruise liners and the Thames Clipper, a Cruise Liner Terminal, a 251 room hotel with conference, restaurant ancillary facilities (Use Class C1); skills academy (Use Class D1); 770 residential units (Use Class C3); commercial (Use Class B1); a crèche (Use Class  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.