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 Board.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Matt Clare and Mark Elliott.

 

Apologies for Councillor Sarah Merrill leaving the meeting early were accepted. 

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

There was no urgent business.  However, the Chair drew attention to the additional published Officers supplementary reports for all items of the agenda and which copies were available; also, the tabled public documents, which had been emailed to all Members of the Board, in advance of the meeting, and copies were available, for each item on the agenda.

3.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 34 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:

The Chair, Councillor Mark James, declared a personal interest as an employee of Transport for London (TfL).  It was noted that TfL had made representation on planning matters in regards to traffic and travel arrangements.

 

Resolved –

 

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

4.

Block 3, Greenwich Square (Formerly called Heart of East Greenwich), Former Greenwich District Hospital site, Woolwich Road, Greenwich, SE10. pdf icon PDF 56 KB

The Board is requested to grant the Section 73 Minor Material amendment application in respect of planning permission 08/0688/F to undertake amendments to Block 3 of the development as detailed in the supplementary and main report and appendix.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission as outlined below:

Section 73 Minor Material amendment application in respect of planning permission 08/0688/F to undertake the following amendments to Block 3 of the development:

§  The development of an additional 41 new units within Block 3 resulting in a site wide uplift from 645 consented units to 686 units in the development;

§  The partial completion of the 6th floor with a 3m set-back along the Vanbrugh Hill elevation;

§  The creation of an additional 7th floor along the northern elevation resulting in an increase in parapet height by 2.95m from 25.650m to 28.575m

§  An increase in the overall height of the block along the Vanbrugh Hill elevation by 3.375m from 22.275m to 25.65;

§  Revised unit layouts to replace 14 x 2 bed, 3 person (non-compliant) units with larger 2 bed, 4 person (compliant) units and the replacement of 17 x 1 bed units with 20 (compliant) studio units.

Subject to:

(i)         In accordance with the Town and County Planning (Mayor of London) Act 2008 Section 1(Citation, Commencement and application), Sub-Section (3) this order does not apply to the application as application Ref: 08/0688/F was validated by Council on 18 March 2008. As such this application is notreferable to the Greater London Authority.

(ii)        The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section 20); and

(iii)     Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report, as amended by the supplementary report and addendum report.

Minutes:

The Chair drew attention to the additional published Officers supplementary report and tabled public documents. 

 

The Principle Planning Officer (Major Developments) gave an illustrated presentation, which gave a visual demonstration of the changes to the external appearance and internal layouts, in line with the proposals of the application as set out in the main report in relation to the application.  She advised that there was a correction to paragraph 17.5 of the main report, in that the contribution in respect of cycle training should read £820 rather than £800. This amount was correctly quoted in paragraph 20 of the main report.

 

In respect of the effect on daylight, the Principle Planning Officer (Major Developments) responded that the previously approved application resulted in some loss of daylight, as detailed in the main report.  A Council expert had reviewed the amended scheme and there would be an additional loss of light of 1% VSC to properties on Vanbrugh Hill when compared with the approved scheme.  Ten units were identified in Block 1 and Block 3 as being adversely affected but had deep floors and overhanging balconies, which skewed the results and further analysis calculated that five units would have light levels below recommended standards, including the kitchen area.  It was felt that, due to the overall small numbers affected this was within an acceptable level of tolerance.

 

The Board accepted an address from a representative from the Greenwich Conservation Group who spoke in objection to the proposals and that the introduction of more properties’ appeared to be solely to increase profit, which was stated in the letter of the applicant supporting their application, but this was at the expense of current residents, particularly Block 1.  In order to accommodate the additional units, the block height needed to be increased and resulted in the loss of natural light to Block 1 and 3 and creating a less attractive courtyard in Block 3, which would have a sense of enclosure.  Density will be uplifted to 253 units per hectare, which was an unwelcome increase that should be discouraged. There would be a reduction of affordable housing, from 48% to 45%, and whilst still above the requirement of the Core Strategy was a regrettable reduction and was representative of applications approved with amendments resulting in a consistent failure to meet the 35% affordable housing target.  He requested that this minor amendment application be refused.

 

The Board accepted an address from a representative from the East Greenwich Residents Association (EGRA), who spoke in objection to the application.  EGRA felt that the addition of 41 units and proposed increase height of Block 3 were significant not Minor Amendments.  EGRA hoped that the Council would support sustainable developments that supported the growth of healthy communities and be vibrant, rewarding places to live and that the amendment would have a denigrating effect to those who lived within the development as well as the surrounding area.  There was concern that each phase was dealt with separately and that, when initial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Former Police Car Park, r/o 18-26 Royal Hill, Greenwich, SE10 pdf icon PDF 46 KB

The Board is requested to grant full planning permissionfor the construction of 2x3-bed semi-detached houses, 1x3-bed house, 1x1-bed flat and associated car parking subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

That planning permission for the construction of 2x3-bed semi-detached houses, 1x3-bed house, 1x1-bed flat and associated car parking be refused. 

 

Minutes:

The Chair drew attention to the additional published Officers’ supplementary reports and tabled public documents.

 

Councillor Hyland advised that, as the Cabinet Member for Finance and resources she would be abstaining from determining this matter.

 

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated presentation advising that the Board had carried out a recent site visit, following the previous deferment of the application.  That an additional Condition was set out in the second supplementary report relating to the basement construction.  That the formal decision notice, for the previous application for this site, stated refusal by means of design, scale and mass and would be visually dominant and an obtrusive form of development and not in context with its surrounding developments, particularly the Circle Street frontage failed to compliment the street scene.  That the Record of Decision and Minutes of the Greenwich Area meeting, at which the decision was made, state that the application was refused on scale and mass and that the Circus Street frontage would be out of keeping with the conservation area.  That the revised application was considered to be of a reduced scale and mass and in keeping with the character and style of the existing buildings.

 

In response to Members’ questions, theArea Planning Manager (East) responded that the proposed two story block, which would form 1a & 2b Circus Street were of an identical width to the existing properties on opposite side of street. That, with respect to any issues regarding the ground conditions raised by the surveyors, Building Control had no problems with development of the site.

 

The Area Planning Manager (East) confirmed to Members that car parking was not considered as part of the previous application and was not raised as part of the reasons for refusal.  Further, that, whilst the Highways Officer had some concern at the tight nature of the site he believed vehicles could enter and leave the site in a forward gear. 

 

In respect of cost analysis, the Area Planning Manager (East) informed Members that this was a matter for the applicant and given the size of this development there was no requirement for the submission of a viability assessment and any amendment or variation request would be subject to a formal application.

 

The Board accepted an address from a representative from the Greenwich Conservation Group who advised that the Group objected to the original application and also these proposals.  The objections were based on height, bulk and massing and a failure to respect the existing form of properties in the area and the two units facing onto Circus Street gave the appearance of a single dwelling with one entrance hidden from sight.  That the three units to the Royal Hill end of the site projected forward and it was regretted that the opportunity had not been taken to adopt a deferential approach and a contemporary solution should have been sought.  Further, that the proposals included basements and a Basement Impact Assessment should be required, in line with the Councils SPD.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Lovell's, Granite, Badcocks and Pipers Wharves, Pelton Road, Banning Street and Christchurch Way, Greenwich, SE10 pdf icon PDF 510 KB

The Planning Board is requested to grant planning permission for a minor material amendment under Section 73 to vary Condition 1 (Approved Plans) of planning permission (LPA Ref: 14/0460/F) involving alterations to the elevations of Blocks 4, 10 and 11 and alterations to the residential and commercial floorspace, amendments to residential unit mix and increase in the number of residential units from 439 to 455 (uplift of 16 units), and alterations to the basement including reduction in basement depth and alterations to parking layout, and the realignment of the river path, subject to the conditions set out in the report and appendices.

 

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission for a minor material amendment under Section 73 to vary Condition 1 (Approved Plans) of planning permission (LPA Ref: 14/0460/F) involving alterations to the elevations of Blocks 4, 10 and 11 and alterations to the residential and commercial floorspace, amendments to residential unit mix and increase in the number of residential units from 439 to 455 (uplift of 16 units), and alterations to the basement including reduction in basement depth and alterations to parking layout, and the realignment of the river path, subject to;

 

·       The conditions and Informative set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and Addendum report;

·       The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in section 22;

·       Members confirming in their decision that account has been taken of environmental information, as required by Regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011; and

·       A statement being placed on the statutory Register confirming the main reasons and consideration of which the Planning Board decision was based were those set out in the report of the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills as required by Regulations 24 (I) (c.) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.

Minutes:

Councillor Merrill left the meeting before it moved to discussion of this item.

 

The Chair drew attention to the additional published Officers’ supplementary report and tabled public documents. 

 

The Assistant Area Planning Manager Development gave an illustrated presentation and drew the Board’s attention to the supplementary report, which made a required change to the decisions at 1.1 of the report in that there was no requirement to make referral to the Mayor to London. That there were also proposed changed to the alignment of the riverside path to facilitate flood prevention and allow to meet with the Enderby Wharf, in a more logical manner.

 

Further, that as remedial environmental action, to a different site, had not been complied with, by the applicant, an additional obligation should be included in the S106 for this application, to secure completion.  That the site did not fall within the application area.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Area Planning Manager Development advised the riverside path would have to have be closed, temporarily, as it was to be upgraded and under the proposal the changes to the footpath would allow for better flood defences and ecological enhancements and would better facilitate the Thames Path to connect to the Enderby Wharf scheme, which was also going to upgrade the Thames Path.

 

The Board accepted an address from a representative from the Greenwich Society who advised that the Society objected to the application on the basis of increase in density.  It was felt that this was another example of a developer asking for more with nothing having happened since the last consent to justify the request.   The maximum occupation in the London Plan for an urban site of this type of site was 450 habitable rooms per hectare and this application was already 11% outside of that range, which was acceptable under exceptional circumstances, but there are no such circumstances in this case.  It was felt that that this was an opportunity by the developers seeking another bite of the cherry.

 

The Board was addressed by partner/owner of a local business, Thamescraft Ltd, who supported the officers’ recommendation that any existing S106 requirements be carried over and added to any new permissions given particularly in relation to the original S106 agreement to construct a new boat shaft at Bay Warf to relocate Thamescraft Ltd from the premises on the development site.  He advised that Thamescraft moved, but London regional failed to deal with the contaminated environmental remediation’s, to a verifiable standard, as set out in the original planning permission and that they encouraged a review of this as they had had to deal with this expensive situation and the continued threat of contamination.  

 

In response to Members questions, the speaker felt that it should not be impossible for specialist to agree criteria, which would also benefit officers, as to acceptable environmental remediation.

 

The Board accepted an address from a resident who advised that the developer had already laid the foundations for the slender towers in line  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.