Greenwich Council

Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

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

Items
No. Item

Appointment of Chair

As apologies had been received from both the Chair and Vic Chair of the Planning Board Members were required to appoint a Chair for the duration of this meeting.

 

Councillor Denise Hyland nominated Councillor Norman Adams to take the Chair.  This proposal was seconded by Councillor Babatola and agreed by Members.

 

Resolved –

 

That Councillor Norman Adams take the Chair for the duration of the Planning Board meeting.

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Board.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received for Councillor Ambreen Hisbani, Mark James, Steve Offord, Paul Morrissey, Harpinder Singh and Ray Walker.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

It was noted that Addendum Reports had been produced for all items on the

Agenda and were provided on a Supplementary Agenda.  It was also noted that public submissions, in relation to Item’s 5; 6 and were emailed to and tabled before Members.

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:

Councillor Denise Hyland advised that she would withdraw from the meeting for the duration of the presentation, debate and decision in relation to item 5 – 10 Orangery Lane; due to her appointment, as Leader of the Council, to the Greenwich Enterprise Board who were party to the application.

 

Resolved –

 

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

4.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 117 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 June; 6 July and 24 July 2017.

 

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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Board held on 19 June 2017; 6 July 2017 and 24 July 2017 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record’s.

5.

10 Orangery Lane, Eltham, London, SE9 1HN (16/3176/F) pdf icon PDF 84 KB

The Board is requested to consider granting full planning permission for the demolition of existing building and construction of a part 5 / part 9 storey mixed use development comprising a flexible B1 (Business) / D1(Non Residential Institution) use at ground floor level and 46 self-contained flats above.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Refused to grant full planning permission for the demolition of existing building and construction of a part 5 / part 9 storey mixed use development comprising a flexible B1 (Business) / D1(Non Residential Institution) use at ground floor level and 46 self-contained flats above.

Minutes:

Councillor Denise Hyland withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the presentation, debate and decision in to this item, due to her appointment, as Leader of the Council, to the Greenwich Enterprise Board who were party to the application.

 

The Committees attention was drawn to a number of additional documents submitted by objectors, which had been provided to them in advance of the meeting and were tabled before them.

 

The Area Planning Manager (East) gave an illustrated presentation and summarised the report confirming that the Committee had undertaken a site visit; that the application forms part of the Eltham Town Centre Masterplan and is in close vicinity of the Orangery which is a listed building.   He drew the Committees’ attention to the addendum report which included details of the applicants’ proposal to increase the number of affordable homes from 11% (5 units) to 15% (7 Units). 

 

In response to a Member’s question the Area Planning Manager (East) confirmed that concerns over the possibility of bats in occupation had been noted and a bat survey was conditioned.  That the development was proposed as a car free scheme, supported by the London Plan higher PTAL rating and was within a CPZ, which residents would be unable to apply for permits. There were recommendations for a Car Club contribution and proposed assigned Blue Badge parking in an adjacent car park.

 

In response to a Members question on the incorporation of a living roof, the Area Planning Manager (East) advised that a condition seeking full details for a green roof be presented.

 

The Area Planning Manager (East) clarified that the Eltham Town Masterplan made reference to development height but no reference was made to the maximum height for developments in the area of the Masterplan in which the application fell.

 

The Planning Board accepted addresses from seven members of the public all speaking in objection to the application raising the following issues.

 

The accuracy of the viability study and the level of project loss was questioned as it was felt that the developers were taking advantage of a loophole in the CIL, which should not be permit.  That the CIL amount paid and number of affordable house offered relied on the viability and the lower the profit the less CIL paid; this developer will pay the absolute minimum.  Concern was raised that at the completion the financial losses would become profit and whilst the Council could have the CIL re-assessed this would be costly and the Council would be unlikely to get the full amount back. 

 

An objector raised that a senior Councillors had confirmed there were no changes to the Eltham Masterplan, which stated that new buildings should reflect the scale and character of existing buildings.  It was felt that the proposed building did not meet the requirements of the Masterplan, particularly in terms of height and character.  That it appeared that there had been no effort to reflect the historic nature of the town into the building design, which could set  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Venture Greenwich, 161 Creek Road, Deptford, London, SE8 3EA (16/3508/F) pdf icon PDF 428 KB

The Planning Board is requested to consider the application for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide 122 sqm of flexible use floor space at ground floor level (Classes A1 / A3 / B1 / D1) and 26 flats above (8 x 1 bedroom flats, 15 x 2 bedroom flats and 3 x 3 bedroom flats), with associated car parking, cycle storage, refuse storage, private and communal amenity space and landscaping.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Deferred the decision relating to the planning applicationfor the demolition of the existing commercial building and redevelopment to provide 120 sqm of flexible use floor space at ground floor level (Classes A1 / A3 / B1 / D1) and 26 flats above (8 x 1 bedroom flats, 15 x 2 bedroom flats and 3 x 3 bedroom flats), with associated car parking, cycle storage, refuse storage, private and communal amenity space and landscaping.

Minutes:

The Committees attention was drawn to a number of additional documents submitted by objectors, which had been provided to them in advance of the meeting and were tabled before them.

 

The Area Planning Manager (West) gave an illustrated presentation and in summarising the report he advised that the on-site free car parking spaces would be retained with 3 of the 6 spaces designated for disabled users.  It was advised that when the application was initially submitted that all the units proposed were to be shared ownership.  However, due to no funding being secured the scheme changed to being 100 private.  After a viability statement had been submitted and independently assessed it was concluded that the development could deliver 2 of the units as shared ownership.  Whilst this was the current offer based on the viability assessment the applicant was still hopeful that funding could be obtained and that the development could be delivered wholly as shared ownership.

 

Members sought clarification as to why there was a necessity to grant planning permission in order to continue to secure grant funding. The Area Planning Manager (West) advised that it was understood that for the applicant to gain future funding it was required to demonstrate a viable scheme through securing planning permission.

 

The Planning Board accepted addresses from four residents’ who, speaking in objection to the application raised the following issues.  That the existing residents would suffer loss of light, particularly in kitchens and an up-to-date daylight survey should be undertaken.

 

That the proposed development, at over double the height of the existing properties, was out of scale and keeping with the surrounding area and this would result in existing residents suffering a loss of privacy and overlooking.  Further, this could also set a precedent for future developments and lead to a gradual increase in building heights, resulting in loss of light and amenity to the existing residents and increased pressure on narrow and already congested roads.

 

They advised that there were a lot of existing retail spaces in the area which were standing empty and the additional and unnecessary retail element could be removed to lower the height of the building.

 

They noted that the areas PTAL 4 rating was based on the close proximity of underground stations, which was not the case.  Further the existing parking in the area was timed and fully used and whilst the occupants of the development may not have cars their visitors may and would have nowhere to park.  As well as increasing the pressure on parking there would be an increased pressure on existing infrastructure and amenities.

 

They expressed concern at the logistics of construction and health and safety implications associated with the development as it was set in a cul-de-sac and there would be problems for emergency vehicles and people accessing the health centre.

They advised that most people were not against the area being developed but felt that, whilst the developers had modified the plans it was still not the right development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Norman House, 110-114 Norman Road, Greenwich, SE10 9QJ (16/2783/F) pdf icon PDF 450 KB

The Board is requested to consider granting full planning permission for the demolition of existing building and construction of a part 5 / part 12 storey building comprising 63 residential units, 395sqm commercial floor space (Class A2/B1) including car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works. 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted full planning permission for the demolition of existing building and construction of a part 5 / part 12 storey building comprising 63 residential units, 395sqm commercial floor space (Class A2/B1) including car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works. 

 

Subject to:

·         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;

·         The satisfactory completion of a Section 106 (S106) Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section 26, as amended by the addendum report); and

·         Conditions set out in Appendix 2.

Minutes:

The Committees attention was drawn to a number of additional documents submitted by objectors, which had been provided to them in advance of the meeting and were tabled before them.

 

In presenting the report the Principal Planner - Major Projects Team advised the Board of the addendum report (which included details of additional comments from the GLA, additional comments from neighbours and amendments to the affordable housing review mechanism). She also advised the Board of a correction to the report in that both paragraph 21.1 & 21.2 referred to waste management issues and that paragraph 21.2 was the correct statement. She continued with an illustrative presentation of the report.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planner advised that the buildings on the pumping station site included a Grade II listed Engine House and that a Heritage Assessment concluded that there would be no harm to the setting of the Pumping Station.  Further, no objection had been raised by the council’s Conservation Officer.

 

She advised Members that the affordable housing review mechanism was in two parts, the first part being required if the development would not be commenced within two years of granting permission and would look at changes in the market and finances to ascertain if further affordable units were viable within the scheme.  The second element of the review would be undertaken when 75% of the units were sold to ascertain possible further financial contribution.

 

The Planning Board accepted addresses from 3 residents’ speaking in objection to the application who stated that, whilst not objecting to development on the site they were strongly opposed to the proposed application.  It was felt that the illustrative graphic of the development was not accurate and did not show the true impact in the street scene.

 

They noted that at 12 stories the development would be 45 meters high and 27 meters from Bellville House and at 5 stories higher would completely dwarf the main portion of Bellville House.  It would be 70% higher than the adjacent buildings and 3 times the height of existing buildings along Greenwich High Road.  The 12 story tower would be dominant over the existing properties resulting in a negative impact on daylight, overshadowing and loss of privacy to existing residents.  Further, an independent assessment of the revised proposal showed 47 of the 75 assessed windows would not meet the BREEM sunlight criteria with 14 not meeting the daylight criteria.  They felt this was an unacceptable loss for the existing residents and it was proposed that the 12 story tower be reduced to protect the privacy and amenities of existing residents.

 

The objectors advised that a lack of parking spaces with the current 17 space being reduced to 4 disabled users only spaces for 63 new homes. The pressure on parking of the additional residents and visitors parking would have a negative impact.  That there was already a problem of an increase in illegal parking on Norman Road with barriers being erected to prevent parking and bollards  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Alcatel-Lucent, Christchurch Way, Greenwich, SE10 (17/0538/V) pdf icon PDF 473 KB

The Board is requested to consider the officers recommendation.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Refused the request to modify the S106 Agreement dated 16th October 2014 on the grounds set out in Section 14 of the report.


Minutes:

Councillor Thorpe confirmed with members that they had read the report, on that a decision to refuse, in line with officers’ recommendation and the grounds set out in the report be moved.

 

The Board moved straight to a decision, without an Officers presentation.

 

Resolved unanimously -

 

That the request to modify the S106 Agreement dated 16th October 2014 be refused on the grounds as set out in Section 14 of the report.