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

1.

Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence from Members of the Board.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received for Councillor Denise Hyland.

2.

Urgent Business

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

Minutes:

The Chair advised that an officers’ addendum report had been circulated for each item on the Agenda on supplementary agendas.  Further, that additional documentation had been submitted by the public in relation to Item 6 which been supplied to Members and was available from the Clerk.

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) in relation to the items on the agenda. 

 

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 83 KB

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 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.

Minutes:

Resolved -

 

That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Board held on 26 April 2017 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

5.

Land at Greenwich Peninsula, South of the O2, Greenwich, SE10 (16/4183/R) pdf icon PDF 436 KB

The Board is requested to grant Reserved Matters approvalfor the Reserved Matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) pursuant to condition 13 of Outline Planning Permission 15/0716/O dated 8 December 2015 for the P5K running track (first phase) comprising 5 islands connected by an elevated walkway with two A1-A5 uses within Islands 1 and 5, access, landscaping and associated equipment and infrastructure works. Additional conditions addressed in this application include 3 (Parameter Plans), 4 (Development Specification), 5 (Maximum Floorspace), 6 (Quantum of Development per Zone), 8 (Design Guidelines), 9 (EIA Mitigation), 14 (Development Zone Masterplan), 54 (Loading Areas), 81 (Sustainability measures), 92 (Carbon Emissions Reduction), 94 (Renewable Energy), 110 (P5K Running Track), and 113 (London City Airport OLS).  Subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted Reserved Matters approval:

·       Reserved Matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) pursuant to condition 13 of Outline Planning Permission 15/0716/O dated 8 December 2015 for the P5K running track (first phase) comprising 5 islands connected by an elevated walkway with two A1-A5 uses within Islands 1 and 5, access, landscaping and associated equipment and infrastructure works. Additional conditions addressed in this application include 3 (Parameter Plans), 4 (Development Specification), 5 (Maximum Floor space), 6 (Quantum of Development per Zone), 8 (Design Guidelines), 9 (EIA Mitigation), 14 (Development Zone Masterplan), 54 (Loading Areas), 81 (Sustainability measures), 92 (Carbon Emissions Reduction), 94 (Renewable Energy), 110 (P5K Running Track), and 113 (London City Airport OLS). 

Subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and the amendments set out in the Addendum report.

 

Minutes:

Councillor M. James declared a personal interest as an employee of Transport for London (TfL) in relation to this item. 

 

The Panel noted the officers’ further addendum report circulated on the supplementary agenda.

 

The Principal Planner gave an illustrated presentation and summarised the report and advising of a correction to Paragraph 2.1 which stated there were no existing or proposed car parking, which should be corrected to 6 existing car parking spaces and 5 proposed car parking spaces. 

 

A Planning Board Member expressed concern that similar elevated walkways were popular in the 1960’s and 70’s but fell into disuse and became areas of antisocial behaviour.  Clarification was sought as to what actions and safeguards were to be put in place to ensure a similar situation did not occur with this development, if agreed.

 

The Principal Planner advised that Condition 10 - Secured by Design, covered this issue and that applicant must ensure that accreditation for the development is obtained in consultation with the Metropolitan Police.

 

The Committee accepted addresses by the applicant, Neil Smith from Knight Dragon Developments Ltd, who advised that the elevated walkways would meet the requirements of Secured by Design.  They would form part of the estate and a percentage of the estate management charge would be used to maintain their upkeep and employment of Antisocial Behaviour Officer, in perpetuity of the lifetime of the development. 

 

Mr Smith, Knight Dragon Developments Ltd, responded to a number of questions from the Planning Board Members;

Whilst the walkways were originally proposed as a running track and consideration was still being given to developing plans to use the walkways for a limited and controlled number of running events,

the elevated walkways were for enhanced public use by residents and non-residents.  However, cyclists would not be permitted to use the elevated walkways. 

 

The ownership of the elevated walkways was mixed with part of it being adopted highways, the riverfront element (Olympic Way) being a publicly adopted highways and other parts falling under the public highway.  However, agreement had been reached in order to allow 24hour a day, 7 days a week access all year round.  Further, that all areas, except for the riverfront, as it had not been adopted by the scheme, would be covered by CCTV and security patrols.

 

The proposed application was put to the vote with twelve Members in favour of the application and it was, therefore;

 

Resolved unanimously -

 

That Reserved Matters approval be granted for;

·       Reserved Matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale) pursuant to condition 13 of Outline Planning Permission 15/0716/O dated 8 December 2015 for the P5K running track (first phase) comprising 5 islands connected by an elevated walkway with two A1-A5 uses within Islands 1 and 5, access, landscaping and associated equipment and infrastructure works. Additional conditions addressed in this application include 3 (Parameter Plans), 4 (Development Specification), 5 (Maximum Floor space), 6 (Quantum of Development per Zone), 8 (Design Guidelines), 9 (EIA Mitigation), 14 (Development Zone Masterplan), 54 (Loading Areas), 81 (Sustainability  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Sainsbury's and Former Comet Stores, 55 & 57 Bugsby's Way, Greenwich, SE10. (17/0672/R) pdf icon PDF 277 KB

The Board is requested to grant reserved matters approval the submission of Reserved Matters (External Appearance, Landscaping and Scale) pursuant to condition 1 of outline planning permission dated 09/12/2014 (Ref: 13/3285/O) for the redevelopment of the site to provide one non-food retail unit (Class A1) of up to 33,000 sqm. gross floor area, service yard and associated infrastructure.  Subject to:

(i)              The satisfactory completion of a Section 142 agreement

(ii)            Conditions set out in Appendix 2.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted reserved matters approval:

Reserved Matters (External Appearance, Landscaping and Scale) pursuant to condition 1 of outline planning permission dated 09/12/2014 (Ref: 13/3285/O) for the redevelopment of the site to provide one non-food retail unit (Class A1) of up to 33,000 sqm. gross floor area, service yard and associated infrastructure.

Subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report and as amended by the Addendum report.

Minutes:

Councillor M. James declared a personal interest as an employee of Transport for London (TfL) in relation to this item. 

 

The Panel noted the officers’ further addendum report circulated on the supplementary agenda.

 

The Senior Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed illustrated presentation on the application which included photographs of the site and advised that, in respect of this application, the internal layout was not a planning matter. 

 

A Board Member asked if consideration had been given to the main roof being a green roof or fitted with solar panelling as possible environmental improvements.  The Senior Principal Planning Officer responded that this was an issue that would be addressed under separate planning conditions. He continued that the use of Photovoltaic Panels and the public roof garden were considered as acceptable to balance the loss of greenery.

 

Members questioned if the design of the proposed building adequately mitigated the loss of the environmentally green building, previously on site.  The Senior Principal Planning Officer drew Members attention to section 12 - sustainability. 

 

In respect of a Members concerns that the store would generate additional traffic problems the Senior Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this was addressed within the report and the aspect of the Members were asked to consider related only to the design of the application.

 

The Chair advised that he had received email comments from the Councillor Brain, Ward Member, which had been emailed to the Board Members, who was concerned at the lack of parking for IKEA customers on site, particularly as this was to be IKEA's national flagship store and would not imply a low profile.  Further, that the uncontrolled road crossing on Bugsby’s Way to the north be changed to a pelican crossing.  

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from a representative for the Blackheath Conservation Society, who spoke in objection of the application and he expressed that; 

·       The Society objected to Planning Officers ignoring some of their submitted comments without justification. 

·       The society was disappointment that the Green Wall, to the Pearteee Way facia of the building, would no longer be installed and felt that this could be sustained by the use of grey water and consideration should be given to re-instating this.  That decision not to install the Green Wall be reconsidered.

·       It was felt that the public and residents of the Greenwich Millenium Village should have access to the rear garden / wildlife area without having to go through the shop.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from a representative for the Westcombe Society, who spoke to make comment on the application and she expressed that; 

·       The Society was pleased that the applicant had considered the comments of the Local Groups, particularly relating to the ecological features and safety of the site.

·       If a sustainable water source is found, in order to fill the ponds in the public park, could this water source also be used for the re-instatement of the Living Wall.

·       Site access safety was still a concern.  The use of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

The Catholic Club, 81-88 Beresford Street, Woolwich, London, SE18 6BG (16/1975/F) pdf icon PDF 293 KB

The Board is requested to grant Full Planning Permission for the demolition and redevelopment of the former Woolwich Catholic Club for a part 7/part 11 storey building providing a mixed use development comprising gym use (Class D2) at basement and ground level and 59 flats above, together with associated works.  

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 (S106) Legal Agreement (obligations set out in Section25); and

(iii)   Conditions set out in Appendix 2.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted Full Planning Permission for the demolition and redevelopment of the former Woolwich Catholic Club for a part 7/part 11 storey building providing a mixed use development comprising gym use (Class D2) at basement and ground level and 59 flats above, together with associated works.

 

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 Agreement (obligations set out in Section 25 of the main report); and

(iii)      Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report; the amendments set out in the Addendum report and the amendment to Condition 7 as determined at the meeting.

Minutes:

Councillor M. James declared a personal interest as an employee of Transport for London (TfL) in relation to this item. 

 

The Panel noted the officers’ further addendum report circulated on the supplementary agenda.

 

The Planning Officer advised that the wording to Condition 7, at appendix 2 required amendment and should read;

07. Notwithstanding the provision of the town and Country Planning

     General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) the Class D2 accommodation at ground floor basement level shall be used only as a gymnasium and for no other purpose within Class D2 or any other use permitted by the above order.

 

The Planning Officer gave a detailed illustrated presentation on the application which included photographs of the site, advising that the roof garden space would be available for the use of all residents of the building and that the application was recommended for approval.

 

In response to Member questions the Planning Officer confirmed that;

 

That all the apartments would have private balconies. 

 

That there was a row of London Plane trees adjacent to the site but the Catholic Club building already had a basements area it was not anticipated that the tree roots would be affected but there was an Informative covering this aspect of the development.

 

That the combined heat and power (CHP) systems would be located on site and in line with the Conditions set out in the addendum.

 

The agent and the architect, for the applicant, addressed the Planning Board and confirmed to that mitigation actions, such as triple glazing, would be undertaken to address the noise pollution from Beresford Street.  That the individual balconies were also deeper than standard and partially covered with lover panels.

 

In determining the proposal before the Members felt that the proposal enhanced the site and welcomed the high level of affordable housing offered.  It was noted that the footprint of the proposed development extended slightly further to the rear than that of the existing footprint.

 

The proposal was put to the vote with 12 Members for the application and it was;

 

Resolved unanimously -

 

That Full Planning Permission be granted for the demolition and redevelopment of the former Woolwich Catholic Club for a part 7/part 11 storey building providing a mixed use development comprising gym use (Class D2) at basement and ground level and 59 flats above, together with associated works.

 

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 Agreement (obligations set out in Section 25 of the main report); and

(iii)      Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the main report; the amendments set out in the Addendum report and the amendment to Condition 7 as determined at the meeting.

8.

Land Bounded by Old Stable Row, Woolwich New Road and Thomas Street, SE18 (17/0681/F) pdf icon PDF 266 KB

The Planning Board is requested to grant full planning permission for the erection of a 2.4 metre high temporary perimeter hoarding (as amended), subject to Conditions set out in Appendix 2.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Refused full planning permission for the erection of a 2.4 metre high temporary perimeter hoarding.

 

Minutes:

Councillor M. James declared a personal interest as an employee of Transport for London (TfL) in relation to this item. 

 

The Panel noted the officers’ further addendum report circulated on the supplementary agenda.

 

The Senior Principal Planner gave a detailed illustrated presentation on the application and in response to Members questions advised that the proposal of hoarding, opposed to fencing, was at the recommendation of Planning Officers.  Further, Planning Officers had suggested that the hoarding be erected for no more than 6-months, however, the applicant did not feel that this was long enough to carry out the ground water exploration work required.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from Councillor David Gardner, Ward Member, who advised that a lot of people were not aware this area was not a permanent public green area.  He noted that, whilst an application for development of the site was anticipated, no application or proposals had yet been submitted.  He noted that the area was used by residents and it would be a great loss of a public facility and felt that as much of the space should be retained as open public space as possible, in line with the London Plan.   He was not convinced that there was a necessity to fence of the entire area for more than 12 months and area by area investigation was possible.  Further that the proposed hording panels were not the most appropriate fencing type to use.

 

The Senior Principal Planner responded to Members that the Environmental Agency had noted a potential risk to the underground Water Table and aquifer and Thames Water were requesting connection infrastructure details and the possibility of connecting to infrastructures off site.  As the applicant has not been furnished with details of the underground services locations or that of a sealed well they were seeking to undertake investigative work.

 

The applicants’ agent addressed the Planning Board advising that;

As an application had not been submitted for a development on the site a General Permitted Development Order (GDPO), permitting structures around construction sites, was not applicable and a separate application, as set out before the Board, had to be submitted.   As the previous land owner had not supplied the current owner with details of the services locations there was a requirement for intrusive works to establish the location of the backfilled well and the quality of capping; the path of the water and electrical services and address the Environmental Agency’s concerns over water pathways and the water table on site.  Also, there was a desire to take the opportunity to also establish if there was any land contamination as the site had not been remediated.  

 

That the intention was always to erect hording, not fencing, as an acceptable manner of maintaining a safe site and address any health & safety issues, particularly given the intrusive nature of the excavations. 

That in respect of timescale, re-development proposals were in preparation, which it was anticipated would be shortly submitted and with anticipated approval within 12 months and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.