Greenwich Council

Agenda item

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

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.

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 garden, by local residents, should be encouraged but this would only be achievable if the access routes were safe.

·       Concerns still existed around the safe use of the Angerstein Roundabout, under the A2 Flyover, for cyclists and past proposals had not come to fruition.  Could some of the S106 contribution be used to improve safety crossing the Angerstein Roundabout as well as providing safe routes into the site.

 

The Planning Board accepted an address from the applicants’ representative and their agent;

·       The scale of the building in consideration tonight is primarily the height as the length and breadth had been approved in earlier application submissions. 

·       Traffic issues had been addressed as part of a previous outline application.

·       The scheme had been prepared following a wide ranging consultation process and many of the proposals made by residents and societies had been embraced within the building design. 

·       The proposal, whilst retaining the clear Ikea brand was a bespoke designed building for this site, including a rooftop garden, high levels of glazing, animated frontages, a brise-soleil gulaim front and the building façades had been considerably broken up.

·       Landscaping was an integral part of the scheme with a large public realm area, including the wildlife garden which lead into an adjacent park area, and public accessibility was a key aspect which had been designed into the application.

·       There were difficulties entailed with providing access to the Wildlife Garden, to the rear directly from the building, however glazing elements to that part of the building would allow a level of interaction.

·       The issue of installing a Green Wall was addressed in the Planning Officers and the sustainability of grey water was not assured. 

·       There was a provision of £750,000, within the S106, towards highways works and pedestrian and cycle access improvements.  In addition, a £5,000 contribution to Public Transport was to be made. 

·       A number of design features will allow the building to be compliant with Part L, BREEM Excellence and a CO2 reduction of 60%.

 

The Ikea operations representative added that;

·       This would be Ikea’s flagship store and their leading sustainable store.

·       As well as incorporating issues raised from community engagement there would be a large recycling element in terms of take back of used furniture and repair.

In response to Members Questions the Ikea operations representative, the applicants’ representative and the agent; stated that;

·       The eastern elevation was an improved public realm area with an increase in the number of trees planted as well as being the location for all the parking bays and 90 cycle parking spaces of which 64 would be covered with green roof shelters.

·       The building frontage would be broken up by glazing and all the internal stairwells would be of a wood construction.

·       The landscape scheme was an integral part of the design consideration.

·       There was a local employment strategy and Ikea would be working closely with GLLaB as part of the recruitment process.

·       The issues of the Green Wall were explored in detail by the Greenwich Design Review Panel and it was upon their recommendation, as they felt that a Green wall was unsustainable, that it no longer features in the design.

·       The wildlife garden would not be directly accessible from the store, due to security issues, but would by publicly accessible externally to the store.

·       There were a number of green energy initiatives being used, such as ground source heating, solar panels and a series of skylights offering natural light into the atrium and other areas of the store. There would be an initial 20 electric car charging points, which would rise to 100.

·       A lot of thought had gone into the look and design of the building including the breaking up the public facing aspects of the building, with 2/3rds of the building frontage being broken up from the blue and yellow livery with glazing. 

·       The service yard would be shielded with a fence similar to that of the other stores on site.

 

In considering the application before them Planning Board Members felt that a lot of work had been undertaken to address residents’ concerns and produce a plan for a sustainable store.

 

In respect of environmental issues, the level of work done to develop a sustainable store was appreciated.  However, whilst it was appreciated that A Green or Living Walls needed to be sustainable and disappointed was expressed that other options, such as planting climbers had not been considered.  Given the high level of pollution in the area, there was concern that not all the environmental mitigating possibilities had been considered and consideration should be given to further landscaping into the car park zone.  The green roofs were appreciated but concern was raised that there was no mention of the height of trees in relation to building and the 5-year tree re-planting programme which should be strengthened.

 

It was noted that there had been improvements in green technology since the former Sainsbury’s store, which previously occupied the site, was constructed. 

 

That this was a prominent site and there was an expectation of a proposal of architectural merit and, whilst Ikea’s building blue and yellow branding style could be overwhelming. It was commented that this store had been designed, with more glazing, natural light wells and green areas, to be more sympathetic to its setting and the emulating factors to the design made for a friendlier design and resulted in a store which would look like no other Ikea in the UK.

 

There was concern that there was still lot of blue and yellow to the building, particularity to the eastern elevation, it was also noted that this was Ikea’s corporate brand and it was not the place of the Planning Board to request a building be constructed without visual association to the companies’ corporate identity.

 

The creating of local employment was welcomed, as was the creation of a transport plan taking into account safe options for pedestrians.

 

The application before the Board was put to the vote with;

7 Members for the application;

3 Members against the application;

2 Members abstaining.

 

Resolved -

 

That thereserved matters approval be granted for:

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.

Supporting documents: