Transcript

Welcome to this meeting of the planning board. Filming and recording is allowed, but must not disturb proceedings. Flash photography is not permitted. Only those public speakers who have requested and have been accepted will be called to speak. No other public speaker will be permitted to address this meeting. Speakers' comments must be relevant to the application and planning matters, and you should not repeat comments already made. Once you have made your address, you will not be permitted to make further comments unless I invite you to do so. I'll retain the right to reduce time given to speakers. Councillors will have up to five minutes, accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups up to four, Individuals two, and the applicants' teams ten. I have listed to speak on item five. Patrick Ives, Tim Barnes, Cheryl Vacchini, Alberto Iris. For the applicant, Luke Raestek, Tim Bysted, Andrew Brown, David Taylor. On item six, Sheila Keeble, David Dads, Torben Anderson. And on behalf of the applicant, Faye Wilder, Jonathan Stern, James Massingham, Alex White, David Yates, Alan Evans, Phil Goffin and Robert Grant. On item seven, I have Carlo Fabrini, and on behalf of the applicant, Mark Westcott. On item eight, I have Anna Gillings, Laura Archer and Duncan Ford on behalf of the applicant. Item one, apologies for absence.

Chair, we've received apologies for absence from Councillor Babatola. Item two. Chair, are there any apologies for lateness at all? There are two members that we're going to turn up for the following item. That would be Councillor Bower and Councillor Thorp. Urgent business. Office's addendums for all items, that's item five, six, seven and eight have been published and circulated to members and paper copies have been given to applicants and speakers in attendance. Public submissions have been emailed in advance of the meeting to members in regards to item five and six and an applicant submission in regards to item six was also emailed to members in advance of the meeting. Declarations of interest. Members? See none. Item four, minutes of the last meeting, dated 23rd of July. I take those as read. Any comments on those? No. Right. We now go on to item five which is NDB place, tell Conway, Greenwich, London SE10, 0AG, reference 233911F. This item was before the panel on the 21st of May, 2024. We got right through to the deliberation and the applicant then accepted the offer of deferral to consider a design review. Taking that into consideration, the officer will give a brief introduction to the previous application and then we will go straight into the amended and the revision, sorry, of the current application. Tim. This is item five, to the scheme of NDB place, the planning board is requested to grant full planning permission for mixed use development with buildings up to 33 storeys in height, providing up to 564 residential apartments, light industrial space, community cafe use and associated highways, landscaping and public realm works. As the chair has set out, members will be aware the scheme was presented to planning board in May this year and was deferred to allow the applicant to review the height of the tallest element. That has now been undertaken with the tallest block reduced from 35 to 33 storeys and the other two blocks increasing in height by one storey to a maximum height of 24 storeys to maintain the same level of units and tenure. So the site is located off telecom way which meets Christchurch way to the south. These roads are both private roads with existing barrier located along Christchurch way to restrict free traffic. The applicant has confirmed the right of access to the site. Telecom way meets the public highway, blackwall lane to the east and river Thames located to the west. As shown, whilst the land around NDB house which is now in use as a public house forms part of the application site, the building itself does not. For an overview, the site is in a low P tail, one B through two, located in the Greenwich Peninsula west strategic development location in flood zone 3A and adjacent to strategic industrial land. So for context of the site and the surroundings, looking east towards the site you can see the existing built out NDB wharf scheme and the precision developments located in the background. The NDB wharf scheme has buildings up to 13 storeys above ground in place. As it appears from this slide, you can obviously see the river gardens development further south located here which has buildings up to 11 storeys in height and looking northwest you can see the existing strategic industrial land and the modern wharf development site located here currently undeveloped. So just looking a bit closer at the site in a bit more detail, looking west at the river Thames with the existing NDB wharf to the south is the first image. Looking at the entrance of the site on the right hand image across telecom way towards Christchurch way and the NDB wharf development on the right hand side. And then looking at the Thames path, looking south towards NDB house, NDB wharf in the background and through to river gardens. So as members will be aware in 2022 planning permission was granted following the approval of planning board for the modern wharf development which is high rate application for mixed use proposal with permission for up to 1500 homes. And these are the following CGI's which were provided with that application which showed the NDB place extent consent as shown here, the modern wharf scheme and the existing NDB wharf development here. As mentioned previously the site has an existing extent consent from 2015 which has been technically implemented and the council has granted a law for development certificate accordingly in 2021 to confirm this. The extent consent including buildings ranging from 11, 24, 28 and 32 storeys as detailed. And from an officer's perspective this is still considered a material consideration in our recommendation today. And these are some of the CGI's which were provided with that extent consent showing the proposal and how it aligned with the cruise liner terminal proposed. Talking about this scheme specifically and the re-consultation, so the scheme has received a number of comments following the re-consultation. Four letters in support, 76 individual businesses objecting two groups, the East Greenwich residents association and the Greenwich society objection to the proposal. The objections are summarized above and detailed in full within the main planning board reports and addendums. So the scheme continues to be a mixed use development and provides the same number of units, light industrial space and community cafe spaces originally proposed and considered by the committee in May. The scheme continues to provide a 35% affordable housing offer by habitable rooms as set out here. The proposed unit mix also remains unchanged. The proposed layout, site layout includes as previously shown and set out to the committee, river tower adjacent to the river, four storey telegraph avenue mace nets, telecom tower and morden tower and the site layout is unchanged from the previous consideration. Notably the site levels which sit significantly below the majority which exist within the end of the Wharf to Welland above ground and those approved at morden wharf the site levels have been used to provide on site car parking, cycle parking, refuse areas, loading and servicing bays. Commercial space is also provided within the northern element as was previously shown. Podium level, this is the level where residents and visitors would access residential units, commercial spaces remains adjacent to telecom way and within the river tower where the community/cafe space would be located. The proposed mace nets would have access from the central garden and the central garden is proposed to be open to members of the public, subject to secure by design requirements which will be further discussed and understood during the course of the conditions associated and new routes remain to be provided to and from the morden wharf scheme. So as previously discussed the site is located with an open space deficiency area and the scheme sets out how the proposal will bring forward a number of publicly accessible spaces as outlined here. So the central residence garden, riverfront and then other public realm improvements surrounding the site. These are just a couple of those sections which remain unchanged from the original scheme, so a section and landscaping approach within the riverfront, stepping up from the riverfront to provide appropriate flood risk defence. And then through the central amenity space where the primary play space, communal space, tree planting and other access to and from the sunken ha-ha and telegraph avenue located here as well as detailing the lower ground floor placement. So the scheme has been amended from its original submission and these are demonstrated by these massing diagrams here. Reducing the height of the morden tower, so originally 35 stories here down to 33 and also reducing the two shoulders associated with that block by two stories. Those units have been relocated so originally the tallest element of the telecom tower building located here was 23 stories has now gone up to 24 and the shoulders associated have also gone up by one story. So they were previously 22 and 17 and they now go to 23 and 18 and the same is true of the river tower which has gone from 23 to 24 and the shoulders also going up by one story. So this is the amended scheme that is now before members, so this is looking west towards the site and the eastern elevation and the section also shows the relationship with the morden wharf scheme approved height here of block TO2. So the height of morden, that block is 130.5 meters and then it comparatively to the 113.79 meters now proposed for the morden tower within the Endeby Place development. The development steps down from 33 to 24, 17 and is demonstrated here by the elevation to five stories in the commercial block. So this is looking at the northern elevation, it shows a step down from morden tower as amended to telecom tower and then to river tower with the lower masonets. And then looking across at the southern elevation, the river tower would now go into the additional story added to it, sit above the block TO4 approved under the morden wharf development and would mirror the height of the telecom tower which have gone up by one story and the morden tower at the highest point would sit further below the originally proposed block TO2 from the morden wharf scheme. So this is actually discussed at the last planning board noting the scale of its development and location. Alongside the impact of the development on a number of views including protected both locally and strategically. So I'm just going to run through some of the views which have been provided. The first one on all the views I'll show for the majority will be the original submission and then a revised one and a comparative one after. The original submission, the orange outline is the approved schemes at morden wharf and also the night dragon development on the Greenwich peninsula in this area anyway. The blue scheme is the proposed development as originally set out. And this is the revised scheme. So it's very subtle but you can just see a lower blue element here of the tallest element which has been brought down. And I'll show that in the comparative view adjacent to each other. Again there's lots of lines here so I appreciate it can be hard to pick up. But the orange scheme is the approved schemes which are yet to be built out. The blue is the proposed scheme and you can just see a faint yellow which is the extant scheme. Moving on to the views within Greenwich park north of the Greenwich observatory. So again this is as originally proposed and this is as amended and then as shown together. So you can just see the two buildings, the proposed scheme sitting just below the height of morden wharf scheme. And sitting slightly subtly below that further from this long view. And then moving further down to North Flemstead house. This is as originally proposed. And then as amended. And then comparatively against each other. Moving further down into the rural parks. This is originally proposed. You can just sort of see the tallest element sticking up and above the tree line here. Obviously would be more visible in winter. And then the revised scheme sitting within the tree form here. And then sitting adjacent to each other, the original on the left and the revised on the right. And then moving on to the Royal College. So as originally proposed. As amended. And then as we move adjacent to each other, the original on the left and the revised on the right. And then moving closer still to ballast quay. So this is originally proposed. And then as amended. And then comparatively the two against each other. And then moving away from the heritage aspects or designated heritage assets and the views associated looking from Blackwall lane. So here you can just see the shoulder of the building appearing to sit above the height of the mordemorf development. And then as it's revised, sitting below the top height of the mordemorf scheme. And then comparatively adjacent to each other. And then moving on to Assol Street and looking northwest. So this is as originally proposed where the building appeared taller than mordemorf development. And then as revised appearing as a similar height to the mordemorf scheme. And then side by side. And then moving to Christchurch Way and looking at the scheme again in blue and the cumulative mordemorf scheme in orange where they sat a similar height or appeared to from that view. And then as amended. And then comparatively adjacent to each other. And then this is a view from Cubittown Wharf from Tal Hamlets showing how the proposal now sits down. Obviously in its overall height. And the height of the river tower slightly extended to the two buildings slightly merging in some form. So overall, the scheme is considered to cause less than substantial harm to the Endeby House and the World Heritage Site. The scheme is considered to cause less than substantial harm to the Endeby House Grade 2 listed pub and the World Heritage Site, the Greenwich Conservation Area and the Greenwich Park Conservation Area. But is further improved from the original submission and the public benefits considered to outweigh this harm in officers opinion. Contributions also sought to improve the accessibility of the site with proposed public benefits including 564 homes with 187 affordable homes with 35% affordable homes by habitats or rooms. A varying supply of commercial space and jobs associated. Public realm improvements with biodiversity net gain and an urban greening factor of 0.41 with ecological enhancements. Financial contributions to improve bus services towards delivery of the Thames Clipper Pier including maintenance and passenger guarantees and other financial contributions as proposed towards NHS infrastructure, employment and training and carbon offsetting contributions. The officer's recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions. As well as GOA referral. Thank you. Thanks Tim. Any questions for the officer? Pat? David? Thank you Chair. A couple of questions. What about the traffic plan? Apparently some of the network of streets, I can't remember which number it is, apparently there are quite a few one way streets and cul-de-sac's down there. There's a feeling by some of the residents that people may feel hemmed in because of the position where they are on the peninsula. I don't know whether the traffic plan was going to be looked at again. That's my first question. The access to the site hasn't changed from the original submission in May. The proposal provides all on site delivery and loading bays within the internal ground floor basement area. The access is via Telecom Way which is a private road and there is a gate stopping vehicular traffic on Christchurch Way approximately around here. But access to and from the site would be via Telecom Way which is a two way road which would provide the same access as the existing residents for NDB Wharf scheme and the precision developments located here. This is considered acceptable by both Transport for London Officers and our highway officers. I think I can remember the last time as well sort of talking about the private roads. Are there any sort of, there aren't any residential properties on the private road. It's just you know obviously if it's a private road you have to have some kind of agreement with the people who use that private road. So Telecom Way if I go to a wider view. Telecom Way is a private road managed and owned by the Alcatel submarine network so it's not owned by residents so it's my understanding. It's owned by the business that's located there and the applicants have set out they have rights of access over that road. My other question is, again I'm going back to the number of stories. You mentioned 32 stories before which was our recommend. Is that the recommended sort of height or what is our highest building please at the moment. In this location this would be the tallest building. Obviously we've approved a scheme at Warden Wharf which is up to 35 stories as a council which has got outline planning permission for that maximum parameters. And on the Greenwich Peninsula further obviously towards the O2 there are higher buildings approved under the outline planning permission there. Because I was just wondering I would like a little bit more information as to how because of the height it's going to be quite overbearing. And you know sort of I want to make sure that people who live there are not going to sort of have this sense of enclosure. And you know the light as well sort of how that's going to affect other properties. Can we have a little bit more information on that please. We went through all of this at the last application. If you want to ask a similar question in relation to new assessments then in comparison to the previous assessments, daylight sunlight, that might be more appropriate. Yeah. So in regards to daylight and sunlight assessments the applicant has done to take an updated assessment in regards to the impact on the adjoining occupiers. Which takes into account those most likely to be affected by the proposed proposal. And materially it doesn't change from that originally recommended by officers. Obviously the daylight sunlight is very complicated here owing to the extent consent, the morden wharf scheme and also the proposed developments coming forwards and it's been assessed. It was originally assessed under four different scenarios. Obviously the worst case scenario is with the proposal built out as well as with the morden wharf scheme. And there is notably an impact on those adjoining residents. Some of them anyway in regards to daylight and sunlight. But obviously as officers we've considered that against the extent consent which was approved at the same time as the MW wharf scheme. So in regards to judging that baseline of what's acceptable against that. And there are some improvements from the extent consent which was provided planning permission in 2015 versus this scheme. But there obviously are some negatives as well. But as officers we consider that to be acceptable and it sets out in detail in our report. Thank you very much, chair Tim. So I just wanted to ask, there's been a lot of reliance placed in your assessment and in the applicant's case in relation to strategic views and in height on the extent approval for morden wharf. When does that approval for morden wharf actually expire? It must be coming up soon? From recollection it was -- the section 106 was signed in 2022 in June 2022. So in other words the outline planning permission has another year I believe if that's correct. Yeah. And then it's -- I think it's got a ten-year consent as well because it was outline. They'll have to come back for detailed -- Yes. Okay. Thanks. I just -- another area, chair, I just wanted to explore and apologies if we explored this last time which is the finishing. I mean, I wasn't clear. I was looking through the report what materials are proposed for the finishing. I'm just slightly -- well, I'm interested in that but also slightly concerned it needs to fit in with the -- clearly the rest of the end of the wharf. I just found the appropriate slide and I can come back to that. And we are conditioning all of the external materials. Thank you very much for the presentation. Just to confirm I'm not sure if I asked this last time with the pathway, the Thames path and the river frontage, is that going to be continuing the same width along from what's already outside the river gardens and be placed? Is it going to be continuing in that sort of like wider width or is it going to be narrowing in front of this? So the site itself doesn't attach to the Thames path. The Thames path work has already been undertaken and completed as part of the end of the wharf scheme. So where it ends is where the site boundary ends is adjacent to the morden wharf. So where it currently narrows is morden wharf land rather than the end of the place scheme. So I'll try to pull up a plan to show you that. I'm just going to refer to -- do you by any chance know what specific contribution the developers were making towards the NHS? What infrastructure do they intend to contribute? I don't know whether that question should go to you or to go to the applicant. So, yeah, the NHS have set out and recommended a contribution which is over 700,000 pounds towards mental health capacity improvements at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. And the applicants accepted that contribution accordingly. I think what Lardee was getting at is are there any medical provisions within the site or in close proximity to the site? So there is an existing Greenwich Peninsula practice which is in the GMV Greenwich Millennium Village which would be the closest associated facilities here. Obviously we've consulted with our public health and our NHS team, with the NHS team, and they've obviously recommended this contribution associated to development to impact upon the mitigation for healthcare associated. Chair, I hope you don't mind. I'm just a bit concerned about that. And that's because I'm just very conscious of the fact that 564 units and the number of -- that's over about a thousand people coming in, the fact that there's only one GP practice there. How that would be sufficient to meet the needs of those that will be living there, I don't know. So if it is possible to review whether there may be a possibility of having another GP practice around that area, instead of contributing to an already existing hospital, we need to have more GP practices that would meet the needs of the intended residents that will be there. So there is a -- I can't remember the exact term, but I think it's like a community health hub is planned within the modern wharf development, immediately adjacent to the site. So the NHS wouldn't want two facilities next door to each other. So this is already planned for with the modern wharf. The community homes are totally different. I know what the community homes look like. It's different from a GP practice. And I know that the moment, looking at all the new developments coming up, there's a lot of strain and pressure on existing GP practices. I think it's something we need to go back and discuss with the NHS on. There'll be a need for them to do -- I'm just suggesting whether there's been a gap analysis, an impact study assessment done to look at what that would look like on the existing GP practice. The assessments that were done as part of the application include a review of social infrastructure. And that has been reviewed by the NHS, and they have not requested that they need a space within this site for a GP practice. Am I right in believing that there's flexible commercial space within the development that could be taken up by dental or any other health practice if there was a requirement in the areas? Yes. I mean, nothing is secured within the 106 for that. So it wouldn't be at any kind of discounted rent. But yes, there is space within the site. Thanks. Any further questions? David. This is very important for me. I mean, obviously we've got the issue with the peninsula. You see adverts promoting flats for overseas investors. And they're advertising flats on the basis of what the yield is for investors. Islington and other councils have been very proactive in terms of putting conditions that set down how these have to be sold domestically, first of all. Obviously people genuinely want to move in from abroad. That's fine. But not as just investment properties to be, you know, empty. I wonder what conditions we're putting down to make sure these are not just used as investment properties and then lying empty for years and they're going to be a valuable addition to our housing stock. I think that is a difficult one for us at the moment given our policy context. You know, if we're applying a condition, we have to have a policy basis for doing so. So we can't do that for applications as they're coming forward today. Obviously we are in the process of reviewing our local plan. So whether there's opportunities for including something like that going forward, that may help us with future applications. But as we stand today, that's very difficult for us to achieve. Obviously the affordable is all for local people on the housing waiting list. But the private is difficult for us to control currently. I think if my memory serves me well, David, that when we spoke to the applicant at the last application, they told us that they had their own letting arm within their set up. And if properties were empty for a certain time, then they would go out to the rental market. I think we should ask that question again when the applicant comes up. Any further questions? Tim, Beth, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Patrick Ives. Patrick, if you would like to come forward. Patrick, I've got you down for the East Greenwich residence association. You have up to four minutes. I don't wish to speak about the heights, something we've just spoken about. I put in a late objection regarding what I think are serious issues with the foreshore flood mitigation. I just thought I need a minute or so. Okay. I mean, hopefully everyone has read my initial submission, even though it was only put in last week. I don't know, did the officer or anyone visit the site subsequently, given that I put in a fairly serious objection? No, we haven't visited since your objection. >> Basically, for a bit of background, the flood defenses were put in in 2019. By 2020, February, I've got photographic evidence of the area adjacent in front of Enroby place with the flood defense, with the read rolls, one element floating away, already missing a few months after they were done. There are no read rolls left, perhaps 5%, but no more than that. I think the flood defenses are compromised. The rock rolls, which are much heavier, weigh hundreds of kilos, are now starting to shift, so I think the whole area is being scoured because the read rolls are missing. I think it's an issue. There's already been one repair carried out by the council at our expense on the footpath, because the footpath in the space of a few months went from a small hole adjacent to the flood defenses to a very large hole that required a large repair. Also, I think there is an issue. The Environment Agency, we spoke to them in 2022 when they paid a site visit. I've got some correspondence with them. They share a disappointment regarding the failed tidal planting and ongoing issues with the terracing. We are working with the LPA, Local Planning Authority, which is a RBG, to address this. Now, I don't know if they ever contacted you. They certainly said they were. They were going to, but the issue is still there and it's just got worse. So, I don't think it's safe. I mean, the housing behind the flood defenses is probably four meters below the highest level of the flood defenses, so I think if there is an issue, it's serious. I live in one of the houses behind the flood defenses, so it affects me. But I'm not sure what else I have to say. One thing I will say, the Environment Agency originally objected because they thought the intertidal planting, the terracing, might be overshadowed. And they were assured that it wouldn't be overshadowed. They wouldn't. I mean, it's not there. It hasn't been there since really 2020. So I do wonder how much they know about the site and if their consultations have been anything more than desktop surveys. So, I don't have a lot more to say. I mean, the reed roads not being there themselves, I think, is a serious issue. I mean, there are reed roads, there are reed warblers, small birds, waterfowl and any of the invertebrates that live in that intertidal, you know, habitat, which is what it was meant to be, as well as providing protection to the, or more substance to the flood defenses. So, I don't think in good conscience this should go ahead until that's been, the whole site's been fixed. Fixing simply the NDB play site. I mean, it's one entity, the flood defenses. I don't think Walter's going to sort of stop at a boundary that the council might wish to put in if there is an issue. So, I don't know what more to say about it, but I do think it's a serious issue and it needs to be taken seriously. I think members here conducted the site visit when we went down to look at the revetment, which is the adjacent site. And there's major engineering works due to go on along there. From the end of morden wharf right round, because we had issues with the willow tree. So, all of that water frontage is, pardon me, that's a severe site which is quite a bit further down river. And I appreciate it, it also has the same issues and needs similar treatment. But I'm saying the treatment at NDB wharf has failed and failed very quickly. And it needs remediation. I mean, the developers will speak afterwards. They may be able to offer some solution. But I genuinely think and tell everyone sure that it is safe and a proper site survey is done. Because most of the surveys done in the literature are desktop surveys. The engineering firm that did the flood defense documents did a desktop survey, paid a short visit, I'm assuming, to the site, but did not go on to the foreshore to have a look. For whatever reason, they couldn't get on to the foreshore. I think that's important that that happens. We'll take it out with the applicant when they come in front. Any questions for the speaker? No speakers. Patrick, thank you very much. Okay. Where is it? Sorry. Apologies. I now wish to call Tim Barnes. Hi, Tim. Four minutes. Tim, you've had your fall. Your final point is very concise. Thanks, Tim. Questions for the speaker? David. Thank you very much, Tim. To some extent, obviously, the carpet's been pulled from under us because the World Heritage Society executive has withdrawn its objection. I wonder what discussions the Greenwich Society has had with the World Heritage Society executive where presumably you're represented or involved in some way. And secondly, I wondered what discussions there had been in relation to my concern has always been the iterative impact of developments along the waterfront, high-rise developments of the waterfront, both to the west and to the east and north, on the status of the World Heritage Site. And what discussions have there been with the council and with the World Heritage Society executive in terms of the overall planning and policy framework along the riverfront? And where does this particular application fit into that? Thanks, Tim. MADke. Mr. Barnes, what height would you deem okay, acceptable? What height? The floor, so... Thanks, Tim. Any further questions? Thank you, Tim. Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Cheryl Vaccini. Hi, Cheryl. You have two minutes. I live immediately next to this proposed development in Îsselkort. I oppose the development in its current format along with the 76 other objectives. I've got three points. I referred to the last planning board minutes and the planning officer stated that the separation distance between the developments was 16 metres. I referred to the diagram that was provided in the plans and it is actually 12.9 metres between the closest part of Îsselkort and Telkon Tower. These impacts are obviously relevant as was stressed by the Supreme Court in the recent Tate Gallery 2023 case. The separation between buildings in the Fern case which was found to give rise to a public nuisance was 34 metres. So the issues are significant in terms of overlooking and privacy for the residents of Enderby Wharf. My second point, the height of the proposed development will involve the creation of 564 residential units on a site of 12,380 square metres. This density compares unfavourably with the adjacent consented Morden Wharf development which provides up to 1,500 homes on a much larger 43,475 square metres. And as the Councillors have pointed out, there is still no sign of any development of the Morden Wharf site. My final point, I understand the need for housing in London. A mix of taller and mid-rise buildings should be provided to ensure integration with the surrounding context of Enderby Wharf. The tallest building in Enderby Wharf is actually 13 storeys which is quite relevant to the Councillors previous question. A 33-storey and two 24-storey buildings are not a mid-rise buildings or a mix of development. If we refer to this current permission, the Morden Wharf, it included a cluster of three tall buildings set back from the riverfront intended to landmark the cruiser liner terminal. Can you mind, you are over your two. Two lines. As a key arrival point in London, the absence of this cruise liner terminal clearly indicates the buildings on that scale are not appropriate or required. Thank you. Thanks Cheryl. Questions for the Speaker. Pat. Thank you very much. Can I just ask you, if this building goes ahead, the position where you are, how would your light, the daylight, be affected? You're talking about 12.9 metres and I don't know which windows would face onto the building. How would your life and the light that you receive be affected? I am immediately next to it. I will look right next to this development. The planning, it was shown to have very substantial impact on my apartment because my living room is directly, there's two windows directly on the side of this development. And then there's also the second bedroom. So the percentages, I haven't got them right in front of me now, but they were very clearly stated in the planning development and there was a sliding scale and my particular unit was very substantially affected in terms of light. So, yeah. Thanks. Any further questions? No, Cheryl, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Alberto Eris. Hi, Alberto. Hi. I find myself as two minutes, so I apologise for the extra seconds, if so. So I'm a homeowner and resident of End of the Big World and I've also started architecture achievee and building engineering the Politecnico di Milano. I am opposed to this proposal due to the following. The proposed development, the area in which the development will be built, is around half the size of the current End of the Big World development. This will double the amount of people living in the area and area only serviced by Telkomwe. This will surely mean a strain to public transport services, traffic, garbage disposal and so on. The transport links to North Greenwich are already under strain, with long queues and waits for buses and an incredibly long traffic queue in Tunnel Avenue at peak times. The proposed development will not have any parking space or parking area, so all the new residents will have to depend on public transport or deliveries. Where will visitors park if there is no parking space? Christchurch Way is already full of park cars and Telkomwe is a short road with no parking facilities that already gets blocked whenever two or three taxis arrive at the same time. The height of these towers will surely dwarf the adjacent buildings and be a disruption when it comes to the abuse and enjoyment of the World Heritage Site. From an architectonic point of view, in which integrating new construction with the current landscape is key, I do not understand this project at all. Telkomwe will be the only access point to this massive development, a road that, apart from traffic, is where the rubbish bins for the end of the wharf development are placed. How will the rubbish for all these developments be managed moving forward? Where will the rubbish bins be located? What will happen if there is a fire or an emergency in an area only accessible by one little road? Telkomwe is the only road that will provide access to both end of the wharf and the proposed new development. Has a risk assessment been made about what would happen if that road gets blocked, let's say, in the case of an emergency or a fire in a high tower? As you can see, I'm quite concerned the area will turn into an overpopulated area where living and spending time will not be a nice experience. I'm not opposed to the land being developed. I understand there is a housing crisis and a responsible and sustainable development will surely add charm to the area. However, I do not believe that three high-rise towers will contribute to this. Thank you. Thanks, Alber. David. Thank you very much. My only question is, obviously, when you moved in, you knew there was already planning approval in 2015 for a very dense development at that stage. So, in a sense, we have to have regard for that. What has changed from your perspective between 2015 and that permission that wasn't pursued and this new application? Well, yeah, do you mean the Enderby Place area or the Mordenworf area? No, the application for this site, which was approved back in 2015. Yeah, when I moved into the area, I've been told that that was not moving forward. Therefore, I thought that that area would be built with a mid-rise building as both the river gardens and Enderby and the warfar. They're mid-rise buildings. They're not high-rise buildings. Thank you. Thank you very much, Alberto. You mentioned about the roads, the facilities, the buses, not been enough. We worked very well with Transport for London to make sure that the new bus route and all of that, is this something that you will consider? If extra amenities and extra services are provided? Yeah, but with the amount of people that are going to move into the area, if this development happens, I'm very doubtful that there will need to be a massive improvement to that. I commute to the city. I go to North Greenwich. I can't take the bus. It's impossible. The queue is long, super long. I need to go and take a bike, which makes it difficult when it's raining or there's weather. So it's definitely under strain. One only has to take the bus from North Greenwich to go to quite as I go to Greenwich or the other way around. So I don't really see how in this area, which is actually less than half the size of the current Enderby Wharf, there would be so many people that can leave. Any further comments? Alberto, thank you very much. My pleasure. I now wish to call on the applicant's team. Luke, Tim, Andrew and David. Luke, your lead. Sure. Thank you, Chair. So it will be Tim and myself, Luke, speaking and we'll try and address the questions that have been raised. We've got Mr David Taylor and Andrew Brown. Sat in the audience, they're our architect and our heritage consultant. So if there's anything specific to those disciplines, we can certainly bring them forward to answer some questions. But Tim's going to say some words first. Thank you, Luke. So my name is Tim Bystedt. I'm the head of design at Chryte and Capital. We're the applicant for this site. I think first of all, I just want to speak about who we are and what we do. And I think Councillor Dillon referred to this earlier, and I mentioned this last time. We as a company, we don't do developments to sell. We certainly never sold a flat abroad. We have about 1,500 flats for rent, mainly in South London, but also in Essex that we keep and we rent them through our own agency that we have set up. So we manage and rent those flats out. So that means that we're long-term investors in investor communities and development. So we're not here to just do the glossy brochure, sell, and leave. Also, I just wanted to talk about Morden Wharf in that context. As a developer, we bought this site with that extant permission, as Councillor Gardner alluded to. With that, obviously, is a price tag which relates to what that site has consent for. So that sets the bar in terms of the value of that site. Otherwise, it's a piece of dirt with probably not much value. Similarly, with Morden Wharf, the fact that it's been sold and sold a few times for me is actually even more indication of that coming forward because somebody's paid a high number in terms of cost for that site, and they will obviously want to see that in terms of value. So for them to then not build that is completely inconceivable to me because they've paid for that site which has that consent to deliver those homes. So that, for me, them not building that is not even conceivable to me as a developer. We're grateful that the committee has allowed us the opportunity to come back with a revised scheme in the response to the comments that were received in the previous committee in May. We believe the scheme now responds to the concerns raised and the building heights are now proportionate to the surrounding context. Not only is the site providing much needed housing, including 35% affordable, we're also making 65% of the site available for public space as well as providing a café, a community space that spills onto the Riverside Garden that we're creating along the river, and we're also providing seven and a half million plus in contributions that will support improvements to transport healthcare, education and public realm. I believe that we have developed a sustainable and accessible design that truly delivers for future residents, the local community and the borough and London as a whole. I'm delighted that it comes with the recommendation of the case officer and I thank them also for their collaborative approach to the scheme. It's been a pleasure to work with them. This site has been empty for way too long as those who live nearby know and we can't wait to develop this site and really fulfil its full potential for both the community and the borough. Thanks Tim. I'm Luke Raystrick of Centro Planning Consultancy. I'll start just by trying to deal with some of the questions that arose. I'll have to skip through those quite quickly but obviously if there's things that I haven't covered I can come back to them in the questions. Yes, there is an agreement to use the private road. That was part of the land sale. In terms of daylight and sunlight, yes, there's been extensive studies undertaken and in different scenarios as Tim explained. Yes, we have compared to the extant planning permission and the results are a bit worse for some neighbours. They're also better for other neighbours as well. Because the massing changes there are different effects on different households. In terms of the Thames Path, there was a question about the width of it. In fact, if you and it might be possible to pull up a plan of the landscaping plan. The landscaping proposal actually introduces a water feature and amphitheatre onto that Thames Path. If anything, that would be publicly accessible as well. If anything, it actually widens the Thames Path on the frontage of the site. There was a question about funding towards the NHS and the £700,000. It's also worth bearing in mind that there's over £4 million that the development would contribute towards the Community Infrastructure Levy as well and the Council's Regulation 123 list, which is a list of what the Council is allowed to spend that sill money on, does also include healthcare. So there is the opportunity in the future for some of that money to be directed towards those sorts of facilities. The question about the flooding, there was an addendum, Shue, which you would have all seen. Some of the land which is in question is not within this applicant's control. Nevertheless, there are conditions on the consent, would be conditions on the consent, should it be granted, which deal with doing a full review of the condition of the wall and if there are improvements to be made, then there would be steps taken to make those improvements. Tim, would that also include the foreshore, because I think that was raised by one of the speakers earlier. Patrick mentioned earlier... It's all part and parcel of it, yes, it's all part and parcel of it as far as I'm aware, yeah. I don't have the condition wording to hand, but maybe Tim Edwards can pick it up whilst I'm speaking. There was an extensive discussion with the EA about the actual wall as well and we have got an engineer involved in terms of adding that. That's exactly right, and as well as a flood risk engineer, who himself used to work for the environment agency on the team, then there's also been a structural engineer look at the walls. So we're very confident around the analysis that's been undertaken there. In terms of Maud and Wharf and the question of their resolve to, or Galliard's resolve to deliver that scheme, certainly in the meeting that I've had with the agent for Maud and Wharf there was a determination to deliver that scheme. Yes, there was discussion around improving the buildability of that scheme, but I would be very surprised if they were all of a sudden prepared to reduce height and reduce the amount of development, given what Tim's already said about the amount of money they would have spent purchasing the site. There was also a point about whether, well, the applicants now reduced the height of the tallest tower and redistributed that mass onto the two shorter towers and whether there's more of that that could be done. Personally, I think that would create an unsuccessful composition of the three towers. To start to make them all, they would all start to become the same height and one of the successes of the composition here is that they are of different heights. It's just useful as a reminder as well of the distances that we're talking about here. The distance between the site and the General Wolf statue is 1.5 kilometres. It's a considerable distance and you will have seen in that view from the General Wolf statue, the site is way off to the right in terms of view. I mean, it's quite peripheral in terms of that view. There was a question about density and comparing the density of this scheme and Moreton Wharf. It's just not possible to compare densities in that way, given that Moreton Wharf has a substantial amount of non-residential floor space, so it skews the figures when you try and compare it in that way. The justification for height now, yes, in 2015 it was in relation to the cruise terminal and that no longer is part of the proposal. But what we do have now, of course, is the consent of Moreton Wharf scheme and you'll have seen from those images what we're trying to do is address that difference in height between Enderby Wharf and Moreton Wharf and graduate that height so that you get this nice smooth bell curve in various views. In terms of public services and particularly transport, just a reminder that there's £500,000 that would be contributed towards improving bus services in the area. There's also £1.5 million that would be contributed towards improving, well, in terms of delivering a new river bus pier in front of the site. And then there's also funding that's being put forward by the developer to essentially guarantee Thames Clipper that if they don't meet the revenue targets that they had envisaged then that would be covered by the developer, so it gives a lot of confidence to Thames Clipper to deliver that infrastructure. All rubbish is collected within the basement of the development, so certainly there'll be no bins strewn around the streets, as was suggested, that would all be contained within the basement. And in terms of fire tender access, well, that's all been reviewed by the HSC as part of the proposal and they're comfortable. Apologies, that took quite a while to get through those questions. I'm going to turn to what I had originally intended to say if that's okay. Thanks. Questions? Pat? Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much for your thought. Can I just ask you, obviously you have consulted with neighbours and how do you feel about the resident this evening who spoke, she's going to be affected very, very much by the distance and where she lives. Is there anything that you can say to her? I don't know that resident personally, so I don't know which of the flats she lives in. And so I'm not able to say whether her living environment would be improved or made worse when you compare the scheme to the extant planning permission, which has a very different massing arrangement. In fact, if you think about, well, that's quite a good plan, and if you think about where Osel Court is, the extant scheme had three towers in a line through the site. This massing arrangement, as you'll see, has got a big gap in the middle of it. And so for many of the residents, I would imagine, including Osel Court, that's going to let a lot of daylight through that central gap. As I say, I don't know which flat the lady lives in, so I can't give numbers. But it might well be that it's an improvement versus the extant consent. Are you saying that the three buildings are the distance between each one is? Well, what I'm saying is that if you imagine, I don't know if we've got an image of the arrangement of the three towers in the extant scheme, but because they're in a line, they effectively create a sort of a wall of mass to those residents that live with it or would have done within Enderby Wharf. Now with the way that we've arranged the mass, you get that really big gap in the middle. So can you see the 32 number? And then 24 and 28. And 24 and 28. So if you're living in Enderby Wharf and looking north across the site, you're looking at three towers, whereas with the proposal as designed, you effectively lose one of those towers in that view and you get an opening up of a gap in the middle to let more light through. OK, so in that case, you've actually said before that you felt yourself that if more stories were taken off, the High Tower could not be distributed between the other two. And you actually have just said that you didn't feel that that would look right. But it's not surely what you feel is for everybody. And now you're saying that you have got a space between all three of them that people can look through. So why can't those be more or less all the same height? Sorry, just to clarify, so the arrangement of where the towers land on the site, if I can say that hasn't changed between what you saw in May and what you're looking at now. What's changed is two stories have come off one of the towers and those two stories have been redistributed, one of the towers and one of the other. So if we're talking about comparing the sunlight daylight effects of the current scheme versus what you saw in May, the differences are very, very slight because when you're dealing with a development of this scale, moving two stories in sunlight daylight terms doesn't make that much difference. What I'm talking about is the comparison between the general arrangement that you've got with the current proposal versus the extant planning permission, the one from 2015, the one with the cruise terminal, which was essentially three towers in a row. Why can't you sort of go back to reducing, like I think it was Mr Barnes said before, about redistributing, bringing another two stories down and redistributing them to the other two buildings? If the question is if we were to do that, would that improve sunlight daylight? No, that's not the question. Okay. I think we went through this last time and we've offered the applicant the opportunity for a review, to come back with the review, that's what we've got to deal with, the review that's been put in front of us tonight. Okay, any further questions? Lade then David. I've got three questions, first one, thank you for explaining about the contribution that you've made towards the NHS and also towards the Committee Levy Fund, but how involved are you, because this could just be a tick box exercise. The reason why I raised this is because we have similar developments in the world where I am a counsellor, where the current residents that have bought flats there are complaining that they don't have the services. So how involved will you be in working in partnership with Transport for London, making sure that the 500,000 that you put in there would actually ensure that new buses are put in there, and that we have not too much strain on the existing GPs that we have there? That's the first question. The second one, I notice here that you have no packing, no proposed cycle packing. One of the key things that I believe we should be doing is active travel, isn't it? Where we're encouraging people to use cycles. So with the development that would have 546 units, and there is no car, it's a car-free development, certainly you would expect people to use a form of transport, and cycling is one form of transport we are encouraging. Why is it that we don't have any proposed car-parking spaces in this space? So, thank you. If you look at the plan there, you'll see we've got, it's car-free except for DDA parking spaces. So 3% of the residents would have access to a DDA space, and that's in consultation with TfL. But you'll also see in the sort of like a beige colour on the plan that there's a huge amount of cycle parking spaces that are being provided. I can't remember the figure off the top of my head, but I think it's over a thousand cycle parking spaces that are being offered. So yeah, certainly we're making this very accessible for all modes of transport. And we also have a variety of cycle parking, it's not just the double stackers, we have some double stackers, we also have spaces that accommodate cargo bikes. So we have Sheffield stands, etc, so every kind of bike, we cater for all the different groups, but literally a third of that plan, so the whole right side and the middle of that plan is all cycle parking. We're really promoting obviously sustainable forms of travel and also when we were designing the ground plane, we really prioritised cyclists in terms of making sure that they could access safely the roads around and also get out of the site safely. So that was a huge priority for us. I mean, back to your question about how invested will the developer be in ensuring that this money gets spent and there's a partnership role in that. I mean, look, they're going to want to sell or rent these flats and so it's completely in their interest to ensure that these improvements do get delivered and the best value for money is achieved because the people that may choose to live in this development will want to see those improvements. It's good for the marketing of the development if there's access to GP surgery places, if there's access to buses, if the cycle parking facilities are good. So it kind of goes without saying that, yes, there absolutely would be a partnership. Absolutely and I echo that, as I said to you, we're long-term investors in communities and buildings and we don't sell, we rent. So we want to make this an attractive place to live and that includes having good transport services, good facilities. I come from a background, I used to be an architect who did a lot of primary schools especially and stakeholder engagement I understand how important that is in terms of success of place making and architecture and homes and it's crucial to continue the dialogue. We've obviously had a lot of dialogue both in terms of holding public engagements but also in terms of meeting with TFL, etc. and we seek to continue that engagement through the next stages of this project. I said I had three questions, so it's only two, so you kind of answered the third one, which is about co-designing. So we've got 92 objections here, how are you going to engage with residents who have objected? I mean what are the things you've done further to, you mentioned stakeholder engagement is quite important. How are you going to do this, to make sure that you co-design with them and you take on board their views? Absolutely, and that's what we've done, we've held a number of engagements throughout this process so far. You're never going to satisfy everyone, we're dealing in an urban context and if we never built anything, if there were objections, we would have zero homes and zero buildings right now. So you'll never please everyone, but we're here to listen, we're here to engage and we're here to do the best we can to make sure that it's a community that functions, not just us and them, that it's actually inclusive. That's why you can see we've got 65% of the site is committed to public spaces, not just for our residents, but for the neighbouring residents as well who can come and play and we're going to have fountains by the river, a bit like we have at Granary Square, etc. So it'll be a vibrant place to live both as a local resident, but also as a neighbour, we feel. And just to add the point as well, that given that there is an extant planning permission here for a cruise liner terminal and there's a commitment from the developer to deliver almost a purely residential scheme instead of that scheme with a cruise terminal, that's a huge advantage to the neighbours of the area who would otherwise suffer all of the disruption and the air quality issues that would have arisen with that use as well. And also I just want to mention that we also have a community space and a café that we built into the Riverside Tower and we're really keen, again, that's a crucial part of this, for this to work in terms of understanding which community groups could benefit from using it and how that could work together with a café to become a real community hub for the locality which it doesn't really have at the moment, to be honest. Thank you very much. Thank you for agreeing to deferral before and coming back with a revised application. I wanted to just follow up the question to officers in terms of the finishing, which is important, I think, and that might be an opportunity, as well as meeting the conditions, an opportunity for co-design as well with EGR and neighbouring residents and so forth and local councillors. I also saw what finishing you've got in mind and what process you go through in terms of the finishing materials and colours and things. Secondly, an issue that those of us that have large private estates often face is that it all looks sparkling, fountained and everything, you know, when it's built you're trying to sell or rent properties, lovely. That keeps up. Ten or twenty years down the line you've got a residence management company very keen to reduce their service charges, things leading a lot of money to the renewal, not enough money put by in terms of sinking fund and therefore things get cut back. So what conditions, what guarantees can you give about sustainability of the public realm? Now my third question is not a planning consideration but one of great interest to me and Greenwich is a fair tax council. I'm a bit confused about where this application is coming from. It says on the thing Maritime View Limited, you said your criteria to capital limited, they all lead back to the Isle of Man and the same address in Douglas in the Isle of Man which we know is a well-known tax haven and part owned by the same chap that owns Mendoza who's registered ... We are straight away from the application. But you talk about benefits to the community chair. Talking about companies that are not actually part of the application is a slight stray away from what we're talking about. I'm trying to clarify which company it is and who the beneficial owners are of that company. Sorry, can you remind me what the first question was? She's in material. Unless you want to take it, we have got our architect there, haven't we? I think the key point, one of the key points there was about a long-term estate management. I'll start to talk about that and then Andrew can fill in about the actual materiality. Obviously, just to mention, we try to pick timeless materials and robust materials. That's two things that we work very hard to do. Secondly, we have our own estate management team and we operate our own building. The service charge is something that we do for our residents but also we maintain those buildings. It's not something that somebody's ripping you off and that money is going over. We are the renters. We are the people who operate those buildings. It's in our interest, first of all, to make sure that the running of those buildings in terms of energy costs is low. We've worked really hard to make these in terms of sustainability as efficient as they possibly can be. In terms of materiality, as robust and as timeless as can be. In terms of engagement of how there's a condition, as planners mentioned, in relation to this materiality. We're more than happy to engage with that in terms of stakeholder engagement, in terms of having a session, a workshop with local community to understand what their preference would be. Maybe we develop a series of options so we can say, Hey, which one do you prefer? That's certainly something that I'm happy to offer up. I'll pass over to Andrew. Thanks. In terms of materiality, we're proposing a lightweight reconstituted stone. You'll see from Tim's presentation, that's used in a selection of different ways. We have one material used throughout the development. Then we provide the variety by giving that slightly different texture. One of the things we feel about high-rise developments is the ones that are less successful are the ones that throw lots of different materials at it. You're much better off taking a limited palette of materials and using that sensitively. We've worked with a subcontractor, a specialist supplier of the material to help us develop the proposals to date. That will continue on through the design development process. We do a series of samples and mock-ups to test the different materials, the different textures, and how all the junctions come together in really detailed, to make sure that when we produce that through the whole development, it gives a successful appearance. Any further questions? David. [Inaudible] David, do you want to turn your mic? Two private roads, which I think of as two cul-de-sacs. I'm just wondering how practical it is for this site to be sustained by those two arteries. As you know, the telecoms way is a two-way, but it's a dead end. In effect, just by the end of it. I live in this area, very, very close. It's closer than anybody I think has spoken so far. Then Christchurch Way, there's a barrier in there to stop people rat running from Trafalgar Road through to Buckwall Lane. So in effect, those two roads are cul-de-sacs. I'm thinking about the impact that might have on the scheme overall, about whether it can be practically accessed. Well, firstly, as we've talked about, it's substantially a car-free development in terms of having the disabled parking spaces, but the residents won't have access to parking permits or anything like that. So it's really encouraging sustainable forms of travel. We're really keen to engage with TFL to improve the bus network locally and seeing how that could be improved both for our site and for the adjacent sites. I don't know, Luke, if you have anything to add on that? No, no, just to say that it is a car-free development, so we're just not expecting a significant increase in car movements up and down Telkom Way. As a result of the development, it will be very, very minimal. Certainly a lot more bicycles, we hope, along the Thames Path as well, certainly, and pedestrian movements, but not car movements. I'm sorry to butt in here, David, but what about for deliveries? Obviously, with 500 units, Saines Bridge and Waitrose and whatever deliveries will probably be a bit of a constant. Correct. That is correct. And that's all been factored within the transport assessment that's been undertaken, and it's a bit difficult to make out on that plan there, but there is an area designated within the basement to receive those sorts of deliveries, so all of that would be done off-street, within the site, there's no disruption to surrounding neighbours. Thanks. Any further questions, Members? Tim, thank you very much. Luke? Thank you. Members, I'm now going to open this up for deliberation. Any comments? David? Thank you, Chair. Well, I think my views on this are well known. I think that it's too high. I think that it's too dense. I think that there isn't the underpinning for a sustainable community. And it's too close, part of it is too close to be heard from the residents, not his house. And it should be 18 metres, it is 13 metres. However, having said that, we're not starting with a clean sheet of paper, Chair. We're starting with the extent of approval back from 2015, which any inspector, any inquiry would have to rely on. And we're starting from the point of view of a London plan and also the weighted balance, whatever it's called, that we have to take into account in terms of the applications for new housing. This is substantial. It does meet the policy, just in terms of affordable housing. And while personally I have great concerns about it, I think I've got no choice but to actually support the Office of Recommendations this evening. Thank you. As I said a few moments ago, I actually live very close to this development. Although I wasn't on the committee when it was first -- when it was last discussed here, I was present in the meeting. So I'm very familiar with that presentation, the discussions with my neighbours and so on with this scheme. And bearing in mind the points David just made about the previous consent on the site, I've tended to approach this scheme as a given, and it was how we could actually make it better. That's really the main choice that was ahead of us. I have to say that in my household, I'm the only one who thinks this. My wife is very unhappy about the scheme, doesn't like it in any way whatsoever, so I may not get any dinner this evening if we vote for all this by the time we get home. But I do intend to vote for it because I think in the circumstances it's a better scheme than we've had, and I think it's the best, the most likely scheme to happen in the near future, and I think we do need this site to be developed for schemes such as this to be adopted. As I said, I did have concerns about how the site might be serviced vehicle-y, not just about residents, as we've already discussed, it's a car-free scheme, but it is pretty well a nightmare around there anyway for people who do live around there vis-a-vis parking. But my main concern was about, quite often I see at that barrier a backlog of delivery vehicles that are trying to get to the existing developments, and I can only see that getting worse, but I dare say we'll manage that as we go along. I don't think it's perfect. Oh, one other point. I was getting a bit concerned when we started to get into the questioning, as if we might be able to negotiate an appropriate number of stories, and it's not my view about these things, how they should be dealt with, what's the lowest common denominator. I don't think the architects would be horrified to see their composition, their scheme being taken apart simply by what could be got a majority on the night and how that would affect the aesthetics of the scheme. So I'm glad that the developers actually considered our concerns at the previous meeting. I'm glad we've made some compromises without changing totally the composition of the site. So I said that I'd be voting for this this evening. Thanks Dave. Maisie? Thank you. I think first I'm very grateful that there's no more cruise liner terminal associated with the site. I think there are benefits to it in terms of new homes, and using the site has obviously been empty for a long time. I think there are some good bits about the community space and allotments and that kind of thing. And I think the reduction is also welcome and I think as one of the design officers said it kind of refines what's there. I do have reservations about the impact on the landscape. I think it doesn't really meaningfully contribute to public transport. I wouldn't count the Thames Clipper as genuinely affordable everyday use public transport. And echo percent of our density, and the telecon way. I felt quite sympathetic to Alkatel who spoke last time. I think it's echoing what previous speakers have said. There's a sort of domino effect that's been put in place with the previous permission. If this was a fresh application, I think I would vote against it. I am more leaning towards abstaining to be honest, Chair. Thanks Maisie. Pat? Thank you, Chair. This is not an easy decision to make, but I am concerned about the traffic. I am also concerned about emergency vehicles, fire engines, ambulances. We've got these cul-de-sac and an area which is very heavily, has heavy traffic, how they will get to the site. I also listened to the developer saying that you wanted to make it an attractive place to live, but Greenwich are going to lose out. Greenwich is an attractive place to live, the World Heritage Site. And once this 33 storey building goes up, that's it, Greenwich are going to lose out. And I still feel, I am still disappointed, although I know it's come back again. I am still disappointed that possibly you couldn't sort of evenly distribute a couple more storeys with the other two buildings. 33 is extremely high. And yes, I think I am going to vote against it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. I am going to echo what my colleagues have said. I am very concerned about the impacts on the existing infrastructures that we would have. I think I have mentioned that very clearly. I am very concerned that, just like I can't remember, I think it was Mr. Alberto mentioned about the difficulty they have getting to North Greenwich and commuting because the post route is not exactly perfect. I know we can negotiate with TFL and all of that, but we know that this takes ages. I am also concerned about the height and also the impact of the traffic for emergency services. And I hear what Councillor Sullivan has just said now because he leaves there. The fact that the two roads that are leading there, they are called the sac, they don't move. It's the impact on that. But more importantly for me is what I think it was Patrick. Mr. Barnes said earlier more importantly for me we know that Liverpool was stripped of the UNESCO World Heritage status. I am very much for Greenwich retaining the status that we have for all the sites around that area. On that note, I will be abstaining. If this was a new application as well, I would be voting against. But for now I will be abstaining because I am really concerned and do not want Greenwich to lose our status. Thanks Lade. Any further comments? No. Okay. I am going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation please raise your hand. All those against. Abstentions. The item is approved. Thank you. I am now going to take a short break, five minutes, so people can have a rest. We've got three other items coming up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We now move on to item 6, the former Lorry Park adjacent to Studio 338 located on the corner of Beward Street and Millennium Way Greenwich, SE10 reference 240995F. Tim. Thank you, Chair. So this is item 6 and the Planning Board are requested to grant full planning permission for the redevelopment of the site to deliver a mixed use development with approximately 352 residential units with ground floor commercial space, including Class E, a nursery, 340 bedrooms within a purpose built student accommodation block, a new self storage facility with light industrial workspace, incubator units and other associated infrastructure. So this is the site. It's located adjacent to Studio 338 located here and the former gas holder's site which is here. The site fronts onto Millennium Way here, Board Street, as well as Dreadnought Street and is in close location to the A102. To the south east of the site, the Thames Water Pumping Station and the Night Dragon Estate Management and Waste Facility buildings located here. The newly constructed A102 footbridge, the Yellow Bridge over the Blackpool Tunnel approach is located here. And this provides one of the key sort of east to west routes across the peninsula. The site is located in the strategic development location. It's in the London Plan Opportunity area. It's in flood zone 3 within an area of high archaeological potential and in the P-TOW free. So this is looking at the site in slightly more context with the surrounding area. Notably you'll see the dark clad buildings including the Greenwich Peninsula Energy Centre and the waste management buildings located here. Across the A102 is the more and more development primarily shown here and out of shot. And again looking slightly further at the site in context and its most recent use as storage for the Silvertown Tunnel works. So as you can see here, moving closer to the site. So photo one shows the existing relationship or boundary between Studio 338, the night club, the gas holder site and the development proposed site here. Moving to millennia, looking across millennium way to the front of the site located here. Then back onto Board Street looking at the newly formed road to be undertaken as part of the Silvertown Tunnel and the relationship with Studio 338 in the background and the new footbridge over the A102. Then along millennium way and with the site here on your right. And again the energy centre shown in the background and the existing pedestrian and cycle routes along millennium way. And then looking west along Board Street along the side boundary of the site here. So across Board Street and to the south east of the site is the approved Travelodge scheme which has been implemented on site. This is the indicative view of the hotel and site layout plan as previously approved. As mentioned in the report, the site is currently subject to a section 73 application primarily linked to reducing the level of car park and increasing hotel rooms which is still under consideration by the LPA. The site, indicative view would be here is in close proximity to the Greenwich Peninsula development delivered by Night Dragon who have two outline planning permissions. So the red area is the 2022 consent and the light blue area is the unbuilt 2015 consent. And so for reference the site is here and this is the outline planning permission maximum parameter plans for the Night Dragon consent. In other words showing the buildings on the opposite side of millennium way can be up to 80 to 113.5 metres. The site is located within the Greenwich Peninsula GP planning brief created by the council in 2017. This envisages the redevelopment of the site. The planning brief primarily envisages a commercial led offering adjacent to the Blackwood Tunnel approach with a residential led development fronting onto millennium way. And this would be Board Street and the crossing bridge over the A102. So there have been three comments in support of the application by businesses stroke residents, one comment and two objections which have been received from the adjacent nightclub studio 338 and the Greenwich Society. These objections are summarised here and discussed within both the planning board report and addendums. The proposed scheme includes 352 residential units, 340 student rooms and a variety of non-residential spaces primarily made up of the self storage facility alongside the light industrial use proposed within that building. All of the other non-residential spaces are located within the residential building, i.e the nursery and the flexible use Class E space. The proposed mix of units is set out above with 40% one beds, 43% two beds with a good proportion of two beds four person units and 19% three beds. The proposed student accommodation is made up of 71% cluster rooms, i.e on suites with communal kitchen living spaces for a number of those rooms and then 29% studio rooms provided. And both the residential and the proposed student accommodation parts of the scheme provide 35% affordable housing by units with the C3, i.e the residential tenure mix broken down here. The proposed site layout plan is led by three different elements so in this part of the site which is adjacent to Board Street and Millennium Way is the residential proposed block that has three heights. Block C is nine storeys with a link building of seven storeys linking to block B which is 26 storeys at its highest point again linked across to block A which is up to 21 storeys and then it has a residential podium at first floor level for residents amenity. The central square is proposed here, it's called Marsh Square and it's proposed essentially with a new Marsh Walk scheme walkway here which is in anticipation that this could link further with any future development of the gas holder sites. Within the south west portion of the site is the PBSA block located here which is up to 18 storeys in height with two rooftop amenity spaces located at the 15th and the 13th floor. And then this adjoins the self storage building which is a similar scale to that of an 11 storey residential building for context. This acts as an important buffer between studio 338, the A102 and the safeguarded walls and the proposed C3 and PBSA scheme. Works are proposed along Bored Street to reduce its width and introduce a new two-way segregated cycle lane and improve pedestrian pathways along Millennium Way and Bored Street itself. Internally within the building this is the ground floor plan, i.e. commercial spaces here, here and in this location with the proposed nursery located here on the new corner with a commercial space also here. Centrally located car parking, ancillary bins, bike stores, etc. located around the rest of the residential area with entrances located here, here, here and here which I'll talk about in more detail. Within the PBSA scheme, ancillary communal space is proposed across the first three floors including a Mezzanine level. Within the self storage building there are two outward facing light industrial spaces here and here which again I'll show you in a bit more detail shortly and central parking area. This is the access plan just demonstrating sort of the key routes for vehicles coming into the central block here and then down here for the student accommodation and then here for the self store, the light industrial. The red dotted line is the cycle routes and then obviously key entrances highlighted by the arrows around the site. So now we're just going to walk around the site. This is the first view indicates the proposed boundary treatment and visual of Block B's entrance with door stop play located here and briefly indicated here and flexible class EU space which will be proposed here. This is moving to the opposite corner of Millennium Way in the corner of Broad Street. This is the proposed corner of the building A and its entrance with central link building highlighted here with commercial space at ground floor level and residential above. This is looking at the board street directly and through the two storey colonnade which is proposed and then residential above with inset balconies within the building. Then coming around centrally to Marsh Square and this is the proposed new square set out. Commercial space will be located here, the nursery here and the residents podium above here. Then just looking at that from above and in plan form. Turning around, we're looking towards the PBSA block on the left hand side and the proposed self storage building on the right with two storey lower ground plinth. Further down at Broad Street, this will be located to adjacent in front of the proposed travel lodge building, the PBSA scheme shown here on the right hand side with the self storage building shown in the background and then coming around finally on the views, seeing the scheme with the principles of the site tied together with the residential components by differing brick, pitch flat roofs with small elements of colour. The self storage building is notably large and individual in nature responding to the specifics of its internal use as well as the design review panels and the urban design managers comments which requested this building be considered as an individual component. Again, it is broken down by varying different types of cladding, glass, mesh, profile and lighting which is considered an expressive architecture that would contribute positively to the distinct character of the overall scheme and notably not feel out of place considering the existing commercial buildings located within old school lane adjacent to the A-102. Looking at the internal floor plans within block A, the cores are internally located within with stairs located here and units enjoying a good proportion of dual aspect across the scheme of 71% which have dual aspect nature. Block B has a similar approach, however you will note the use of winter gardens along this elevation here, here and here owing to the adjacency to studio 338. The proposal utilises triple glazing, acoustic screening to the north of the residential units, so in this link building here above the link part and with the block acting as a partial buffer to the wider residential units and amenity spaces alongside the self storage block. Block C, the closest residential block to studio 338 has been designed with enclosed deck gallery access as you can see here, so all units set away from the elevation, external elevations with the core in the corner with units fronting towards the internal space and away from this corner here in studio 338 with again winter gardens used on this elevation. Also units also incorporate mechanical ventilation, heat recovery and overheating mitigation to ensure that windows can open, but during noisy events can be closed without internal overheating. Within the PBSA blocks as mentioned, the ground first and mezzanine levels include ancillary and commercial space with student room starting from the second floor up and these are the typical floor plans, the 13th and the 15th floor plans with the amenity space highlighted here and here. The self storage building provides these lights industrial spaces shown here with this yellow colouring at first and ground floor level to give activation to both dreadnought street and marsh walk and then steps up into the self storage capacity of third floor and above. And this is a typical floor plan just highlighting the general potential layout of those units. And then just moving on to the wider external elevations so these are combined, showing all elements together. So this is the southwest elevation fronting towards dreadnought street, the equivalent of an 11 storey residential building for the self storage, stepping up to 13 storeys on the lower towers and then 18 storeys with a mixture of flat and pictures set out on the PBSA, the student accommodation block. This is coming around to the marsh walk view again the PBSA student accommodation block which is 15 storeys at this point and the equivalent of 11 storey self storage unit. Then turning round and looking at the residential scheme as if you were in marsh walk so which with the block of block C being 9 storeys. Then looking at the scheme as if you were viewing it from board street from obviously in its entirety so the 18 storey PBSA block stepping down to 15, the 9 storeys of the block C and the residential to 7 storeys and then up to block A which is 21 storeys. And then looking at it from millennium ways so 21 storeys on the corner stepping down to a 17 shoulder 7 storey link and then back up to 21 storeys on the shoulder of the block B and 26 storeys at its maximum height for block B. And then this is the elevation as if you were looking at the northwest view. So from a strategic viewpoint at general war, so noting the site's location the proposal is considered the relevant townscape views from a number of locations. A selection of those views are now shown. So from the strategic viewpoint at general war statue with cumulative developments shown, i.e. mordomorph development is this darker red colour as we've heard about earlier today and the night dragon outline consent is shown here. And the scheme itself is now proposed in the background here and hidden behind mordenwarf primarily. And then stepping down to the Old Royal Nowyville College, the scheme's shown here and would appear as a similar height and a part of the cluster that's been approved on the night dragon master plan and this is the mordenwarf scheme as shown from that angle. And then stepping around to Ballaskey and again you would just see a small segment of the proposal through the centre of the outline massing for the mordenwarf development with the rest would be hidden behind. And then coming across from cubit town wharf where it would be more visible owing to the fact that the industrial uses located here on mordenwarf were retained. However, again it would form part of a successful cluster of the tall buildings approved on the Greenwich Peninsula. Then looking from Blackwall Tunnel Avenue at the scheme itself so this again is the night dragon outline planning permission shown and the proposed block B at its highest. And then from across the other side of the peninsula from Tydemill Square you'd see a small segment of that through the existing outline planning permission and then as you get closer to the site along the pedestrian cycle route between Millennium Way and West Parkside where block A would be most visible with a small segment of the student accommodation block in the background. And then from Riverway where the most locally listed and structurally listed buildings are located with the outline planning permission built out on the peninsula it would be hidden behind those. So the scheme has been designed to respond to its setting and its context adjacent to a nightclub as well as safeguarded wharf and the A1A2 with appropriate mitigations proposed and secured by conditions linked to triple glazing and additional assessments prior to above ground works, ensuring rooms meet specific noise criteria, locating the cell storage building adjacent to the nightclub to help mitigate noise and from the more vulnerable use, designing deck gallery access within block C and winter gardens within block B, and responding to the agent for change policy. Alongside this proposal would provide equivalent of 488 homes when you take into account the student accommodation is considered to 2.5 rooms to one unit ratio. 35% affordable housing linked to the residential and linked to the student accommodation, varying levels and types of commercial floor space and jobs created, improvements to the adjacent public realm along Port Street, Millennium Way by the way of section 278 works and 38 works, as well as an additional 450K towards improved public realm offsite, as well as financial contributions to sport offsite playspace. Financial contributions are also secured towards the delivery of the terms for a pier, as well as other contributions towards NHS infrastructure, employment and training and carbon offsetting contributions. The officer's recommendation is to grant planning permission subject to conditions in section 106 as well as CLA referral. Thank you. Thanks Tim. Questions for the officer? David, Pat? Thanks, I'm going to firstly ask the same question that we've asked in the past, which is around, I think there's a lot of attractive features of this. But I'm very concerned about this black box, 37, 38m black box, big black blocks and you mentioned the energy centre and so forth, which I know with the optic artwork and so forth there, which is quite different but how high is that and how close is it to the dreadnought building which is a listed building. I'm just very concerned about when you're cycling over this new bridge or walking over the new bridge or I don't have a car but those that drive down the Blackwall tunnel approach, you know, what will get the bus, what they will see just, they won't see so much of the development, they'll just see this big black box and wondered what discussions there were of something that may be softer and more acceptable in terms of promoting the overall look of the development and indeed the peninsula, which is a very lax greenery anyway in any event. So that was my first question around the black box and what alternatives there might be to the black box, which I will also ask the applicant and the second question is around the contributions. So this is my ward, one of the key issues between my ward and Councillor Richard's coastal ward is obviously the cycle and pedestrian connectivity, you know, we don't have a leisure centre in our ward, we don't have a library, we don't have any state nurseries, people have to go, well there is one still at Millennium but broader nurseries, people have to go to the ones in East Greenwich, and loads of people go down to use a visit to East Greenwich from the peninsula but the connectivity, and they don't have cars, very few of my residents have cars, and then none of them will have, the connectivity is very difficult by bike and by walking. You've got to go with all the massive pollution and the noise and the traffic and so forth, in the past we've tried to get planning gain but it's not necessarily been well spent. What contribution will there be from this development particularly in the proximity because when you cross that lovely yellow bridge you're then against a tunnel of traffic on the other side of Tunnel Avenue right next to the A102 with no greenery, no noise, it's very difficult for people to cycle into Greenwich or indeed they can cycle into East Greenwich but it is quite difficult and not at all nice. So what improvements will be made by this developer, what discussions have there been in terms of those key contributions given quite rightly as a car free development? So on the first point about the self storage at the black building, obviously there's been a number of iterations throughout the design process which come forwards, they've always had a different version of a black building, I'll be honest with you, and obviously is part of those design review panels and the urban design managers input into the scheme is considered that this should be considered as an individual component and it read very much as that with the choice of materiality and in the fashion that it was brought forwards and obviously they were very supportive and our urban design managers comments are in the planning board report in regards to the overall consideration subjectively of the black building and how it contributes positively to the scheme. On the second point about contributions, obviously the scheme which secured 450,000 pounds worth of contributions towards improvements to active travel and public realm improvements off site, so over and above those proposed to be undertaken and secured by the section 278 works which would be the works along board street itself, i.e. reducing the width of the road and introducing the segregated cycle lane. So obviously there's funding there to improve routes to and from key activity areas, one of the points that's raised within the committee report and something that hopefully won't be necessary but obviously we've approved the scheme at the travel lodge, but in the scenario where for some reason that doesn't get built out, we secured the funding to ensure that the signalized crossing across Millennium Way can be secured and brought forwards because the importance of this scheme in regards to linking to the wider peninsula on that side, I'm pretty sure that's not to East Greenwich per se, but obviously yeah there's funding secured for further public realm active travel route improvements as part of the scheme. But it's always very difficult to unpack this money and often get swallowed up on an expedient basis by things that come along and have to be done. What guarantees do we have that or what conditions can we lay that some of that contribution will be to improve cycle connectivity along and safety, also health and safety along the cycle route as it crosses the Yellow Bridge and downtown Avenue? I mean because that is detailed, that will be detailed in Section 106, that money has to be spent on those particular items, so it can't be used for affordable housing or something, it is specifically linked to financial contributions that are sought, we can't give a lot more reassurance other than saying we will specify it in the Section 106 that that's what it will be used for. And can we put a timeframe within the Section 106 and can local councillors and community groups be involved in that? We always link payment of financial contributions to delivery of the development, so restricting certain amounts of occupation, so you can't, for example, build, you can't occupy more than 50% of the units until the money is delivered, so there is a time limit in that regard. We can't secure any more than that, say for example the development doesn't come forward, so we don't get the financial contribution so we can't link it to the timing of granting the planning commission unfortunately. Sorry, what was your second point on that? Just, because it's just our experiences of working through these issues on other planning agreements, will local councillors and community groups be involved in how this money will be spent? So when the money is put forward with the scheme, for example, through the highway department, they may have their own requirements to go and consult with local residents, but there's no, I can't sit here and guarantee it, but you would expect that if something is going to improve in that immediate area in your walls, you'd expect to be part of that conversation. You also asked a question about the Dreadnought building as well, so it's 55 metres from the Dreadnought building, which is not a listed building, so it's a non-designated heritage asset, so the energy centre for the peninsula, the other black building, is closer to the Dreadnought building than this proposed building would be. And thank you for your presentation again, Tim. I am going to go back to the black box and I'm not sure whether I've missed something here, but can I ask, you say it's used for storage, is it going to be, what kind of storage, I mean I'll probably ask the applicant as well, do we know what kind of storage, is it storage for, storage units for people who want store furniture, or whatever there, or is it for something, sort of storage for people who are on site, the students and everybody? So yes, the storage, it's a self storage facility so an individual or a business could hire the space to store items in that location. Do we know how many storage units are going to be in there? We know obviously the quantum of the overall floor space, which is 2931 off the top of my head. Now because my concern is that people are going to become, will go there from you know, not necessarily from, well to leave their belongings, so you know, it's how, when this is going to be open, how the traffic entry will enter this storage facility and how does it sort of work with the local traffic, how does it fit in? So yeah, obviously on the building itself it's got lower ground parking area so it's all off street. In regards to the trip generation, details provided by the proposal have been set out in the report and they're very low, they're at, I did have these written down earlier, they're at 20 in the AM and 12 in the PM peak, including servicing for the whole site and TFL and highway officers have agreed with that figures in regards to the trip generation created. I think, yeah, obviously people in this location, noting where it is adjacent to the A102, it potentially could be used by a wider point, but I guess there is onsite facilities to facilitate the demands set out, which has been agreed by highway officers and is considered to be an acceptable level which doesn't have a detrimental impact on the highway. More detail from the developers and fire safety concerns, you know, you said there was a car park, covered car park in the middle, this development and I think that the fire sort of officers have got fire safety concerns about how vehicles, if necessary, would reach that area. So yeah, the HSE originally raised an objection, but following clarification from the applicant, they removed that objection to the covered residential space, so in other words, yes, there's residential parking under a podium, which we see a lot across Greenwich and that's the same within the self storage facility, in that it's a lower ground floor level with self storage above, but the HSE have not taken forward that objection and therefore obviously from a fire safety point of view, have considered it acceptable, subject to the next stage of the Building Safety Act and further elements that the applicant will need to go through. I just wanted to ask, perhaps Vicky, maybe you should answer the question that, and it's a genuine open question, I just wondered whether it was possible to amend the, or to impose a condition which didn't concern the black box this evening as part of this process, because I think it was mentioned earlier, I think Tim mentioned the fact that the developer was keen for this particular element of the scheme to be considered in its own right. Does that privilege extend to ourselves, because looking at the scheme overall and allies Morrison and great architects, it's a great scheme, but for me, that black box is an abomination, but I don't know whether we can consent the scheme, but not that bit. No you can't, it's a simple question. It's a scheme that's submitted in its totality, which includes the storage and commercial unit. What you can consider, if it's the colour that you don't like or the materials you don't like, then we can put a condition on that requires those to be looked at and for it to be submitted under that condition. So you can deal with the materiality that way. Do you have to specify the colour you'd like? No, not at this stage, but obviously the indication would be that you don't want to see a black box, but you're open to it being designed in another colour or with other materials. So provided the applicant is open to that approach, we can do it that way. But you either have to approve or not the scheme that's before you. Can I just ask one more question? I've got, maybe it's my fault, maybe my administration's not as good as it should be, but I saw some documentation that came through in my post today from, I think he must have been a consultant working for Unit 338, and that documentation came through with various pieces of evidence with it. And I don't know whether Tim has found time in putting together these thousands of pages, whether that's all incorporated within there. Tim, so that email came through late this afternoon. I wrote to the applicant and told them that there was a procedure for sending documents in to become part of the official bundle, and the email had missed a deadline, but that person is actually listed to speak, so if he wants to bring up those points when he's sitting at the table he can, but in future he needs to send documents in for consideration within the timeframe so that they become part of the official bundle. I'm talking about the email that came through this afternoon at 3 o'clock. Anyway, anyway. Excuse me, excuse me, you've got a chance to speak when you come forward. I'm just trying to ascertain whether the officers have had time to consider it. Yes, we've received it previously from the gentleman as he's highlighted. We've considered it, with their permission we've passed it on to Fairview to consider it as the applicant and respond to it. Our health officers have reviewed it as well and obviously we've responded and discussed it and detailed it within both the officer report and the addendum. Tim, I have one question, sorry, any further questions for members? What caveats do we have around the black building not being taken by one owner and becoming a distribution hub? I mean, there's a condition in the proposal that links, sets out, you know, it's obviously a self-storage facility of X amount and should retain as such from memory, but I will double check for you. Thanks. I now wish to call on Sheila Keeble. Sheila, do you want to come forward? As you are speaking on behalf of the East Greenwich Residents Association, you have up to four minutes. Thank you Chair and thank you Councillors. I won't take four minutes of your time. But in this case I'm also speaking on behalf of the Greenwich Society and EGRA and I really want to highlight one aspect of this scheme. Neither society normally objects to any of the Greenwich Peninsula developments, but these are extraordinary circumstances. And the reason we've never objected is that we had never envisaged that anyone would attempt to build residential units in this corridor along the A-102. I assume you've had a site visit, so you will have noticed that there are now twelve lanes of traffic which are going to serve Blackwall and Silverturn tunnels and the ancillary slip roads. Two lanes of this are for the largest size of HGV that will be accessing Silverturn tunnel. On the other side of this development we have Millennium Way and West Park side, which are dual carriageways, frequently blocked by traffic trying to get in and out of the car parks if there's an event at the O2. So the potential residents of this site in Board Street will be the very human filling in a noxious sandwich. In the light of the Ellie Kisser Deborah ruling by the coroner that her asthma was exacerbated and eventually killed her because she lived by the South Circular Road, do you think permitting this development is a responsible act? Thank you. Thanks Sheila, any questions? David? Sheila I know you're fairly familiar with the area as I am, I'd just like if you could explain to members the issues around cycling and walking down tunnel avenue and the other side of the bridge which these people will be reliant on. Yes, well you take your life in your hands as I think David's already expounded. At the moment the footbridge is also covered in broken glass and debris at the moment. On the other side in tunnel avenue the road, I don't know when it was last resurfaced, probably sometime in Victorian times, it has access points to a number of heavy industrial sites. It also has a huge amount of HGV traffic going through the mud. There's also for some reason, the council hasn't noticed, there's free parking on both sides of the road so it's always parked up with people using it as a very cheap way of getting to North Greenwich for a bit of commuting. And generally speaking, if I have an alternative I would never ever walk or cycle down tunnel avenue, I would go through Central Park instead. Any further questions for the speaker? Sheila, thank you very much. I now wish to call on David Dadz. David, I'm going to give you four minutes so don't waste them. I just want to cover three points, Chair, if I may. So could I start again my time? Thank you, Chair, could I start my time again please from now? Thank you. So, I want to cover three points but if members would look at page 710, it's the condition number 24. Page 710, condition number 24. This condition has set out by the Environmental Health Officer a requirement for the noise rating at 10, NR10. Now with the condition worded at the moment, it says unless otherwise agreed in writing with the authority, so in other words, that's usurping your decision here. So the officers are saying you must have that as a condition, you should only grant planning permission to that condition. But off away in some place that's not transparent, in private, without member involvement, without any probity in planning or transparency on our behalf as being someone that's affected, it can be decided by a planning officer and I would say that's wrong. If that condition makes this scheme necessary or correct in law to protect those residents, then it should not have the words unless otherwise agreed in writing, they could make an application to vary, come back for the committee and give us an opportunity to comment upon it. So the way that that's drafted gives so much wriggle room in private, not transparent, not candour, that needs to be resolved and I would ask members to do that because you're here to protect us. In relation to the issue around agent of change, you saw that I sent a letter this afternoon, it had a very detailed letter about agent of change in the nightclub. I know that the wall council is here, maybe some councilors don't want a nightclub in your ward, but you have a nightclub that's in effect ranked sixth best nightclub in the world. It is a very important place where visitors come to here to enjoy music and it's protected. So in other words, because it's a noise generating premises, the agent of change principle says that the developer comes close to us, has to make sure that there are steps in place to mitigate and protect those residents. Now, I've been almost the solicitor for this premises nearly 20 years. We've had complaints from the pilot, we've had to address, we've had complaints over at Tower Hamlets that we've had to address, and we say within close proximity these residents will undoubtedly complain and we will lose our business. Now that's not right for us, we are protected, we should be protected. So by these conditions, well firstly the application I say should be refused, but in any event these conditions are essential with that wording omitted and shouldn't be included. In relation to the black box, it is a black box, your officers try to take you away and say it's a nice building, but it's not. So you get up into Greenwich, the first thing you're going to see is that horrible building, that black box, and at the end of the day it's not unique and we've just got to look at it on our own, it's in its entirety. So if you're not satisfied with that black box and that's the first thing that people move across the bridge, they see that lovely building, they come through and they'll see that black box, you just reject it. This design, that appearance is ugly. At the end of the day you can't change it and at the end of the day you as members have an important role. At the end of the day you bring with it your opinion because you're a Democrat and you're elected by the members of the public to come here and have your voice. And at the end of the day while the officers may say technically it's all fine, it ticks the box, but ultimately you have a view as a President. David, are you going to keep your comments to the relevant points of the application or tell us what our responsibilities are as planning board members? We've been on the panel now for a number of years and we do know what our responsibilities are. I thought when you came to the desk that you had some important points to raise with us and you had certain issues, but at the moment what you're doing, you're lecturing us on our responsibilities. If you want to get back to point on planning matters around the application we'll deal with that, but as it is now your four minutes are up. I thought you had specific points about the application. I'm a member of the public and you've signed a code to make sure that you treat members of the public with respect. I'm entitled to speak for the allotted time and I'm also entitled to say Councillors you're here to represent me and my clients business. Can I finish without the interruption? You can tell me to stop. I'm not lecturing you, I'm entitled as a member of the public to come here and say remember your role is to represent us and to make sure that we are represented. And there's nothing wrong with that, if you're saying I'm not allowed to come here and do that then you say that now because we are entitled to do it. I haven't spoken out of turn, I'm entitled by the public, the public are here to be heard. I actually gave you double time to speak to the panel. You're down listed as a resident. I've got two clients I represent and I've written in twice. As you're representing a client you still only get two minutes, I've given you double the time. I'm grateful for that, I've made the point about the agent of change, I've made the point about the condition, I've made the point about the black box and at the end of the day I just want to make sure those points are covered. Obviously you didn't receive my letter, it's not on the planning portal it was written in May and it gives us grave concern, grave concern that our representation has not been seen by members. Any questions for the speaker? none? David, thank you very much, hold on, hold on. I wondered, well thank you for your patronising as for your comments about our responsibilities, I wondered about whether we ought to Councillor I remind you again that you've got a code of conduct not to patronise me or be rude to me, you said thank you for your patronising comments, that is disrespectful. I've come here as a member of the public I'm entitled to speak, I shouldn't be spoken to that you've got your legal advisor, could I ask that you remind members of their code of conduct to treat members of the public with respect, they have a code and they should treat people with respect. I'll move on from my point, I made my point, I wanted to ask you whether in fact your client would consider a CPO on that site because you might think it's a great asset to the borough but I don't think that's a view that's shared by very many people who live in that area and once you live in the borough I might be a bit biased because I'm a fan of Oasis but I don't think I would be a part of your clientele but I certainly don't think of that club as an asset Well thank you Councillor for setting out that you may be biased and that you don't believe it's an asset and that you don't believe that you and other people share the same view that us as a lawful legitimate business, that's protected by the statutory guidance that we are a noise generating premises and by the London plan, that we should be treated with some respect and also we are a lawful business And I don't agree with that, you ought to have withdrawn from actually being here if you are against our type of premises you should be here protecting us, we pay our business rates, we are a business in your ward or your borough and we should be treated with respect Because you don't like us doesn't mean that you shouldn't afford us the protection as law says we should be protected Thank you David, I think you know obviously questions that have been raised by this panel and by members during the planning process We've taken, I mean I know the club very well, I've known the club way before your tenant took over back in the early 80's so I'm aware of the club, I'm aware of the location and I'm aware of the surrounding area But I know we've asked the applicant a number of questions about sub base and everything else and what precautions are taken and when the applicant is before us there'll be a load more questions So you'll be able to judge us on the questions that we raise as committee members after we finish this meeting, but there's no further questions now, David Thanks chair, I did want to make it clear that I'm a local councillor, 4338 and I've got no objections to it And I've never been there unlike chair and I've never been approached by them on any issue either as a local councillor But my question would be that clearly while what you say is true in terms of age change and consideration, it's also true that we have a housing crisis across London not just locally And we're under a duty in terms of planning framework to increase housing supply and we need to look at where, how we can compromise, so my question is what discussions have there been between you and the applicant Or your client and the applicant on ensuring that such development, and I'll ask the same with the applicant or the chair will, that there will be proper protection both for the new residents and for the interests of the nightclub as well Yes, thank you councillor, I think that's a good question, I thank you for that, I understand that you will have to weigh up the tilting balance, but when you look at that you have to have regards to the framework that sets out quite clearly That there is a degree of protection for noise generating businesses and music venues because they need to be protected, they're being lost because residential development are being built next to them like the Ministry of Sound and the same, we're in that same category so we're afforded protection In relation to consultation I can say that through this process it looks like the discussion started back in 2023, we were never contacted by the local authority, we only found out by chance because of a public notice A letter had been sent out by the council but in a completely different name to I think the Mitre Public House, not to us, so the reality of it is that we were not approached by a premise license holder or the landlord, certainly the premise license holder, the operator was not approached by the applicant We had an extension of four weeks from the council so that we could make the representation which I sent you in May of this year which was very substantial and for some reason it wasn't put on your council website, it's been ignored We've not been consulted, we've not been involved in the discussion, we are a leading music venue, a cultural leading venue, we've been there for years, we have a 24 hour license granted by your own council here to generate music We have 3,000 people pretty much coming on a Friday or Saturday up to, that noise coming backwards and forwards, people with the balconies, people queuing, people coming or going, it's going to generate noise We are generally concerned that the residents that will occupy will make complaints, the council is duty bound through your environmental protection act to investigate and issue a noise abatement which affects us and that's why we want the degree of protection, that's why we've written to you and we've written to all of you individually to set out our concerns, but for some reason our letter has not been put within the documents on the planning portal So just for members benefit, we don't normally put letters of representation up on the portal, so upon our own website, they are there for anybody to inspect and anybody to ask to see them, but because of capacity and the ability to redact the personal details we don't generally put them up on our website Any further questions for the speaker? Nope, thank you very much I now wish to call on Torben Anderson. Torben, I got you down again as talking on behalf of the applicant and not a resident, you get two minutes Thank you, Chair. Torben Anderson, I'm a director with RBA and we are an consultancy, we've worked for Studio 338 and its previous guises for 20 years I'll try and be brief, as I've just heard, you all know, agent of change places a significant burden on the applicants for new residential premises to ensure that they fully address the implications to existing long standing commercial operations The current proposal simply does not sufficiently demonstrate this We've been in consultation with the Department of Culture and Creative Industries at the GLA and they've said Studio 338 is one of just six London clubs in the list of global 100 best clubs It would be a huge loss if they were to face closure due to noise complaints, so we as a 'they are my client' but also as an industry need to protect premises such as this The applicant has submitted an acoustic report with the application that acknowledges Studio 338 and did some assessments of it, we critiqued that back in May and said we don't think the noise targets you're setting or the way you're assessing it is appropriate and suggested more stringent criteria. The Council's officers agreed and set a more stringent criteria But in response the applicant hasn't revised their noise assessment or resubmitted it to demonstrate they can actually comply with the conditions that are now brought before you I've done a counterfactual assessment and again it's in my report that says actually we are likely to exceed the target noise levels by 11 decibels, that's more than a doubling of loudness So there is the only evidence that we have regarding to this specific target criteria that the Council are proposing suggests a substantial exceedance When that happens, and it will happen, there will be complaints to your officers regardless of whether we have a deed of easement or whatever and they have a statutory obligation and that will lead to the closure of the premises So my final point would be that this application in its current guise is entirely against the agent of change and granting it, as it stands, will have a significant risk I would say an inevitability that Studio 338 won't be able to trade any longer. Thank you David Thank you very much for your input on this, I haven't seen your full representation but could you just explain again to us the nature of the agent of change How it fits into the planning framework, is it in the NPPF, is it in the London Plan or is it a principle that's been established by case law and how it fits into our considerations Yes, so in various guises it's been around for a long time, it's almost a I was here first you know, I've got dibs on this principle that has existed in one way shape or form for a long long time But it's been crystallised in the London Plan and in the NPPF in more recent years, mostly in response to the increasing closure of music venues, grassroots music venues, nightclubs As a result of noise complaints from newly built residential properties and so the agent of change says that the agent of change, in this case the new residential scheme, must ensure that they do not place unreasonable restrictions on the ongoing operations The only unreasonable restrictions would be turn your music down by 10 or 11 decibels, maybe you can turn it down by 1 or 2 dB, of course that's probably not a problem But the extent that we would likely have to turn the music down by is so much that it's no longer a viable operation The problem is that these flats will look directly down onto the glass roof of Studio 338, it's not a heavy concrete roof, it is a glass roof and that is part of Studio 338's USP, it is an outdoor type feel So if you go into this place, that's what makes it so special, so another unreasonable restriction, I'll put a concrete lid over the top of it, then it stops being Studio 338 Does that answer your question sir? Thank you Tim, do you want to cover a bit of the agent of change, do you want to re-emphasise on that and then I'll come back and speak to Torben Yeah, I think obviously we've talked about it within the planning board report and in the addendums following on from the comments raised by the Torben that were sent to the Planning Board on Friday responding to some of the comments set out there and further clarifying the conditions which are put in the addendum As I talked about within the presentation, as officers, the scheme's been designed to mitigate against that adjoining use and agent of change principle and policy so in the way it's laid out with a self storage unit adjacent to the proposed 338 building is a part of a buffer to both the PBSA scheme and the C3 residential further away, the way that the closest residential part of the Block C is designed with a gallery access enclosed with the core on the corner and the area that's in the studio 338 and facing away from that adjacent use as well as then utilising winter gardens and other aspects that are included and also then working towards setting out as they're detailed and conditioned ensuring that appropriate noise ratings are received and occur within the development and conditioned and assessed and verified accordingly from our perspectives as officers we consider the scheme has responded for the agent for change principles and policies and the mitigations and the design of the scheme have considered that and accordingly responded Members getting it? Yeah. Thank you. Can I clarify one thing? Is there anything we can do to, from a planning perspective, protect the sort of club if there are complaints from residents or is that sort of outside the scope? Like once though if there are complaints from residents about noise is there anything we can within this application do to sort of protect the club or kind of like give it a weighted, some kind of weighted decision or is that kind of more within the licensing? Well I think the physical mitigations that have been put into the building we feel are sufficient to deal with that agent of change issue. There's nothing we can do within the planning application to stop people making complaints So it's through the design of the building that we've sought to ensure that the adjacent use is protected What measures did you put in with regards to the building? Are there double glazed windows, doors and all of that to make sure that the noise level is reduced inside? The residential includes triple glazing throughout the PBSA does at different aspects because of where it's located. Some of the sound noise mitigation is impacted through the self storage blocking a lot of that noise so obviously not all of it is triple glazed but certain aspects where it's relevant And it's about the way that the building has been laid out as I've set out sort of putting away the most sensitive uses as far as possible from that adjoining use Okay so I was just looking at the, as I do, what the mayor of London is saying on this and because I know the big presumption to support the night time economy and including in this borough So this includes the mayor's 24 hour vision blah blah blah blah sorry the mayor's draft London plan includes a requirement for developers to ensure existing venues, clubs and bars still have a home in new developments And includes the agent of change principle which will help protect venues by putting the onus on developers to meet the cost of sound proofing and noise reduction measures So somewhere you're saying Tim and no doubt the applicant will say, we'll hear from them that you have met that test and they'll pay for double glazing or triple glazing the glass on top of 338 or whatever But the Studio 338 is saying you haven't met that and there will be 11 decibel difference. Do we have an independent report from anyone that's actually looked at this, experts that have looked at the issue about the impact to be reassured that we're meeting this agent of change principle Well I would clarify the triple glazing is to the proposed building not to Studio 338 Yeah it's been reviewed by our environmental health officers and they've concluded it's acceptable And they've got the necessary expertise? Yes Okay Yeah they're qualified in noise, acoustic matters Seth what comments did we get from the GLA at stage 1? Yeah, Stage 1 response said in line with policy D13 and D14 the council should secure appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed sensitive residential use given the proximity to Studio 338 and the Blackpool Tunnel approach And can you tell us how condition 24 is to be implemented So obviously the condition has a number of parts to it, so part A is obviously around what works need to be done and the requirement to meet certain noise ratings, the addendum obviously talks about and the comment that was made previously by Mr Dads in regards to the wording of the condition That has also been tightened up in regards to the way it is obviously now set out, but in other words it sets out the need for additional testing in line with the recommendations taken on board from the Studio 338 objectives And then obviously setting out what the applicant needs to work towards prior to the superstructure, part B's about prior to the construction of each relevant phase, details of that verification testing shall be submitted to the LPA to be undertaken And obviously it sets out the opportunity for witnessing that testing shall be provided to representatives from the council, Studio 338 and the safeguarded wharfs noting their location adjacent And then obviously the part C is prior to the first occupation of the relevant phase, a report describing the implementation and results of any approved verification testing shall be submitted and approved And then part D, it goes on to talk about the circumstances where the residential and/or the PBS phase come forward prior to the self storage phase because obviously it's part of the acoustic buffer for it to be in place to lessen the impact on those uses A further report should be submitted to the LPA to consider that to ensure that any future occupiers are appropriately protected and then obviously it sets out detailed reasoning and the requirement for it to be retained for the lifetime of the development There's a four phase part of the condition which is obviously very detailed and quite technical but it's there in regards to ensure the additional testing, mitigations that come forward, the verification of that and in the circumstances where obviously there's a differentiation with the PBSA scheme or the self residential coming forward before the self storage scheme Thanks, so I worked in the club business for over 20 years and I'm well aware of the problems that clubs like Ministry of Sound had when they first opened and they ended up having to do internal mitigation and also change the sound system to distribute the sound more equally so it wasn't channeled in big heavy lumps. I can remember Club 338 before they put the glass roof on the back and the noise bleed was coming right all the way up to Charlton Lane I can hear it from my windows especially when they had the Sunday sessions in the garden. So considering not just this application but the conveyor belt of applications that you've seen earlier on the outline consents that are coming forward What considerations are the club making with the build up of tall buildings that are going to surround the club and create a bigger echo chamber So with the glass roof that covers the back area are you looking at improving that to contain the sound and possibly look at redistribution so you've got more clarity rather than volume internally As part of the agent of change that's going to come after this application should this application be approved. So I'm wondering how far forward the club is thinking to obviously maintain its status and at the same time be part of the agent of change beyond this application Good question. So in terms of the Enderby Wharf scheme now that we have the glass roof on that was in response to complaints from the pilot complaints from the GMV It used to spill everywhere we put the hay bales up the side to try and control it and it did to some extent but obviously as the club became louder and more and more residents came on here we took action to control ourselves We think that the current operations control us in as far as the existing residences and I would expect that for example the Enderby Wharf schemes they won't be affected by our noise so they don't present a problem to us We have also looked at how we set the noise limiter for the premises in response to noise issues on the other side of the river so we are constantly evolving our operations In terms of how the premises would respond to this one and this is clearly the biggest issue because it is so close it looks directly down onto I would say the venue has a responsibility to do some action to take some action But the level of reduction that my assessment suggests is substantial and I think the agent of change principle which says that studio 338 shouldn't have unreasonable restrictions put on them Costs altering last week there has got to be a balance there I think what I am looking at is have the club got any idea about containment which they could then pass the costs on to the applicant whether I think one of my colleagues here mentioned triple glazing or you know making a fabricated glass roof that has got a bigger space between it I mean is there alternative designs for containment rather than reduction because I know you are concerned about reduction I think the answer to that is possibly but there has been no engagement with studio 338 by the applicant Okay so maybe that is a question we can take up with the applicant when they come to speak Okay But I would just say that we and I understand what Mr Edwards has said that there officer has looked at it he has looked at an assessment that said it is okay for a criteria that he then said actually I believe a more stringent criteria is appropriate But I think the assessment submitted by the applicant is for the wrong criterion is for a too relaxed criterion and a too relaxed sampling period So they haven't submitted anything that demonstrates that they can comply with that NR10 criterion and that is why Mr Dadds was so nervous about the wording that says unless otherwise agreed I.e. we can take it away if it proves that actually we can't achieve that and that is a big worry But NR10 if we can hit the NR10 by combination then I am comfortable with that for ongoing operations but I don't think it can be Thank you chair, you have actually kind of asked the question I was going to ask following the question I had asked the team earlier about what are we or are there any conditions given to the developer to make sure that the residents they are protected by making sure they have the correct type of glaze sorry triple glazed so that noise is not It's around the fact that have you done any visibility study to see how much you may need to spend on making sure that the noise is reduced to reduce the complaints Well I'm looking at the principle of the agent of change, the principle actually says the person who is driving the change should be responsible for the impact So in my own view we are for two things here, one to make sure that the extreme pressures that we have in our temporary accommodation where we don't have enough accommodation and also to make sure that that is taken care of where people have access to affordable accommodation and all of that so we are very much up for having developments like this in Greenwich The second bit which we cannot overrule is the fact that we have businesses that we want to thrive, we have businesses that provide jobs for our residents and of course you pay the business rate and there are so many attendant benefits to all our businesses in the borough So it would be very helpful if you have accosting because in my own very strong belief and opinion the person who is driving this change should be responsible or supporting or mitigating or meeting you halfway to making sure that the impact of that change is met halfway So there isn't accosting and this comes back to I'm not saying this scheme can't ever work but I'm saying what's on the table at the moment hasn't been worked through enough There's been no consultation with us, they acknowledge that we are creating noise and it needs to be dealt with and the officers have correctly identified that but actually getting to that end point hasn't been done so you're at the risk of granting permission for this without the full information and without the full understanding of how it could be done and whether it could be done I'll raise some of the points when the applicant comes forward so there's no further questions now, thanks Thank you councillors David, I think the comments you made about the wording have been adhered and I think they've taken the notes and they'll address that point I haven't got to hear anything for you, I don't mind seeing it Well, I'll see what can be done I now wish to call on the applicant's team, Faye Wilders, Jonathan Stern, James Massingham, Alex White, David Yates, Alan Evans, Philip Goffin and Robert Grant Good evening members, so my name is Mark Jackson, I'm the director of planning at Fairview New Homes I'm joined by Faye Wilders who's the project manager and James Massen who's a technical manager at Fairview And I'm joined by David Yates who's the project manager and James Massen who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes I'm joined by Mark Jackson who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes I'm joined by David Yates who's the project manager and James Massen who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes And I'm joined by David Yates who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes I'm joined by David Yates who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes I'm joined by David Yates who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes I'm joined by David Yates who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes I'm joined by David Yates who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes My name is David Yates, I'm joined by David Yates who's a technical manager at Fairview New Homes The project has been a collaborative design process right from the start with input from planning and design offices on the bulk, height and mass of the various elements of the uses The site forms, as you've heard, part of an emerging cluster of new development in the peninsula including Mordenwolf, the new travel lodge and the Night Dragon development This development creates a family of buildings with shared character of colors and textures and with a very deliberate juxtaposition of the storage building The main residential part of the scheme is, I think we call it a playful combination of tall buildings and wolf typology It does comprise a rich composition of building forms, materials which are with fully articulated facades, projecting balconies And the student accommodation has a more restrained palette of materials but also forms an important corner building with textured brickworks, gable parapets, etc The Pro Self storage box is designed to be a single and standalone element but also complementary in nature The concept is built around the Greenwich Mean Time with time zones of longitude and using these to simulate floor levels and openings on the building with lighting at night, etc This is rightly a bold approach to a different use on this important part of the site and has been endorsed by your independent design review panel and your offices The concept is underpinned by a distinct black appearance which reflects other modern buildings in the area, creating an expressive architecture And obviously I've heard your comments this evening and that's something which maybe needs further work via, I think the condition was mentioned So that might be an appropriate way forward, but it is a saving independently assessed by the design review panel Just want to touch on sustainability, something that we work very hard on on this scheme and all our other schemes With a very good improvement over the current building regs in terms of building fabric, connections to the district heating system and PV Strong credentials in terms of urban greening, biodiversity net gain, a lot of work done on design accreditation of the site and other elements like intensive green roofs and good improvements to public transport and cycle lanes, etc Just touching on what's obviously a key issue, the noise in the agent of change I'm just going slightly off script here, I would say that right from the outset this isn't a case of trying to alienate or come away from the fact that the nightclub is in existing use We very well are the agent of change, it's London Plan policy, it's your policy and something that we have put a lot of work in to plan around so that our future residents can have an acceptable environment and by that there shouldn't be grounds for objection on noise to the nightclub and there's a lot of work that's gone into that and I've got various experts that can talk through the noise aspects All of these matters have been put before your offices and legal offices and I think they have been fully addressed We do recognise it is a busy regeneration area with established businesses and the noise isn't just in respect to the nightclub, obviously that's the closest element but we do have the various wolves, we do have busy road noise, so noise is a characteristic of this site and we have right from the outset designed positively to address that I think we've done that to the satisfaction of your offices with careful design in terms of the orientation of the buildings and design I think you've asked questions about how we are addressing that need, it does start very much from how the buildings are placed, where the habitable rooms are of the buildings the fabric of the buildings, the glazing of the buildings, the winter gardens where they are necessary, so every aspect of this has been carefully considered and is embodied in the design We've also talked about conditions, the application is underpinned by a comprehensive suite of conditions and also proposed wording in terms of the legal application to protect the future occupiers and as I've said, the existing users around the site, and having dealt with similar issues across London, we like your offices are content that we've done everything necessary to respect the agents of change Just touching on the Greenwich Society in East Greenwich, obviously we note the comments of the Greenwich Society and I think they've all been raised and considered by officers Just to tackle some of the key points in their written submissions, we have worked with TFL to agree active travel assessment routes and made recommendations within our transport assessment The subject of air quality was fully considered as part of the EIA, we know that Euless is improving air quality across London We do have monitoring stations on the site, near to Tunnel Approach, that's all been modelled and officers are satisfied that we are achieving an acceptable environment there I know that Greenwich Society and the East Greenwich Resort Association have expressed concerns about the height of the development As you've heard this evening, there is a lot of development that is coming forward in terms of Night Dragon, and Warden-Wolf Warden-Wolf are currently clearing their conditions at the moment, I agree that there is no way that the development by Galliards and CEO Stephen Conroy wouldn't have bought that site unless he wanted to take it forward So all these things are proceeding and this development is a piece of that puzzle Finally, this is a point I like to reiterate to members when I have a chance to present Development sites in opportunity areas are needed now more than ever, and you've said this already this evening between you, to address the current housing and affordability crisis As a house builder, rather than just a pure property speculator, we buy land to build As an example, in November 2021 this board approved our scheme at Gallians View in Thamesmeet That scheme secured permission for 333 new homes, 35% affordable housing That development is being occupied now, final homes are available next September, so I think the point I'm making is subject to the outcome this evening We will get on and build and try and address the problems that we're all facing In terms of this development, subject to this evening and obviously going through the various conditions that we need to address We would be able to start work in the spring with our first completions in January 2028 and the last completions two years later in January 2030 So just really a message that we're keen to deliver Happy to take any questions and I've got a range of experts to help as well Thank you Two sort of questions, one of them, you know sort of both of them came up this evening Talking about the air quality and yes, the Sheila who was talking on behalf of the Greenwich Society And obviously the 12 lanes of traffic and it is a massive concern because you are going to have families I can't remember what, have you got a kind of green barrier, how are you going to try and overcome that? Have you got sort of trees or green barrier separating the building from the traffic? So we don't own the Dreadnought Street but as part of that development there have been a number of trees that are planted But what we have is the storage facility that does provide a buffer between the A102 and the residential And then the student accommodation, the lower levels on the floor are amenity with the sleeping of accommodation for students Only starting from the third floor so they are actually stepped away and there are sort of air intake facilities on the northern part Away from the roadway to make sure there is sort of clean air filtered through the Sorry, hello Councillor, yes, yes so in terms of the air intake obviously there will be a mechanical filtration ventilation system that is installed across the entire development that will be for both the PBSA and for the residential developments And that is located in a way, in a location that is away from the worst affected facades closest to the Blackwall Tunnel traffic And again as the pollution is able to dissipate it is able to get into natural clean air to be drawn in through to the apartments So the systems are in place really to provide choice really and acceptable levels of air quality I should say also that this has been assessed as part of the EIA application and also by your own officers And they are content that we are not creating a situation which is going to create any sort of health concerns And the storage unit, yes again this black storage unit, can I just, whilst we are talking about noise as well What are the opening hours for that for the public to use it? The storage facilities, the opening hours will be 8 till 6 There was a question in terms of the size and the number of storage units within there There are sort of 350 storage facilities within the application as proposed But they range in size from sort of the size of a wardrobe to sort of a big facility So they cater for many different sort of needs And the internal walls are sort of moveable essentially so they can be flexible And what sort of, I mean what waiting sort of, did you say that you had space for people to wait with their cars or vans or how are you going to cope with that, people queuing to get in? Well from the experience on sort of other similar schemes we are expecting about 4 customers an hour And they use a access system through their phone so they will sort of get to the phone and then sort of dial in So the expectation is there is no waiting And the, yeah, are you going to this box, and I'll keep my image, would that be sort of a living, could that become a living sort of wall area, living box? It's got a full intensive green roof on the roof One of the things we found more recently is that living walls, we sort of moved away from that for fire purposes And so it's essentially a combustible material, sort of up the side We take fire very very seriously as you can imagine These are aluminium panels, they're A-rated And so in terms of the sort of time to fire, exit and things We pride ourselves on it being a high performance So we have tried to steer away from any sort of living walls But on the storage, on the student and on the residential we've got intensives So the 150mm green roofs, so they're high performing in terms of sort of urban greening And the biodiversity net gain I was going to mention the, yes obviously, the major factor here, the noise and with the nightclub and everything But I don't know whether you've got anything to say about that What you're intending to do and what moves you've made Let's save that question because I think there's a number of people that are going to raise that point And they might be a little bit more articulate on the point of fact that you're after Lade Thank you chair, I think Pat was just going to steal my thunder It's okay Pat So my question is, I think you kind of would have an idea of what I was going to ask You are the agent of change And it is very concerning to hear that you've not had any direct engagement with a business that you're very much aware of Would be impacted by I'm sorry I have, do you want, I want to just give you all the questions together so you can answer them one by one I've got three questions So what are you going to do with regards to stakeholder engagement Because this is really key. Part of what we want is to see developments that are co-designed by people who will be impacted by this new development And it's really key that we engage, we get to hear from them, we get to see what their needs are So that we're all meeting our needs We totally agree that there's a massive gap in the housing market at the moment So stakeholder engagement, what are you doing and what will you do, especially with regards to the club That's the first one Second one, I'm not too sure what design you have within the building I'm aware of some of the developments that are very close to motorways Internally in the flats they have air filtration that actually does ensure that the air is clean all the time I don't know if you have anything like that And then lastly I just want to commend you, which I think is really brilliant I've looked at other planning and sometimes one massive gap that I see there is the fact that there's no mention of nurseries There's no mention of making sure that we have GP facilities But notice that you have that here So my question around that is that are you going to engage with the NHS to make sure that facilities are curated And specifically to making sure that the already overbudant GPs we have, I'm also really impressed to hear that you have play areas And there was one other thing, you have the child yield, I'm really happy about that So those are my three questions Ok, I will start at the beginning, so in terms of contact, we did try and contact Studio 338 before we submitted during the pre-application process We struggled to do that, we didn't get a lot of luck And because of that I looked up the Travelodge objection and saw that David Dadds represented them and I emailed him myself on the 17th of April in 2023 And we didn't receive a response then So it's not for lack of trying, in terms of engagement, in terms of the other sites around us, we've met with Night Dragon We have engaged with our neighbouring site SGN and we've put flexible elements within our legal agreement in terms of when they come forward And how we can adapt our scheme to make a better environment when they come forward And we've spoken with the Travelodge and engaged with them So it's not that we haven't tried and we are engaging with everyone else around us We've been attending Peninsula Stakeholder meetings in terms of wayfinding and how we fit and how other developments are all coming over on the peninsula So it's not in terms of that, we did a public engagement in October, I know that the Greenwich Society attended that So we have genuinely tried to integrate into the fact that this is an existing but also an emerging environment I'm going to leave you to the... First for interrupting, can you tell us how many emails or phone calls you actually made to the venue to try and enter into discussion? Honestly, I can't recall how many I only emailed David Dad once because I only got his contact through that he was representing them for the Travelodge objection And so I assumed when I didn't hear back from him that he wasn't instructed by them any further In terms of the engagement through the application they did make a comment response, a detailed response in May And we submitted a detailed response both in a covering letter, a response on daylight, which was one of the issues they raised And then a response from our noise consultant addressing their noise consultants So we did send that in July and we hadn't heard anything further from them until just before the committee Sorry, Lada, do you have a question now? Okay, here, sorry Sorry, yeah, I'm just going to skip over there just to this one But in terms of the GP, obviously our application was supported by a social assessment as part of our EIA application And we're paying £573,000 for the mental health capacity of Queen Elizabeth Hospital and repurposing parts of the Greenwich Peninsula practice which is going to bring space back into use to allow it to cater for more people So we are providing funding for that for specific things to improve the service in the area Do we have an answer for everything? One more, yeah Just to go back to the air quality point Obviously the case with Ella Kissi-Debra was back in I believe the February of 2013 when she passed away I think the judgement off the back of that found that the limits of air quality were higher than the standards that are currently set And it was about her house being around 25 metres away from the source which was the south circular So going back, you know, how much the stock of cars has changed over the years from 2013 with more electric vehicles in use across the borough And certainly the introduction of the ULEZ will reduce that baseline further that comes from the A102 As well as that, we are also further away from the source as the Ella Kissi-Debra case But for a couple of those two together we are well below the required guidelines for N02 particles in the area You haven't answered my question It's with specifically regarding the building internally inside the flats Will there be any air filtration system that you're going to put in place to make sure that the air does not stream in? Whether we have 100 electric vehicles out there, it doesn't matter, it's still the fact that there is air pollution And with the air pollution, like I said, there is the MVHR systems, there is a mechanical ventilation system which will inhale and extract air from the apartments Without the need for people to open windows to get suitable ventilation And through that method it can protect against any bad air quality that exists externally David Thank you, I'd just rather take a look back about what you said about N02 levels They're some of the worst in London, in my ward, along the Blackwall lane approach Particularly the measuring station by Millennium Primary School, which I'm sure you know, the local primary school And it's sort of like three to the average, about three or four times the WHO recommended limit on N02 and PM2.5 Really, really, obviously things are changing in one direction and a few more people are getting electric cars And hopefully a few less people are driving, but at the same time there will be this great big new HGV lane that comes down the Silvertown tunnel Which means a lot of HGV will not be electric, will be coming right past, in the nearest lane, to your new developments Is it really the case that people in the student block which will abut the A102 Blackwall and Silvertown approach Silvertown tunnel approach will not be able to open any windows, so there will be closed windows with air filtration And do you think that's acceptable in this day and age? Does it itself preserve a fire risk and so forth? Secondly, I wanted to pursue, go back to the black box, which I think is a brilliant development, I like the design My only big issue is this black box, this huge black box which dwarfs the energy centre which has a sort of artistic optic to it And will dominate the landscape as you come in over the Yellow Bridge or down the Blackwall lane Would you be agreeable to a condition that suggests we soften that approach? I mean I think there's a debate about living walls and the fire risk and so forth I don't want to end, it's not for us, but if we use the word soften, the fascia, the black box, would that be acceptable to you? Because it is right in your face and it is huge Okay Councillor, I think if I just take the black box first as an issue, I mean I would say that it has been through a lot of iterations in terms of design panels etc But in terms of a condition, in terms of looking at whether there are any further alternatives then that's something that we would consider And we certainly wouldn't want this application to falter on that point and if a condition is appropriate and officers are accepting of that approach then we would also support that in terms of that point In terms of the student accommodation, these mechanical systems are widely used throughout developments Most of our developments where we have noisy conditions and things of that nature, yes they govern air quality, they also govern humidity Which obviously regulates some of the problems that you do have in some accommodation in terms of damp and things of that nature They also have benefits in terms of heating systems, so I think these are good things in their own right And to say that this system is throughout the whole development, it's not just the student, it's the residential as well But will they be able to open windows in the student block? I don't think they do on that particular façade, but I'd have to double check whether it's all the façades David Like David, for me the problem is not the box, for me the problem is the nightclub If it wasn't for the nightclub there would be a different configuration of that site and a different aesthetic and composition of the site So to some extent the tail wags the dog, but I understand if you don't own that site then you have to work within that I was struck by a lot of those questions earlier where, I think you said that there had been engagement with the unit 3AA and you hadn't really derived much response from that I can't remember it, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was said at the presentation we had the other night, somebody said there had been no engagement with them One email now, confirmed But I think the question I was asking the other night was whether in fact the developer of Fairview in this case would The obvious thing would be to see if you could talk to unit 3AA and see if they could be taken out of the picture and found a site elsewhere I think that might have come out of the engagement, but at the moment it's the tail wagging the dog for me If I could tackle that from a planning perspective, the club is in existing lawful use with lawful hours of operation Age and exchange is engaged, we have positively planned to ensure that club can remain There are other noise elements as I've highlighted in terms of the road, the Port of London Authority have been consulted on this And they take the view that the measures that we put in place to address the nightclub also satisfy their concerns So this is not just about the nightclub, and in terms of any discussions that Fairview as owners of the site have had about purchasing the nightclub, that's not really a matter for planning There have been discussions, but nothing has come of that So I think we are left with your policy about age and the change, and we feel that we've addressed it And obviously, we might have a more technical answer on the noise side of things We are confident that we can achieve the conditions that the nightclub's consultants have challenged us on We think we can do that, because rather than just taking a standard glazing from a computer model and plugging it in and saying it doesn't work We've actually got very bespoke details from the manufacturers of how these windows operate, and when you put them into a model and it's the right data, it does work I don't know whether you can add to that Have I nailed it? Oh, there we go Mark, considering the amount of money you're going to have to spend on the glazing on these buildings, wouldn't it have been more important to engage with the applicant to get some sort of fantastic design containment in the club which is a smaller space than having to deal with 300 flats and the windows and triple glazing and whatever? As I say, chairman, it's not just a case of the club. We would have to have done a lot of these measures anyway The club is the biggest noise, it's the closest noise, but it's an infrequent noise We have to put these things in place to deal with, as I say, the road traffic noise and the Port of London authority And as my colleague Faye has highlighted, the engagement with the club was very poor, and it's only sort of ramped up as we've come near to committee But there's still no engagement? Well, the engagement has been more recent We've got two people from the applicant here. You talk about ramping up but we're only ramping up from one email that was sent back in 2023 No, no That was during the pre-application process So I did ask earlier on how many emails you'd sent to the applicant, to the club? In terms of the pre-application, but they were notified about the planning application and they made comments in May 23 and we've responded to all of their comments I understand that, but my point is when you're trying to force a situation that could save you possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds And we're talking about ramping up, I thought that there would have been a more aggressive approach to try and find a solution That's what I'm asking because we've got them sitting over here, and what I'm trying to look at is how we can get the two of you, the two organisations around the table to resolve a problem that's going to continue until you do sit around the table I mean, if I could just say, Chairman, that regardless of the kind of attempts on our part to engage with them, we've taken Absolutely, we've taken the correct planning approach here in terms of ageing the change You know, we've done everything right, we've had it assessed independently, your officers, your HO are happy with what we're doing and it's a comprehensive suite of conditions to address and make sure that we're doing it properly Maisie, sorry for butting in Thanks very much, just a few questions One was if you could talk a bit more about the comment made about that the noise assessment you submitted originally was against a lower kind of criteria, if you could just expand a bit more on that, that would be useful Second was picking up on Councillor Gardner's point earlier about Tunnel Avenue, whether you plan with active travel contributions to help, particularly that Tunnel Avenue approach onto the yellow bridge And a side note, I quite like the black, I feel like that's a controversial opinion on this panel but I think it's quite nice Thank you, Councillor I think those are yours I believe so But yes, in terms of the previous submission, I think the initial submission where we had a slightly less stringent criteria, that was actually based on previous engagement that we understand the nightclub had had on similar applications in the area So we applied that same logic in terms of it was a precedent previously set within the area of Greenwich and we put that forward which was still a very robust solution Obviously upon engagement through the consultation, we have addressed the more stringent criteria of using the NR10 and I think as we've mentioned previously we're still happy to address that and meet that and that will be secured via the suitably worded planning condition Can I just, how, sorry, oh sorry What are we getting caught up with here, sorry, apologies Oh, sorry, sorry, active travels, apologies, apologies Yeah so in terms of the active travel zones, obviously this was something that was put forward, the initial scope was agreed with your offices at Greenwich and we also agreed the scope and the limit of what it would be with Transport for London So I think initially we submitted with about twelve routes and I think upon that consultation to agree the scope, a further five I believe were added in terms of those additional routes We utilised the Transport for London healthy streets assessment which looks at a variety of things, safety, viewpoints, suitability essentially for that travel zone and it will make recommendations on that That assessment is undertaken by both male and female counterparts in both daytime and nighttime environments to give a well-rounded view on it Those results were presented within the transport assessment and I think on the basis of that will form part of the financial contributions within the 106 requested from Transport for London So where there are recommendations we put forward that perhaps should be looked at, obviously the hope is that that will be enacted through TFL Thank you Just to follow on from Councillor Richard's console question, I mean I haven't seen this transport assessment, maybe I should have done, I don't think it's in our papers But I don't think as local councillors we've been consulted on what these routes are and obviously close to East Greenwich and Peninsula, and this is a key issue for our constituents, local groups Does this include, do these routes include Tunnel Avenue? I think a route that was raised by the Greenwich Society was about getting access to the Charlton Riverside retail park which is approximately a mile and a half away from the development Tunnel Avenue itself is not reviewed in terms of a pedestrian or cycling walkway, but what is instead is the route from Millennium Way which then also uses Buggsby's Way heading east And I think along that route there are suitable street lights, there are suitable foot ways and some of those foot ways are segregated away from the carriageway with a small strip of soft landscaping to help increase that dimension And they're put forward there in terms of traffic crossings to give that opportunity for people to make that journey Can I point out that Greenwich Society did highlight the absence of any active traffic, which is useful, down the Tunnel Avenue Could I just, I'm quite taken by this point because your development as is Studio 338 is right next to this bridge and the other side of the bridge is Tunnel Avenue which is a monstrosity which is meant to be cycling and walking but will be a monstrosity because it won't be separated And you know just getting a small contribution and I'm amazed that it was not part of the transport assessment and that we as Councillors weren't consulted Greenwich Society clearly did express their views on Tunnel Avenue but is that something that you will consider Apologies where I've got, so there was active travel zone 9 which looked at access getting to Olympian Way which I believe is the walkway on the Riverside, is that correct? It's on the East as opposed to the West. I'm talking about West of the A102 correct so part of that assessment I think did look at crossing over the bridge and then utilising that area beyond and that was assessed in the transport assessment, apologies for my misreading earlier Did you want to jump in, Faye, in terms of the money and how it would operate the consultation? We did, let's see this was an EIA application and we scoped the travel zones with TFL and the Highways Department So I think we sort of operated as well as we could in terms of covering all of the different varying locations There is a payment of £450,000 towards active travel and public realm improvements that is going to be delivered as part of this application So there is flexibility in there to further identify improvements where they can be I mean just in terms of that piece of work it was obviously for officers as to how much engagement they have on that with members as well So it's not a closed shop in terms of how that moves forward Nady Are you willing, just a question, to work with Studio 12345? Three three eight Three three eight to mitigate the impact of this change in line with the principles of agents of change Well just to come back on the point I raised earlier, Councillor, that we have been designing around the principle of agents of change and this is the start of this in terms of the physical design, the fabric, the mitigation that's involved All of that's been assessed independently in the EIA We are convinced that we can achieve the conditions that have been suggested by members Of course we're happy to continue with the dialogue. We've heard where they're coming from You heard this evening the standard that they wish us to reach. We think we can do that and the conditions secure that we do do that So I think the question was would you still be willing to engage with the club to come to an amicable agreement which may actually mean that the club has to do some extra work so that the future operations of the club are not going to be impinged on once residents start moving in Well I think the answer is of course yes we're always happy to engage I think we've done the heavy lifting on our side Hold that point. David, you're over there. You've heard the applicant now willing to engage Are you willing to make sure that your client responds and you start working together? Because I'm hearing that there's been a few emails and someone's not answered or whatever If you and your client are contacted to discuss working together on finding a solution that makes the club's operations more easier in the future will you make sure that your client engages in those conversations? The short answer is that we will always Simple yes, simple yes I'm not continuous because we're being suggested that we have engaged If we have in the sense that we only became aware of it by a public notice Yeah, fine. David we're talking about from this point on Just simple yes or no, that's all We won't be able to engage but obviously if you grant it, there's no obligation, they can just carry on Well, there's something for us as a committee to talk about around maybe conditioning. Okay, so I just needed a yes, that's all. Thanks. Pat. Thank you, Chair. Now my question has already been answered This is quite relevant. I was going to ask you how near to the club 33A are you actually out of the building Because and how important it is, yes, right that you continue dialogue Because on the ground floor as well you've got a children's nursery And those children are going to need to go to sleep in the afternoon Or whenever at a time of day and I'm being told that the club is open 24 hours a day So yes, my question's already been answered But I'm saying it has to be You have to keep dialogue going because of these children as well The nursery and there is going to be a noise impact And you will have complaints. Thank you. So we heard from Sheila Keeble earlier on who discussed the traffic on almost all sides of the development In the Millennium Way and on Tunnel Avenue and Blackwall Tunnel approach And you've mentioned that you're going to have to use mechanical ventilation throughout the development So I think the question raised earlier was is this a suitable area for this type of development Because what I'm looking at is if you need mechanical ventilation for people to live How are they going to enjoy the green spaces that you're providing with such toxic air surrounding the development? I mean I think first thing I would say is that mechanical ventilation is sort of part and parcel of new developments And it provides choice The vast majority of homes will have the opportunity to open the window they wish to If they wish to close the window they can do that and mechanical ventilation deals with that This is not creating an unacceptable environment This is very standard now and is actually welcomed by the vast majority of our future occupiers They give that sort of control of air quality of their environment It manages the internal atmosphere as well so you don't get situations where you get damp that you might have on older properties All of that has got constant circulation of air It is a good thing and it's an accepted way forward I do think this is an acceptable development As I say it has been independently assessed and it is recommended for approval As opposed to the quality environment Have you seen the amount of dirt on the buildings along Tunnel Avenue that just come up from day to day traffic? It's like a soot that's permanently on the buildings Yeah I completely agree The amenity space within this scheme is quite well insulated and protected by the buildings that surround the roads We've got space within Board Street that's behind the storage unit We've got the podium and the main amenity space that's separated from Millennium Way as well We've also got roof terraces to offer further opportunities for amenity that's higher up in different areas Within the design we have included protective measures to make sure the air quality is fine That's been supported and tested through the EIA and by officers Thanks any more questions? Mark, team thank you very much Thank you Ok it's now half past ten There's still two items on the agenda We are basically not going to get to Item 8 because I have to take in the wellbeing of members that are here and officers that have to get home So I am going to defer Item 8 which is the application for Victoria House until the next Planning Board So Anna, Laura and Duncan apologies for that but we've got one more item to go and I still can't put a time on that either David Chair, I'm sure there are good reasons for your suggestion, what you're ruling but I thought item 8 was actually fairly straightforward and non-controversial, where there were some issues around item 7 that we'll want to properly consider and deliberate on and the representations So wouldn't it be better to defer Rathmore and actually hear Victoria House as I think it's fairly straightforward We've got people here to speak on Item 7 It wouldn't be easier to defer 7 because that would take more time We're going to go into deliberation on this item and then vote If we start Item 7 and we go beyond 11.30 then we've got a problem because some members have got quite a way to travel I was just wondering whether we should defer Item 7 for another day because Item 8 will be fairly quick I think Whereas Item 7 I think is more involved but will take longer Okay, I'm going to put it to the vote I was just going to say I'm not going to be getting any dinner anyway because my position on the pre- So you have a choice, Item 7 or Item 8 We're not going to be able to do 2 within the next hour and a half We're going to be able to be fair so that we're not rushing Item 7 which obviously it's going to be a long sort of In a way we won't be able to make a decision easy, I think we should go defer Item 7 Okay, all those in favour of deferring Item 7 please raise your hand Okay Item 7 on tonight's agenda has been deferred until the next planning application Apologies for that, but Is it next month? Next month Okay, so Carlo, I'll get someone to email you tomorrow morning I'll be able to look at the timetable and Jean will be in touch Everyone in Okay, right Back to this application I'm now going to open it up for deliberation Claire, David I'm now opening Item 6 open for deliberation Any comments? David, Dave Sullivan I think it's a bit of a dilemma, a bit of a conundrum from my perspective In my mind I've got focused actually on this black box The colour of the box doesn't matter, it can be a green blob, a yellow blob We just think it could be softer, I imagine David's going to come along with an amendment along those lines which I'd like to support But I think that's going to be addressed in some way through an amendment I see no reason why we can't support the rest of the application I think it's a really excellent scheme It's done its best to actually work within the context by and large of that environment and that we've actually set for them through the council's policies I think our officers have done an excellent job scrutinising it I wonder how on earth anything gets our consent, particularly trying to read through the stuff again over the weekend and again today God knows how many pages it was just on this report, but we're talking thousands and thousands of pages It clearly doesn't recognise the depth and detail which the officers have actually studied these applications, let alone the work on the cost of actually putting together the application Which I think that Alice Morrison and others have attributed enormously to make this into the best proposal we can I'm also mindful, just my last point, that we hear a lot about planning, about growth and about the housing crisis nationally, regionally, locally Here we have an opportunity to support a good scheme with its faults that would actually enable us. We're talking about a developer with a reputation for getting consent and delivering them, as it seems to me my knowledge of Fairview and Kurl I think that this is an opportunity for us to make a decision and to make a contribution to the housing crisis that we're all facing and also contributing to growth We should see this in a much wider context and forget to some extent about these other issues that can be addressed, so I will be supporting it Thanks David David, then Pat Thanks very much, I agree actually with what Dave said I think I was really impressed by the quality of the design and the landscaping I'm impressed by the thought that's gone into developing a new community which is part of the wider Greenwich Peninsula community I'm obviously very keen that it's car free and therefore will not add to the existing levels of pollution, which are awful Having said that, I am concerned, Chair, about the, for whatever reason, the apparent failure to engage effectively with Studio 338 And there is policy in terms of the night time economy that's been cited, and I don't know the officer, Victoria can advise us whether we could put an informant which requires the applicant as they roll this out to engage with Studio 338 in order to help promote the night time economy as well as the successful development I was looking at the noise condition, I couldn't see quite how that could be amended because Studio 338 are mentioned in that and they need to be involved with testing and so forth, but I wondered if they could have an informant rather than a condition because obviously it's a complex issue and I think the point which Dave rightly previewed is I continue to think that black box rather spoils the whole development for whichever side you look at it but particularly as it will be so prominent as people are going through the peninsula, particularly if they're going by vehicle or over the yellow bridge and I appreciate the need for the mitigation of the noise and so forth and its importance but I would like us to add to condition 56 something like and consider, I'm only saying considering, I'm not saying definitely implement because there may be good reasons why alternatives are not suitable and consider softening the visual impact of the self storage box facade in terms of massing and colour I'm just saying consider that that has added to the condition chair Thank you chair. Yes I, overall I know that we need student accommodation and we need residential accommodation so I will be supporting this but like my colleague I am not happy about the black box so if we can condition something there and also I am concerned about the noise aspect that will happen so I just hope that the applicant and the owners of the studio of 23a just continue in dialogue it's had so many different names the studio hasn't it tonight and the dialogue continues please. Thank you. Plade. I know that I mentioned already that I'm very impressed with the design of the development the children area, the fact that there is suggestion, or not suggestion, that there would be a repurposing of, is it repurposing, well investing into one of the health centres they have already to mitigate the impact on the GP that they have existing at the moment I'm very impressed with the fact that there will be contributions to public transport and there has been a lot of thoughtfulness with the writing of the application. However just like Councillor Dave and also Councillor David as expressed I'm extremely concerned about stakeholder engagement. I know that apart from studio 2338 the applicant said that they've engaged with the other businesses that are there However like I said earlier the agent of change should be willing and it's about going that extra mile one email in 2023 and nothing after then, you responded and nothing after then for me just says a little bit about how, you know, how important the applicant has taken the views of the local businesses around I'd like to see a redress about this. I'd like a situation where the applicant engages very very robustly with studio 338 I'm very much up for this application, I'm supporting it because we definitely need more homes built we definitely need more homes that are fit for purpose, not just homes that are just there that are fit for purpose but I would like to ask and I don't know Victoria if you can advise on this whether within the planning permission it actually does specify that the flats must have an air filtering system like they have said so that at least that is included in the planning permission that each flat must have that and that would be really helpful but on that note I support the application Thanks Lara, Maisie Yeah thank you, I'm happy to support the scheme, I think it's a good scheme, I think it's designed well and I particularly like the pointed roofs I think going back to the club I think it would be good, I think that would be very keen to see that clubs are protected so what we can do to make sure that kind of, they can still run their business as well and also just to note that any active travel or public realm improvements on tunnel avenue would be much appreciated because I think that would be a big help for the local area I sat on the application for the hotel and we gave Mr O'Keefe a real run around about a landmark building and he had to jump through hoops to get his design through, we deferred it, he had to specialise in materials, an image and even the GLA got on that I don't believe the black box is a landmark building which is what it should be, it should be set in an example of architectural innovation and I think that you were right David, a nice green living box would send a very clear message to people driving on the silver town dual carriageway and the black wall tunnel approach I think we are missing a trick there and I believe that that would actually set off the area because I do believe that the architectural design of the residential units is very good and it's a shame that they have not carried that type of integrity across onto the box I am concerned about that, I am also concerned about the level of pollution because Millennium Way and the O2 and the TfL car parks on one side and two tunnel approaches on the other are going to be creating an awful lot of pollution and even electric cars, we have heard on many occasions about the emissions from electric cars so whether you are driving a diesel car, electric car or a petrol car, there is still going to be a high level of emissions in close proximity of both sides of that development so that for me is a concern about the quality of life for the occupants of those premises in years to come I am concerned about the impingement on the club, you know whether the club is in business for another five years or whatever, we don't know how the internet is going to affect clubs but as we are told when it suits us about the contribution night time economy makes to the local economy and what it does for jobs creation and everything else I would like to see proper dialogue and no excuses of whose phone call you need to get together and you need to have some dialogue to sort out the clubs future and the long term relationship with the residents, most of the residents are probably going to be patrons of the club because you have student accommodation I think the sooner you get together and enter into dialogue the quicker you will come to an amicable solution that will serve both parties but as far as supporting the application, I am not going to support the application, I think that the pollution for me is a big big worry so I like a lot of the elements of the application but again I think creating a black box with loads of shiny lines and the timelines and whatever is fine but people driving cars past that are not going to look at the detail, they are going to see a black box and that is it, I don't consider that to be a landmark building and I think colleagues have said if you can go away and come back with a better covering for that box then I think that would have been much better but that is my ramble, I am going to put this to the vote now so just on Councillor Gardner's suggestion about an informative requiring engagement between the applicant and studio 338 that can be imposed on the suggested amendment I think you said to condition 56 that Beth has kindly pointed out that there is a better condition which is condition 25 which talks about materials and details just to be clear David, I think you mentioned massing and colour so if members are minded to approve the building tonight you are approving the scale, height, massing of that building so the condition could go as far as dealing with the materials and the colour so I think just to be clear that that can be added into the condition so we actually review the storage building and we can write something into that, yeah I was going to suggest adding a part C to that policy which requires details of alternative facade materials and colours for the self storage unit that goes [inaudible] and then just another point Lade I think you mentioned the air filtration system that is fully designed into the building as the applicants have already said so we don't need to have anything specific about that it is probably covered in one of the various conditions that is already imposed but it will be part of the scheme I think the building will as it is proposed will be a landmark almost like the other building just before it which I think is something to do with the marketing suite is it for that other thing and people say what on earth is that we will move off that now and be able to talk about this black box and people say what on earth is that instead so with the addition of the informative and the amendment to condition 25 all those in favour of the officers recommendation please raise your hand all those against and abstentions the item is approved we now move on to item 8 which is Victoria chair apologies I am going to have to leave now okay. We now move on to item 8 Victoria house 405 Shooters Hill Road London SE 18 4LH reference 23 27 47 F Andy members on item 8 I think you have all read the report do any of you have any questions for the officer in relation to the report David I just wanted to be reassured that the parts of the current Victoria house which I used to represent that so I do know it were that have been demolished they wouldn't in any way detract from the heritage and architectural integrity of the building they are sort of modern amendments that is all thank you for the question, Councillor Gardner these are the retained elements of the façade which I have highlighted in green and these are the aspects of the façade which are primarily visible from the street and from the surrounding environment and that is shown by the previous images so this is the view from Academy Road currently there will be some amendments to the landscape but you can see it is primarily the front façade that you can see there and this is the view from Shooters Hill Road and if we go back to that example where the façade is being retained it is this west facing side you can see facing towards the school the Dutch style gable in facing the street and it is also the front of the building which you can see shown here which is also visible from Shooters Hill Road so it is those aspects there will be an element of the roof extension which will be partially visible from the street but the applicant has worked in good faith with the Council's urban design team to scale that extension back including removing two bedrooms from the unit so we do consider taking the comment seriously and have mitigated any impacts on the street and I can show that this is the proposed façade facing Shooters Hill Road and you can see that extension that has been workshopped with the design team Thank you Everyone has taken the vote Everyone has read the report David has asked this question I am now going to put this to the vote All those in favour of the Officer's recommendation please raise your hand Item 8 is approved Thank you for coming and thank you for your patience Thanks for the presentation Andy You are welcome chair You are welcome chair Thank you [ Silence ]