Transcript

Good evening everyone, 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 speakers will be permitted to address the 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 will 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 and their teams ten. On item five I have Mark Pender, Anil, Karan and Julian Williams, item six I have councillor Greenwell, Jonathan Morris, Godfrey Mamro, Nick Duffy, Kenny Douglas, Diane Morris, Aisha Bejoir, I forgot that right, you will tell me when you come up. Thank you and on behalf of the applicant Alan Evans, Richard Bayon and Anthony Fuzzi. On item seven and eight I have Paul Prichard and Peter Edgar. Item one apologies for absence. I need to be received from councillors Babatola, Bauer, Riches Cotell and Burke McDonald. Business? We have received planning officer addendums for items five, two addendums, seven and eight and applicant submissions for items five, six and seven and eight. Congratulations of interest, Pat, I have got you listed for item six where you will be speaking. Item four minutes of the last meetings, 17 September and 8 October, I take those as red. Any comments? No. Item five, the island site Wellington Street, Woolwich SE-18, reference 223162F and 223163L. Okay, Jonathan. Sorry, there is a bit of delay, we are just waiting for the teams in the presentation to load up. Good evening. Tonight I am presenting proposals for two applications, a full planning permission and listed building consent, to redevelop the island site. The scheme will deliver 20 conventional residential units, 485 large-scale purpose-built shared living rooms, also known as co-living, and approximately 3,296 square metres of non-residential space, including community, retail and office uses. Public ground improvements are also proposed, which will feature high-quality landscape spaces, improved pedestrian friendly links and a new central square. The scheme also involves refurbishing and reusing several listed heritage structures, with only two genuine new buildings proposed. The development site, approximately 1.11 hectares, is within the Woolwich Town Centre and is bounded by Wellington Street to the south-east, Polytechnic Street to the south-west, Thomas Street and Coldwood Street to the north-west. The site contains a number of listed buildings, including a grade two listed rotunda and other locally listed structures, as shown on the image on the right. All of the buildings which are outlined in red or blue lines are identified heritage assets, with those red line buildings being grade two listed, and those which are blue line locally listed buildings. The site itself benefits from excellent transport links, including nearby train, DLR stations, bus routes and riverboat services, in terms of policy designations, the site is within the Woolwich Opportunity Area, as outlined in the London Plan, and is also identified as the strategic development location, and forms part of site allocation MU27 within the core strategy. The Woolwich Town Centre asks the Plan SPD also supports residential and redevelopment of the site. The site currently comprises predominantly vacant buildings, and short-term tendencies after the cessation of the previous Polytechnic use. The site has a complex planning history, with an earlier scheme approved in 2020 that while delivering conventional units proposed a more extensive redevelopment, including further demolitions and tall building elements. However, that scheme was not implemented. The current proposal addresses previous concerns by removing tall buildings along Wellington Street and Thomas Street, as well as removing the additional floor on the Polytechnic Hall. Crucially, however, is that more historic buildings are retained, notably within the centre of the site, which were proposed to be demolished. I will draw your attention—members attention to the two taller buildings proposed previously approved, such as the 10th Story Building on Wellington Street, and the 9th Story Building on Thomas Street, which is shown in the image on the left of the screen. In terms of the proposal itself, site-wide, the scheme would comprise six different blocks, A to F, as shown on the screen. These blocks would deliver a mix of uses, including retail, office, education and residential. Ground floor retail uses are located throughout, including funding essential square, maintaining an active frontage, while the Polytechnic Hall's ground floor will be retained for educational use. Residential units, both conventional and co-living are distributed throughout the site, although all of the social rent units are within block E. A key part of the scheme is that the proposed development will improve site accessibility by opening the site up with the new public square and pedestrian routes. The CGI on the right shows the new central square, and the front face of the now retained block F, which had been proposed to be demolished in the previous scheme. The scheme will have a maximum height of six stories, with the tallest building elements, predominantly the new elements of the scheme. The design incorporates a mix of new buildings and retained buildings, with the new buildings and extension considered to complement well the scale and character of the surrounding context, as well as the heritage assets as shown on the screen. The scheme also includes a reduction in the height of the Polytechnic Hall extension, as previous mentioned, and is circled, which was predominantly to address concerns raised by historic England. This is considered to be a notable improvement over the previously approved scheme. This change has resulted in historic England no longer raising concern from a heritage perspective, as noted in the Addendum Report. The CGI on the screen shows the new main pedestrian access from Wellington Street in particular, I just want to note the heights of the neighboring buildings, and to reference that the heights themselves are in line with the surrounding context, or within the immediate site. The landscape strategy provides a number of new public spaces covering approximately 2,900 square metres, and includes a wall garden supported by existing and new trees, a generous public square, better integrating with the landscaping and providing a more prominent entrance to Wellington Street, as previously mentioned. The layout improves site accessibility compared to the currently inaccessible site, five new entrances into the site proposed, which will significantly improve permeability and this part of Woolwich. Also, a biodiversity net gain strategy addresses ecological concerns, which has balanced the site constraints, as well as heritage preservation on the site. The proposed development site is within the Woolwich Conservation Area, and as previously mentioned has multiple heritage assets, including the grade 2 list of buildings, including a grade 2 list of buildings, locally listed buildings and non-designated heritage assets, which all contribute to the character of the conservation area. The design has carefully considered these heritage assets, which has restrained the proposed height and massing of the scheme. Alterations of the grade 2 listed polytechnic building are designed to preserve its architectural and historical significance. While certain elements of the proposed works may impact specific parts of the building, the scheme overall seeks to enhance its unique qualities, restoration efforts and improved accessibility, and the creation of a more inviting public spaces all contribute to the areas improved heritage value. Along with the MPPF and London Planned Policies, the scheme's public benefits, including bringing the historic buildings back into use, are considered to outweigh the minor harm to some of the original features. Regarding non-designated heritage assets, the proposed development incorporates fewer demolition, as previously mentioned, than previously approved scheme. In our view, it would preserve the heritage assets in accordance with the MPPF. In terms of offsite heritage assets, the scheme has been assessed to have a less than substantial harm on surrounding designated heritage assets. However, this harm is considered to be outweighed by the public benefits, increased housing, job creation, and public realm improvements. The heritage assets will also be restored and the visibility enhanced, aligning the proposal with relevant policies as supporting the areas regeneration through a new public square and improve pedestrian connectivity. More recently, as I mentioned on the previous slide, Historic England has withdrawn the objection on heritage grounds recognising the heritage data approach taken by the applicants and their architects. This development will offer quality accommodation for future residents, including access to amenity spaces, both internal and external and new public realm. All units and rooms will meet minimum space standards and co-living standards, while there may be some minor shortfalls and some of the recommendations. While there are some shortfalls identified in the Planning Board report, these are noted and considered to be acceptable in this context, and detailed assessment against specific co-living requirements has also been undertaken. In terms of external amenity spaces, while a number of spaces have been provided, the Council has also secured a contribution towards offsite play space. Extensive lists of conditions have also been secured to ensure the quality of accommodation is delivered in particularly for the co-living element. As detailed within the Planning Board report, it is identified that there are some problems which would experience a minor degree or some degree of loss of sunlight and daylight. However, this is a typical outcome for major developments on underdeveloped sites. Any reductions in alignment with BRE guidelines and residual values are considered to remain appropriate for an urban area and having regard to regeneration benefits as detailed in the report. In terms of other amenity impacts, a thorough analysis of privacy, outlook and a sense of enclosure has been undertaken, and it is considered that the development would not adversely affect nearby residential units. It is noted since the publication of the Addendum Report officers have had discussions with the GLA regarding viability and the late stage of view. Unfortunately, the GLA raises objection and do not agree that the revised offer, as mentioned in the second addendum, meets the 35% viability threshold. In this case, the application for members to consider is whether the original scheme and the original offer that was in the Planning Board report of the 5,000,000 and 65,000 pounds plus a late stage of view is acceptable or the alternative offer which was also published in the second addendum which was the 9,000,000 pounds, 315,000, but without a late stage of view. Those are the two options that are before members with regard to affordable housing, but regardless, the affordable housing offer that was originally considered was considered to be the maximum reasonable at the time and was supported by a viability assessment that was reviewed by Council officers and external consultants on this scheme. So, with the pressing need for affordable housing in the borough, the vision is regardless of the option. Do still have a significant public benefit and viability review mechanisms will ensure compliance with affordable housing commitments. All of the social rent homes are located with them blocky, which I have highlighted on screen as outlined in red. The proposed development aligns with learning plan and core strategy policies promoting sustainable transport and reducing reliance on private cars. The site's excellent public transport accessibility coupled with the proposed pedestrian cycling improvements will significantly enhance the area's walkability and reduce the need for private vehicle travel. While the development itself is largely car free, the proposed measures to manage parking demand including a 106 agreement to restrict parking permits and the requirement by condition to provide electric vehicle charging and cycle storage will mitigate the potential impacts on the local highway network. The scheme will provide a 401,000 contribution towards transport, including 294,000 towards cycle infrastructure improvements. And also a number of other planning conditions that have also been secured to manage transport impacts. The proposed development and will it is a significant mixed use scheme that aligns with learning plan and core strategy policies for town centre growth, regeneration and housing delivery. The scheme will deliver 485 new large-scale purpose-built shared living rooms and 20 social rent units with a substantial financial contribution towards affordable housing. Additionally, it will create approximately 3,296 square metres of commercial space providing employment opportunities, including 182 new jobs and operation. The development will have significant regeneration benefits by creating new public spaces and improving connectivity. While some impact on heritage assets is acknowledged, the overall benefits including housing delivery, affordable housing provision and regeneration are all considered outweigh this harm. The scheme will also contribute to local infrastructure and services, including healthcare and transport through various financial contributions. Overall, the proposal is considered to be sustainable and consistent with the development plan. Given the significant housing need and the wider benefits of this scheme, I would recommend that full planning commission and listed building consent are granted. Thank you. Questions for the officer, David? Thank you very much. I must say, obviously, this has been a vacant site for a long time and the development on the face of it does appear to be quite sympathetic and to make a great contribution to Woolage. But I am concerned, Chair, about the affordable element, and I'm trying to unpack this, and I've been trying to unpack the numbers, that even, you know, it's a shame that the numbers aren't very clear in front of us. If our policy is for 35%, and if the 9 million is meant to meet that 35%, I make it that there are 629 habitable rooms. Assuming you can afford 23 thus 92 habitable rooms, 23 units, therefore 92 habitable rooms offsite, that would make it 134 habitable rooms, including offsite, out of a total of 629, which includes a 485 plus a 42 in the 20 units, which is a total of 21.3%, which is nowhere near 35%. So I just wondered how you got to 35%. Is there an element of the co-living, which is London Living Rent, or I don't regard discounted market rent really as affordable at all? But is it London Living Rent? You know, we need to drill down how we've reached this 35% on the basis of 9 million, because I'm very, very obviously the GLA are very skeptical, and I haven't seen the figures from the GLA, and I haven't seen the figures from our assessor either. So it'd be very useful. I've got a few other questions on other issues, but firstly, I think it's a key issue. I want to drill down to make sure we are getting, we are policy compliant on the 35%. Well, the policy is the London Plan policy, and that suggests to, because co-living units are not self-contained, it's a cash computation that it's looking at. So what it's requiring you to do is to take 35% of the co-living units, which will be 173, and then to apply a 50% discount to their rental value, which is in fact what we've done. From that, you would still have to deduct the operating expenditure, and then what we've done is to capitalize a scheme where there is no discount, and then we've capitalized a scheme where there is a discount on 35% of the unit, and compared the grace values to arrive at the conclusion of what the contribution should be. The methodology is not set out in GLA policy. All it refers to is this 50% discount on 35% of the rooms. So we have been through a number of these schemes with GLA, and there are a variety of ways you can approach it. It's one of those things where there isn't a defined SPD methodology that sets out a calculation. So our calculation, we think, follows that methodology, but clearly the GLA have a different view. So until they've seen what we've done, and we've seen what they've done, we can't actually arrive at a mutually agreed figure on that computation. Thank you. And on the affordable housing that's on site, and I say I always must prefer, you know, and have mixed development, on site has the policy rather than offset, you know, put it somewhere cheaper, but on the on site, the 20 units, I'm just slightly concerned in the report that firstly they're all very small, they're one bed. But also, I don't know whether I've read this right, but it gives the minimum standard size, and the actual size of the unit, some of the units seem to be, have I read this right below the recommended sizes of the 20 units. Thank you for your question. None of the units themselves are below the required minimum space damage, which are, you know, 50 square meters or 61 square meters for the relevant unit. What is, I've tried to express in the report, was that some of them don't have external balconies and external amenity spaces. And that's mostly, by virtue of that, a listed building, and it's, you know, we can't, it's difficult to put a balcony, etc, on those buildings. So in some cases, it is suggested to add on the difference, i.e. the five square meters of the balcony to the internal floor space of the units themselves. When you add on those, the external space, some of the units don't comply with that. So, in short, they comply with the standards that sit on the national space standards and the London plan. But what I've tried to, what we've tried to do, on many cases, is try to compensate somehow, where we could internally. The issue with this building, being gray too, it limited how the units themselves could be reconfigured as well. So, we're kind of fixed to certain room layouts, because obviously we have an original floor plate that we have to retain in some form. There isn't large-scale removals, and we're trying to better the gray too building or trying to revert some of the, some of the unsympathetic changes that have already been undertaken on the site itself. Hopefully that answers your question. Thank you, but not quite. If you look at paragraph 185, where there is a table, it gives us the minimum internal space standard and then the unit sizes. And there are a good number of them, there are a few that are over, but there's a good number of them, which are under the minimum internal space standard. Surely we just cannot allow that. We can't allow flats to be built, which are below the minimum internal, it's a minimum standard, it's not an average, it's not a desired level, it's a minimum standard. So, surely that has to change. I think I've missed. Some of them, like flat 20, are 17 square metres below, some of them are just a fraction below, but there are one or two, which are significantly below the minimum internal standards. So, I like to clarify this table, I can see that it is as clear as it should be. The number that's listed in the column that's minimum internal space standard is inclusive of the external community space. So, I've added on in that column, for example, five square metres on the 50 square metres, which is a national space standard for the one-bed two-person. So, I've taken that 55. I probably should have been more clearer and split them out into 50 plus five or something along those lines, but in terms, if I rewrote that column again and discounted all the balconies, they would all comply. It's just that I've probably represented that column there, and it's definitely not as clear as I should have made it. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presentation. My question is, I don't know, we seem to have a plethora of suddenly, of these sort of shared living accommodations, and also again, and I keep bringing this up. What's happened? We are desperately short, and have been for a long time, of three bedroom properties, which are just not coming up. Now, those again, you know, sort of the 20 conventional units, I've got that there are 12 one-bed and eight two-bed, but we have got nowhere. Have we got any three, and now I don't know whether it's a question to ask for the developers as well, but that always concerns me what is, we need those properties. And I've got another question later. Well, also as well, coupled with that, I read that someone has said in objections that they find that there's an oversupply of commercial space. So, you know, is there room for maneuvering, and it's just, I'm not quite sure I'm happy with this, with the lack of three beds. Thank you, Councillor Grimoire. I had completely sympathetic to the concern around the quantum of conventional units. Obviously, from our perspective, we would prefer a greater mix, maybe more in line with our policy and maybe more conventional units, but the scheme that we have had submitted to us is the 485 co-living and this 20 conventional unit scheme. I think it's important to note with the co-living scheme generally that this is maybe an outlier, and so far that many of the co-living schemes that I'm aware of don't have a conventional component to it. They typically come in with a scheme that's just all 485 co-living units, for example, without any conventional units. This, through our discussions with the applicant, albeit it's a modest element of the scheme, is still some contribution which we thought was beneficial, but also not just being conventional units on their own, but also being social-rented units, which was, I think, more important than just having conventional units in the scheme, because where we were, the discussions with the applicant on this point was, we wanted to have some mixed and balanced units, and I think the discussion led us to having some of these conventional units on site, but I empathise about that maybe large units, of course, would be preferable in terms of why they need anyway. Pat, do you want to turn your mic on? Thanks. The other question is, at bottom of page 71, the delivery is to do with delivery services. In Thomas Street, large vehicles have to undertake a reversing maneuver, and obviously it's shared with pedestrians, and that's going to be a massive health and safety hazard. Yeah, thanks for that question. What paragraph was that, and again, sorry, I recall the point, but I'm just trying to get to the paragraph myself. Is it in the comments section? Page 71, talking about delivery and servicing. Deliveries and servicing are proposed to be handed, but oh, regarding the service access of Thomas Street, it appears that the arrangements require large vehicles to undertake a reversing maneuver. Oh, yes, sorry, I've just found that. I've gone to that comment there. Right, sorry, that was our comment from TFL on that. We do acknowledge that there will be a maneuver on the site, particularly for refuse servicing. We have conditioned a delivery and servicing plan to manage how those operations will be undertaken on site, because this isn't particularly what larger vehicles, such as a refuse vehicle, the collections aren't going to be as once a week or as not particularly for the residential activities on the site. So there won't be from, there won't be an everyday, large vehicle maneuvering on the site, but we have considered that there will be, there will have to be some maneuvering internally within the site, because the, the, the maneuvering is tight within the site itself. It's just that I thought that our policy was, I know with refuse vehicles that they could not reverse that they had to be able to do a maneuver on site that they could not reverse that they weren't. But the, the waste services has reviewed their operational waste strategy and how they're proposing to undertake everything on the site, and they haven't raised that as an issue or a concern, and maybe it's the, the, the shortness of the maneuver that has to occur to them to undertake their turn that they need to do. But all I can, all I can say from the advice that I've got from my transport colleagues and my waste colleagues as they, they haven't, well, they haven't raised that as a concern with me on that. Yeah, so I think there is a distance that the refuse vehicles won't reverse is my understanding, so it's possible in this case that the distance is within acceptable tolerances. And if I could I just add to Jonathan's point about the co-living issue and the conventional housing, just I think it's worth flagging up the, the planning history of the site as well. So there was planning permission for conventional housing on the site, which was never implemented and, in fact, lapsed. And I don't know exactly the reasons for that, perhaps there might be something to ask the applicants, but we need to balance some redevelopment of the site and bringing the listed buildings back into use as well. And if a co-living scheme is able to achieve that, then that's one of the benefits we feel of this application. David, you have more questions? Oh, yes, I did. Thank you. So I was going to ask about the urban greening factor, which is just 0.24, which I think is the lowest I've seen in any application since it's come in in the 21 London plan. And just ask you to explain that, when I will ask the applicant, and what can be done to bring it up to 0.4, which I thought was a minimum, but it may be the, I'm just trying to look up the London plan. It may be just at the desired level. But what elements could help to improve that? Could more street trees outside improve it or has it got to be greening within the actual site? Potentially external, sorry, just in terms of the urban greening factor itself. Yes, it is 0.24, so it is relatively low compared to other schemes that you've seen. I think it should be recognized that the site itself has a lot of constraints and challenges because of all these historic bootings that if you compare to another site that may be a complete brown field that you could redevelop from a blank slate. It makes it much easier to achieve some of the urban greening factor targets. The site, as I was just saying, is constrained a lot by the bootings. And particularly now, more so that the applicant has retained more of the units on the, sorry, more of the historic bootings on the site. We have worked with the applicant to look at all the available roof spaces to maximize where we think all the ground level planting can be achieved. And despite all maximizing all these areas, we still haven't been able to achieve that improved urban greening factor to what we would have expected, I suppose. We have, and sorry, and this is all even worth 35 new trees that have been put on the site within the new public realm and within the red line boundary, still haven't been able to achieve that. So we've devised a condition where we still are expecting maybe a detailed design stage for the applicant that they look at ways that they could improve the urban greening factor score because we do recognize it as low. Whether there is some scope to potentially provide more urban factor benefits and more trees or more ground level planting, once they get that detailed stage. So which leads me to my next question, I was just looking at the criterion for UGF. But one of the things about Wellington Street, I mean, the vision is very much that we should have a boulevard which leads down from the top of Wellington Street all the way through the Royal Arsenal to the pier. But of course there is only one tree in this section of Wellington Street at the moment from Polytechnic Street down to Thomas Street, according to the Google View. But as far as I can see, despite the great references to healthy streets and so forth and all the contributions to great transport schemes, not proposing any further street trees on Wellington Street if I got that wrong or right. But there are, is that Wellington Street there? Yeah, I'm just sorry, I'm just trying to get to the... This may be it. So there are some trees that are proposed on public highway and in particular up the central axis into the site. So there are some green benefits on the highway along Wellington Street. Maybe not to the extent that you're describing, but there is some on the public highway area. So can you just point out where they would be on Wellington Street, which I think is on the right side of that? So I just want to clear an image, the other one had a bit of overlay. So there's some proposed there, and I think I might have another landscape plan earlier if... Yeah, that's probably a bit clearer for everyone. So on this landscape plan, there have included some new trees going up in that L shape along there. So next to where there is currently one large tree, there'd be three small trees, but no trees then from the entry point from Wellington Street down to the corner with Thomas Street, where the Earl of Chatham is. And this axis here? No, no, no. On the Wellington Street, on the right hand side there. Yeah. No street trees, and yet there's plenty of scope there to reduce... You know, take out parking spaces, reduce the carriageway and really better meet the healthy streets criteria on the healthy streets scorecard. Has that been discussed at all with the applicant how we can really turn Wellington Street? And the other streets, like Polytechnic Street, Thomas Street and so forth into really up the healthy streets scorecard. In terms of specific... Because there's lots of references to healthy streets in the report, but I'm trying to actually work out in practical terms, apart from the cycle lane to see for cycle route, what the contributions to healthy streets in the immediate vicinity, which will have a lot more people now walking around it and cycling around it and so forth, and with global warming and so forth, obviously, can and recover is so important. So a couple of sort of cherry trees doesn't really do it, and doesn't meet our vision of that boulevard either. So I just, I wondered whether we properly played that aspect. This is about place making after all, isn't it? Yes. So, if I could just come back on that point really quickly. While we haven't gone to the degree or, you know, in terms of the discussion with the applicant of having a... Outside the red line boundary, landscaping, master plan, offer Wellington Street or Thomas Street or Polytechnic Street, we have secured an improvement to the public realm in the immediate vicinity of 40,000 pounds towards some improvements, and which wasn't, was secured to improve the immediate vicinity of the site. So while conceivably not forming part of the UGF scores we discussed earlier, we do have contributions that can go some way potentially as providing some greening on the site, sorry, on the public highway potentially from the secured contributions. Any further questions for the officer? No, Jonathan, thank you very much. Before I introduce the applicant, there are no other speakers tonight. Planning board members have been receiving an awful lot of direct mail from applicants. This is not acceptable. There are procedures in place for submitting documentation to the board, and we have safeguards in so that we only consider documentation that forms part of an official bundle. So in future, if anyone's writing in directly to board members, we won't accept that information, and there is a deadline for submitting documents. So please adhere to the dates and to the processes that we have in place so that we can avoid future confusion. Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Mark Pender, Neil Kiran and Julian Williams on behalf of the applicant. Thank you, Chair. Planning board, my name is Mark Pender and I'm the applicant's planning consultant. First of all, apologies for the briefing, though. I wasn't aware of the protocol, but won't do it again. Since acquiring the site in 2021, we have embarked upon a significant consultation process prior to submitting the application before you this evening. The level of consultation very much reflects the sensitivity of the site and surrounding area, and the overwhelming desire to create a high quality development meeting a need and enhancing the town centre. I guess it's also a reflection of the fact that there's just been two objections to such a major application. I'm joined by Neil, who is from node, the operator of the code living element, who will describe what code living is. I'm also joined by Julian from BBP Architecture, who say a few words about his approach to the design. Before handing over, I'd like to just run through the public benefits rising from the scheme, some of which you've already heard. Provision of 20 conventional residential homes, which are all affordable housing, specifically social rent. 485 co-living units equating to the delivery of 269 conventional residential homes. Delivery of both co-living and affordable housing, contributing to achieving the five-year housing land supply, where a substantial shortfall of 2.46 years currently exists. The proposal rep cents 10.4% of the annual borrower-wide housing target. Financial contributions toward affordable housing of just over 5 million pounds, whereas you've heard 9 million pounds if there is no late stage review. Other section 106 contributions totaling around 1.8 million, including towards cycleway extension, from Woolwich Roundabout into Woolwich Town Centre, public realm, legible London signage, cycle training, bus stop accessibility, additional health facilities in the local area, and Greenwich Local Labour and Business Services. A CIL contribution of almost 2 million. The creation of about 3,300 square metres of non-residential floor space, generating around 182 full-time additional jobs on site. On-site provision of affordable workspace and community floor space. Sustainable development and design through the use of air source heat pumps and photovoltaic arrays with a commitment to achieving net zero carbon through financial contributions. Significant enhancement of the public realm and natural environment with landscaping, greening and pedestrian friendly features. Introduction of a new public square and attractive pedestrian routes to improve connectivity within the town centre. A biodeiversity net gain of 435% against the target of 10%. It will generate an additional 2.15 million pounds in net local expenditure annually equating to approximately 43 jobs. And finally, the restoration of growth, the grade 2 listed rotunda, gymnasium and polytechnic building, and several locally listed buildings on the site. I hope you agree, that's quite a significant list of benefits. I'll hand over to Neil, he'll talk you through what the co-living concept is. Thank you, Chair and Planning Board, it's great to be here today. My name is Neil Cara, I'm the founder and CEO of Note Living, where co-living owner, operator and asset manager globally. A little background of me, I grew up in Canada, came here 20 years ago, and I know what it's like as a young person trying to find housing in a big city. And my background is in real estate investment management and operations. And I realize that there's a brokenness in cities, coming out of being a student before you're on the housing ladder. How do you find people? We have a loneliness epidemic. How do you find a affordable place? How do you find a safe place? How do you find a community? How do you get your bearings in a city? And out of that eight years ago is why we started Note. We're a family-owned business, we're entrepreneurial, but we have institutional backgrounds. And we're really here to be a point of connection. The idea of being Note is of being a connecting point. It's a place to live, it's a place to connect, but ultimately if we do a good job, it's a place to thrive. Fast forward eight years, we're involved in projects in five countries, 5,000 beds, 30 different projects. We have a design team that sits in Barcelona that takes best ideas from around the world, both from our projects and from our peers. We want to be collaborative, this is a new sector. We want to learn, share best ideas, and bring those projects ideas to projects just like this. We're very excited about this project in particular. I think it's a real opportunity to activate a community, to really bring back energy into the area, and a real live workplace environment. With all the Encillary uses, it's going to be quite special and I think it can be a landmark project for London and the UK. With that, I'll just open to any questions after I want to keep it brief, but thank you for your time. I would say that we would be investing in this project ourselves in this. We really believe in it, so we're not coming as a service provider. We're really coming as a partner in this and we'd love to partner with you. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Good evening, Chair and Planning Board. I'm Julian Williams from BB Park and a shape where the architects for the project. As you heard, the scheme aims to transform the largely derelict and closed off site into a vibrant mixed use community. The project very much respects the historic character of Woolwich, while creating a dynamic environment where people can live, work and engage with our community. The vision very much centers on revitalising the existing buildings and weaving them into the townscape with new pedestrian routes and public spaces. This approach will support Woolwich's infrastructure and provide new amenities and hands in the streetscape and permeability of the town centre. The site will feature high-quality landscaping and a variety of green spaces along with the public square that's already been mentioned. We've developed the scheme working very closely with the Royal Borough of Greenwich Planning Team, via a planning performance agreement. Also along with historic England, TFL and the GLA, the designers evolved through the pre-application and application process to address the comments raised by the multiple stakeholders and the scheme. As we've heard, the site is within the pathway quarter of the Woolwich Conservation area and the site includes grade two listed and locally listed buildings. At the key point, the scheme's height and massing has been limited to six stories in order to preserve and enhance the appearance of both the heritage assets on the site. Also, there's in the wider conservation area, including the key view of the grade two listed former town hall where we are now from General Gordon Square and touching on the point on Wellington Street. That's the one area where we've actually pushed the existing building line back into the actual site boundary where we've managed to create a wider area of pavement, which is where those street trees have been introduced. Elsewhere, the site is pretty much the existing buildings and the existing pavement line, so in terms of our site boundary, that's what we're working to, but on Wellington Street we've been able to create some new public realm on the outside of the site as it were. Obviously, I'm very familiar with the number of homes and units being created. I would add the 2020 conventional flats are within the listed building and do respond very much to the constraints of that listed building. The listed building isn't particularly good for co-living, so it is a very good mix to revitalise that building and put it back into use and to restore it. Within the work space that's going to provide, there's an intention to provide co-working spaces as well, so that will encourage young entrepreneurs and start up businesses. Coming onto the sustainability point, the scheme achieves a 55% reduction in carbon emissions when compared to the requirements of the building regulations along with the very significant biodiversity net gain. The urban green factor issue is very much a product of the number of buildings that were retained on the site and the limitations with what we can and can't do to a grade two listed building and also locally listed buildings. A further development is previous schemes, including the previous scheme for this site, would have been powered by gas boilers located in the basement. This scheme is completely clean. We've got air solar seat pumps which are on the roof, but that does take away some of our opportunity for greening on the roof. That said, there is a planning condition to develop the potential to increase the urban green factor. Since this scheme has been developed, there's been great advancements in biosolar, which is photovoltaic panels that can sit above green roofs, so there are opportunities. We're also looking to upgrade the, obviously, we're trying to heat existing buildings, which are listed, so again, we have limitations on the amount of thermal upgrading that we can do, which might require more air solar seat pumps than in a new build. That's something I want to do. I'm a certified pacifist designer. It's something I'm passionate about and want to take forward. I think, hopefully, that does, oh, sorry, one of the point on deliveries, the scheme has been designed so, at present, the only vehicular entrance to the site is off Thomas Street. The scheme has been designed so, Amazon Deliveries and Deliveroo mode pads, which is very much a part of one day life. There's a point on polytechnic streets, so deliveries are not entirely off Thomas Street. It is mainly the refuse collection, which will be a management strategy in place to address. And I think I've hopefully covered all the points raised, and in general, you know, we've very much enjoyed working on this project, and we think it offers significant benefits to Woolwich and the surrounding area. So thank you very much. Thanks, Julian, not bad. Thank you. I noticed there's no prototype of what the call living space would look like. It would have been nice to include a picture of what that would look like. I know you've just described, sorry, I don't have your name, the gentleman in the middle. I know you've just described it. You were about to describe what call living space would look like, but you didn't go into details. So you mentioned the core working space. Is there going to be a gene? Are there going to be what would it look like? Yeah, I mean, I think, I mean, I'll start maybe at an unhand over to Neil. So the way the co-living units work is they are all, there's a hierarchy of how it drops down in terms of the level of social interaction that the tenants can have. So in the rooms themselves, and there was details of the rooms submitted in the application, they're all self-contained, they've got a shower room and a very small kitchenette. There's also a ratio of between for every seven units to nine units. There's a shared kitchen living dining room space. So then people can come and prepare food and interact on a slightly larger scale. And then when you get down to the ground floor and basement, there are larger breakout spaces and they could be co-working. And then the cafeteria is gym laundry, screening rooms, and also a series of rooms that can be used and flexible. So for gym classes, yoga, talks, seminars, so it's it's so much driven by the tenants with a variety of spaces they can use, how they want. I think a Neil can probably add a lot more to that. In terms of the amenities that will be offered to everybody maybe on the ground floor and basement areas, the shared facilities. Yeah, I think that covered it. I think in addition, co-working is really important. People work from home a couple days a week and allowing them to do that not in the room but having spaces to do that, also have a community of place to kind of refresh. That's going to be an important part of this. I would also say it's not just about amenities. It's about connecting people. We have an app and so our residents opt in and they really connect and you create this. And what that does is it activates the community. It allows our residents to create events. It allows them to be empowered. It allows them to decide what happens. And so we're really giving them a platform. And so while you can have all these amenities spaces, what's really important is allowing our community to sort of take that over and really dictate what they want to do. And so that's a big part of the amenity package is allowing our residents to choose their adventure and keeping some flexibility so that over time, if certain amenities in the area become more popular, we can have some flexibility to adapt towards that. Thank you. So the target group for this quality space would be what age range? And there's a reason why I've asked this. So what's the age range for the target group? Well, I would say the age range of probably 22 to late 30s will be a significant portion of it. But we have residents that are 82 years old at our buildings. So there will be outliers. So yes, it's targeting usually young single professionals. I expect in this building given the diversity of the type of product we will have couples there. And so that will be a part of the demographic. But it's a stage of life sometimes, not just an age range. It's for people who want to live in an urban experience and probably don't have kids. And so we don't necessarily pinpoint just an age range because sometimes it's where you are in life that co-living really caters to not just your age. When we talk about target and demographic, we're not saying 100% was in the bulk of the core of those you're targeting at the age range dimensions. So I'm not saying there'll be no 70-year-old or 50-year-old that might choose to live in a core living space. What's the intent and rent for this space? I know it's not yet, but what's the potential rent? It's a great question. Well, there's a diversity of spaces as you can see in it. And what we really like about the scheme is there could be multiple price points for the different products here. So a starting rent we're hoping will start something in the 1,300 pounds per month range that includes Wi-Fi, council tax utilities, and then sort of just depending on spaces sizes where they are, it'll go from there. And I know there's a report that does that. But look, we want to have an entry point that for high quality space is still accessible to people. That was the reason why I asked the age range just 1,300. So we're saying that the minimum that we expect in anyone living there should be only about 30,000 about there about affordable housing housing for young people. It's just something that I think for I mean as developers for you to take back in making sure that we are building homes that are indeed affordable. How many young people can pay 1,300 every month? And that's this is some of the things that we need to think as we're future planning. Also the last question is around the clusters. How many clusters? So you said about 7 to 3 or 7 to 9 in a cluster. So just 1 minute so that you can ask the one. So how many rooms would you have in a cluster? And what's the management going to be like? Because we know that when you have young people living in a cluster, all kinds of things come up and social behavior and all of that. So it's about forward planning. How do you intend to manage residents that live there? Thank you. Well I think on the cluster size it is generally between 7 to 9 units per shared kitchen living dining space. Obviously sorry is that okay? No 7 to 9 people showing one kitchen. Yeah but the kitchen is sized appropriately for that and this is I mean just this is one of the first schemes that was submitted that was in accordance with the London Plan guidance on purpose built shared living. Prior to that there was actually no guidance. A lot of the schemes were approved many years ago now such as those by the collective just had one massive kitchen on the ground floor and above that was just individual rooms. Whereas this goes back to the cluster model which is as prescribed in the purpose and the guidance on shared living. But obviously it is still a big management piece which obviously no I've got familiarity in doing that. But in terms of the design is compliant with the policy which was pretty much introduced for this when this project started out in life. If I could just add to that I think the point Julian made about the guidance from the the the Mayor of London that was adopted earlier this year but it's obviously being prepared over the last 18 months, two years. And that does actually set out very very detailed guidance in relation to what a co-living scheme should actually include in terms of laundries in terms of how many ovens and so on. So the scheme that's been designed although the application was submitted before the GLA embark upon that process does actually comply with all of those requirements. And the reason for that is because our clients obviously try to create a really good quality scheme here. In relation to the point you made about management management is absolutely key to this site to this proposal. You've got 485 rooms there's going to be a lot of activity. And again with reference to London plan and management plan will be required in the section 106 and the legal document and there will be a requirement to submit a very very detailed management plan. Now it's not just a prescriptive document it's some document that will evolve working with your offices and anybody else that is considered appropriate in that process. And I think if you just look at the section 106 list of heads in the committee report I think the one that says you will submit a management plan and that must be approved I think is along with what runs into about two pages in the committee report. And I think that just reinforces how important it is because without that it's not going to be a great scheme. Thank you. Pat and Dave. Thank you. Right. I'll go back to what I said before. I mean this is not the first co-living project that we've had in front of others. So yes it does exist. And again I will repeat what I said before we've got sort of like a plethora of single bed accommodation. Whether or not it's for co-living. One word that you have not mentioned in all of this is the word family. Families. Children. I go back again and I say again we are desperately short of accommodation for families. And I look at this go back to the 20 units. One bed 12 so you know we're not going to that's not for families. Eight two beds. So in all this application we have got eight houses or eight accommodation suitable for families in what sort of 419 plus. What is it 419 plus that's 429 that's 430 odd properties and only eight for families and that's stupid. And this is what I find difficulty coming to terms with. And the other thing that I wanted to mention as well in the healthy streets it mentions it says that can consideration should be given to the design. Of the passengers that lead from these units because a lot of them are very round podward street police techniques. A lot of them are very dark and if you're saying that people are going to be by themselves they need to make you know we need to make sure that they're safe. So I'll just go back to this you know families and where where is there the combination it's all for single people is the no way that this can be changed because we you know yeah as as Greenwich we are we all know as ward counselors that this come time and time again. We know the waiting list that there are for three bedroom properties and wait families are crowded into one room or two beds and we're just lacking. Thank you councillor and I think you made reference to a scheme that you recently approved Abby Ward I think in fact it was at the last committee. I think with that scheme what they were proposing was a co-living scheme in addition it had a hotel I think in replacement pet hospital but but fundamentally they were pursuing the co-living scheme because they considered as we do that there is a market for that type of accommodation. And that type of accommodation does count towards your own housing targets. So we are meeting a demand fully understand what you're saying about family units but this is a co-living scheme nevertheless we are including 20 conventional dwellings. Originally the first proposal we put forward to your officers during the pre-out process didn't have any dwellings but your officers considered that if it was all just co-living it would not be a mixed community. So we listened to what your officers said and we followed the approach in terms of the previous consent on site which was not viable to build but that included 20 dwellings in that building the one up there on the top left which is a listed building. So there's only so much we can do with a listed building without it becoming a damaged heritage asset. So we've sought to adopt a minimal intervention approach in that building and ended up with the 20 units some of which are two and some of which are one but that was very much determined by the building itself but more fundamentally we're proposing a co-living scheme here for which there is a need. And I absolutely agree there's also a need for family units but in this instance we are looking to contribute toward the need for this type of accommodation which does count towards your housing targets. Just to address the specific point you made about the alleyways and the entrances so this came up through the consultation process. So the scheme has been designed so that you can access every single unit by entering through the bigger entrances of Thomas Street or of Wellington Street and then securely get to your unit. The external area has been designed so that it's provisioned to gate it at certain times as a day and the smaller accesses whilst you can use them to get to your apartment they will also be on a time control and that's very again part of the management strategy. What we're trying to do, I mean it's already been mentioned, polytechnic street is a great looking street but it's completely dead, there's nothing goes on there but on the other side of it the rest of the pathway court hopefully that will come forward and be rejuvenated over time and we're hopefully providing a route through to connect to the town centre and those entrances will then be more, there'll be more activity, there'll be more passive surveillance and they can be utilized but we have designed it so that on day one everybody can get to their unit safely in a very managed way. I just like to say one other thing, look as a father has a five in an eight year old I know it's like having families and cities and so we completely agree with you that we need more family accommodation. What I think co-living can help is to alleviate the burden on other types of housing that have been used as co-living so homes that were single family homes or family homes have been turned into HMOs as a shadow way of young people living together and the more co-living space that comes out can potentially take that burden off and allow those homes to become family homes again. I live on a street where there's a lot of chopped up family homes that were used to do this so I think where we can help as a macro is allowed as purpose built safe space to come and allow those things to potentially return to family so I appreciate it's not necessarily on this site but I think that is how we can help you guys thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I was mainly addressed to Neil I think but feel free to chip in. I'm quite curious about this new model I call it you because it's quite new to me but this co-living I was reading only today in the Greenwich Wired there was reference to the scheme in Luishan and you know I've seen elsewhere another reports and other feedback I've actually had from other councils across London that this is the new thing this is a new model or it's a rapidly increasing concept across London just in the last few months I've already been on this planning board for about nine months I think but the number of co-living's games I've actually seen coming forward it's quite surprised me that the volume of them and I'm interested to I'm interested if there's ever going to be a situation even locally whether we likely have oversupply I don't really understand the industry I don't know whether we've actually got a cumulative figure actually here in Greenwich and around us but it does seem to me there's the development or potential danger of oversupply but I hope that's not true for your sake as much as ours and the young people that would occupy these places second point I wanted to make really was about node and a quick look on your node node I just have a great is it node NOD is it NOD is that you yeah and a quick look that you've got sites in in New York got sites in Madrid Barcelona have you got any sites actually functioning actually here in the UK at the moment I'm due to go to New York in January I'd be interested to know whether it's possible for me to observe and I'm asking for anything else but to be able to observe one of your sites actually in the operation just tell me something about where you are at the moment is it is it something I can go along and see at some point in the future how the locally or whatever holiday along the shore that I knew was have you got anything in the UK at this moment in time that members could view or you could show us yeah absolutely we opened a boutique project in Brixton that's in its second year of operation happy to show you around that was a smaller we've got you could come to Madrid we just open eight hundred and eighty eight beds we have a thousand fifty nine bed project also opening we opened in double and a hundred and fourteen beds three weeks ago we're also involved in another project in London opening in q one next year about hundred and forty beds and another one in twenty twenty six that will that will be opening and being just under two hundred beds so we've been involved in both boutique projects as well as large scale ones there's different management approaches towards we call the boutiques and we kind of call them city hubs and how you manage those and you know part of this one is it's a hub it's a larger scale one but yeah we're happy to engage and kind of take through learning lessons and journeys and this will be part of the management plan that we put together to make sure it works for this one what's unique about this building is because it's a collection of buildings what we really like about it is you can create smaller communities within the big building so it's a collection of small projects that then you can put together and we think that's actually pretty special compared to a lot of co-living buildings of five hundred units that are just sort of one tower one building what about the supply side is there a demand site do you see this industry if you like all this concept growing and growing so I can't imagine what's the problem with me can you hear me I'll see I'm concerned about I'm just asking what you think is the long-term future actually of this industry co-living and can we can we come over support on the nil I think I think we're drifting away from the planning application yeah and we're sort of drifting into what may happen what may happen market research and David we'll come back to that day for the end when when we're rounding up with it you had a question for the for the aprica yeah well thank you very much for all the work you put into this I'm intrigued by I mean I was the very much support the principle of co-living but I just following on Dave's question really I mean I stayed in a place recently in Marseille I'd say a Dallas and there was they had hotel and co-living alongside each other virtually the O'Dallis model and my daughter in France when she moved there she lived in something called a foyer which was you know very cheap a common entry level accommodation for four young people similar sort of co-living principles but if you look at the O'Dallis site you go to Spain it's 650 euros or Portugal or somewhere or France it may be slightly more here we're talking about 1,300 pounds there's a huge difference really when you consider that lots of these people will be on London living wage they'd be taking home 26,000 pounds a year assuming 35 a week and so forth and then you'd be walking out 15,600 for their accommodation so just might comment on on how affordable it is but secondly I'm also interested in in terms of sustainability to what extent I mean obviously we have to take account of the NPPF very much which is all about sustainable growth this is clearly growth but I want to ensure the community is sustainable how long will people what is a minimum stay what will be the minimum stay and what will be the average length of stay so how durable is it how many people are going to put down roots in this accommodation I mean you know we've got to differentiate from a hotel which I assume needs a separate planning class so it's not going to be a hotel but what's the differentiation you know what's how many what's the minimum period someone could stay what's the average stay in your in your accommodations elsewhere in the UK well it is very different from a hotel I mean the length of stay we expect to be somewhere sitting between PBSA and built a rent in our current projects usually that's somewhere between 15 to 18 months and that number we're seeing going up as people as our buildings mature and they come you get renewal rates of anywhere from 50% plus so you know sometimes residents like flexibility of their leases so what they want is they're a bit of well I don't know what's happening with my job or my consulting project and so we find that they like to opt into shorter leases we put them on ASTs they like to have the break optionality but we find they renew more often so this is really a medium term accommodation for the vast majority of working professionals and young people in cities that just want that flexibility because they're nervous about the future and what they want they want to turn key solution so that's the type of stays that we would be expecting here I think a project like this we will have a longer stay when you just look how amazing it is you can be in this community you can have all these things around you you can be connected to all sorts of people and interest groups I think you can really plant seeds here you know you imagine you have a co-working cohort and other people to work together in the gym or yoga or whatever it is and so these are things that keep people together one of the things we do is we have referral programs so we give one of our best ways of marketing is our residents market to other residents so these are things that we do continuously and we also get people from around the world so they hear about oh no it's coming well it's oh amazing if they're moving here from another city that happens so we'll get a mix of both locals and international the length of stay is you know probably a year and a half but I think it can be longer over time as these communities patina thanks and I just wanted to bring up another angle if I might you seem to be very nervous about having a long term review savils five days ago Eston predicted that house prices in London price levels in London will go up by 23 and a half percent to the next five years is that why you're suddenly nervous about having a long term viability review I'm not an expert when it comes to viability but my understanding is that when there's a late stage review it makes it slightly more difficult to get funding so if you don't have a late stage review and you make that payment effectively up front it makes it slightly more attractive to a funder okay any further questions on that you say a funder I was trying to trace the ownership of the company at something called waiver limited that seems to be the ultimate owner aren't they invested in it anyway or are you still looking to raise external funds or lending I think it will be like a joint venture so there is some funding there in place now and obviously the intention is or the idea is that when we secure planning permission it makes it makes it more attractive to funders so we can get the shortfall effectively to bring it forward back in 2020 we had an application that came before us which was delivering 209 E.A. family dwellings we were told it was an exciting landmark development and everyone was excited the developer was very enthusiastic like you are tonight I'd like to know why that application was allowed to lapse and why you haven't come forward with something similar because we approved that and it clearly worked so family accommodation could easily be accommodated within that site and my second question because the two will interlink what stats have you seen that suggests that the Royal Borough of Greenwich needs co-living rooms instead of family dwellings I think I can answer the second question and if it's okay with you chair I can invite the applicant to speak in response to the first question about the previous consent sorry Kevin said that I forgot the second question was apologies second question was what stats because you mentioned you've done research so my question was what stats have you seen that suggests that the Royal Borough of Greenwich needs co-living rooms more urgently than it does family dwellings I think the simple answer to that is we don't have stats and we're not making that claim we know that not only in Greenwich but throughout the country pretty much but more so in London I guess that there is a huge need for family units whether they're 234 or more beds so we're not actually making that assertion what we're saying is that co-living in this area is a product that we believe will work and there is a need for co-living but that doesn't take away from the fact there's also a need for family housing my client the applicant his formula in terms of taking sites forward is he largely works in the co-living field student accommodation field as well he does some residential work but it's largely co-living and we've commissioned studies by savels amongst others to look into the demand and as I said there is a demand for co-living in this location but also London wide but I agree there's also a need for family housing sorry just before guidance is the first question I'll also go back to this comparison with the extant scheme I will see preserves a significantly greater percentage of the existing buildings the existing heritage on the site because the co-living model fits into it really well we've already had this conversation about how it's difficult to provide balconies on listed buildings and also the locally listed buildings so it's a very good fit to retain the incredibly high proportion of buildings that have retained which is why the scheme does so well in terms of its circular economic credentials as well so it's a good in my view a very good fit to retain all the existing buildings and that's allowing us to do that sorry sorry your name is Guy Zisser from New River Limited okay thanks so the question was why the previous scheme which I presume the applicant was very excited when they were here and they got the consent through it didn't come forward ultimately not all schemes are viable not all schemes that come to this and go through a viability process are actually commercially viable the previous owners of the site were consortium which had it for many years they're very much built up a consent to sell the site and when we bought it we knew that that was not a viable consent the built cost with all of the demolitions and where you would end up was never going to stack up and when we say funders that means we might need senior lenders on it we might need a bank on it and not all of these especially of this scale would be funded with someone's private cash you ultimately might need a partner you might need a lender and when we decide what's appropriate commercially for a site we have to bear that in mind because ultimately if nothing comes forwards no affordable housing comes forward no end loop payment comes forward and the site will sit for however many more years which is hopefully not something that anybody wants over here thank you any further questions members no thank you very much I'm Duncan open this for deliberation David thank you chair I'm probably going to surprise people by saying I actually support this application in principle certainly I think that it could make a great contribution to bringing new life and vitality to Woolage to our nighttime economy given its significant number of younger people and to the footfall around Woolage as well and it could make a big difference to the area and bring that connectivity if you like between Power Street and the town hall and contribute to what I say is the Boulevard vision hopefully a few more trees as well so I think it is actually very positive I see that there is I said this on the Abbey Wood application there is certainly room for co-living and housing generally is sadly far too expensive I do have concerns obviously I don't like offsetting as I said I don't like the lack of family accommodation but then there is a scope for this what I do think and we'd have a wider look in terms of our policy at the space for co-living and student accommodationers but we are dealing just tonight with this application what I would like to add though chair is I'm prepared to support the original application which is for includes as a conditional late stage review with a 5 million plus offset as well as a 20 social rented units while it's nice to have an additional 4 million which is what 10 houses or 10 homes it's you know the swing of the dice with 23.5% potential uplift is much much greater with the late stage review so I think we should stick to our knitting in terms of the late stage review and on that basis on balance I'm well I obviously would much prefer social housing family housing on balance for the reasons I stated I think we should support this because this site has been empty for so so long and I think it does make a good attempt to maintain and enhance the heritage features of the site thanks David so Jonathan what David has brought up there is covered by option B is that correct? Option A. So option A retains the late stage review option B does not. That's right yes. It's from members. Just to endorse what David said I'd like to second that proposal I think it's a very good response to a very challenging site I just hope we're not back here a couple years time saying you know that we've just missed church the market but I'd support it this evening. Not I. I'm going to support however I'd like to just note Michael Sons and some of them at things I've said already so I would not repeat them but also to second what Councillor Pat as said earlier and this is around the fact that we need accommodation we need homes we need to reduce the number of people who are on our waiting list on the housing register and the majority of those who are there are families they need family units and what's concerning for me is that a lot of people are more out pat on me for profit and not just about providing accommodation that is needed so for me it's really important that you know the developers take this on board maybe their next development they think of us having three bed units to meeting those needs and reducing the numbers that we have majority of those who will be eligible or who are within the core group the core target group at those who we do not have reasons to believe our priority so they would not be on our housing register so they would not be waiting to be housed on social housing so that's a major concern for me the second one is around the rent 1,300 for young people or even those within kind of 50s that is a lot of money for a one bed in the shared accommodation it's a lot of money my third concern is around the the number of people that will be sharing the kitchen the clusters I know that they said that there is a model from the GLA about how many people you know how many people can share the quality in space but I'm just thinking you know having seven people share a kitchen that's a lot housing management is something that's very very key and I'm glad that you agreed that they agreed that it's something that they definitely will be looking into but we definitely need more housing and I'm hoping like Chancellor Dave said we're not going to be back here in the next few years asking for this to be repurposed because we have the wallet and it's a six units coming up in Abbeywood and then we have this so you know thank you Thank you chair I am obviously very very concerned about the lack of family units and the fact that children you know sort of were not mentioned at all in by the developers and also about the cost of renting and in fact we haven't got any the developer couldn't provide any stats and I know I understand what the developers say that yes by doing this we are taking people out of other accommodation possibly homes that have been divided up for sort of for living accommodation for sort of various numbers of people units if that's they're going to be back on the market but at the same time I also I can't 100% support this application because I just can't get out of my mind that we need family homes and also we don't know long term the developers are trying to say that this is actually not just the co-living the kind of that came up before in Abbeywood but this is something entirely different and we don't know whether this is going to be successful or not I do understand I really do understand that lots of people are lonely I'm always sort of talking about loneliness and I get it but we don't know that this will be successful even in sort of this time of a cop type of accommodation you can still get people who are lonely and refuse to join in but I do understand that part but I think all in all I'm going to abstain on this Thank you chair Thanks Brad, any further comments members? Okay, so I'm going to put this to the vote and I'm going to put three options Option A is to retain the late stage review but also include listed building consent Option B is to accept the $4 million and take away the late stage review and option C Here, well the four options, sorry Pat because now you've mentioned about abstentions Option C will be against and option D will be to abstain So with that in mind all those in favour of option A which is to retain the late stage review but approve with listing building consent please raise your hands Option B, option C is against option D abstention Thanks Pat, the item is approved with option A to retain the late stage review The item is approved, thank you very much Pat, members do you want to take a quick break? Pat is going to remove herself because she's going to speak on the next item Thanks We now move on to item six which is two six zero Elton High Street, Elton London SE91AA reference two four one two two five F Andy Thank you chair and there's in the gallery The current application seeks planning approval for the demolition of the existing buildings on site In the construction of a multi-story building plus basement to be used as use class B8 storage along with associated landscaping, vehicle maneuvering, car parking and refurbishment of the locally listed building to the front of the site The application site is shown on screen it's approximately 5,200 metres squared and it's located off of Elton High Street and is currently used by white woods removals 8 metres squared of B8 storage use while the site is adjacent to the Elton Town Centre The area is surrounding the application site to the east, south and west are residential The site is a regular shaped and addresses Elton High Street to the north, south and crescent to the east and the properties of the front, wood, cross, and foot, square road to the west The objections received are summarized on screen in our address in the office's report In addition comments of support were also received As is shown on screen as viewed by offices during the site visit the application site which is used for storage in removals company Features historic buildings and various states of repair and waste materials associated with the current use are stored on the site The application site as a set features an existing warehouse style building which is positioned near the western boundary This is surrounded by lower rise existing buildings to the east and south of the existing warehouse While a locally listed building at the front of the site would be retained and refurbished it is proposed that the remaining buildings on the site would be demolished The proposed storage facility will be positioned along the western boundary with a more generous setback from the boundary than the existing warehouse on the site To further soften impacts of the development towards the western boundary with a foot cross A setback of 6.5 meters is provided where the building meets the cul-de-sac and landscaping and two bench seats will be provided facing wood cross to further knit the scheme into the existing neighborhood The proposed self-storage facility will have a maximum height of 12.1 meters at the highest point with the exception of a lift over which will choose 0.9 meters over the roof parapet Although the majority of the building will be much lower at about 9.15 meters and it will step down to 7.21 meters to 6.5 meters towards the southern extent of the steam The proposed self-storage facility features a basement which is 3.3 meters deep from street level and the office space associated with the site will be contained in a reception in the refurbished locally listed building at the front of the site As shown on screen, the post-development features four floors with a maximum of 5.627 GIA without the Mezzanine floor Mezzanine floor and the development has an option to add two additional levels resulting in a GIA of 7.900 square meters In the developer considers there will be no external amendments required to install the additional Mezzanine levels The proposed office use will not alter the height of the existing locally listed building which has a maximum height of approximately 8.8 meters As shown on screen, the existing building shows signs of disrepair and it will be brought back into active use as a result of the proposed development While a side entrance would be added, the arrangement of the existing windows and doors facing Eltham High Street will be retained intact which officers will consider will improve and appropriately maintain the significance of the adjoining group of locally listed buildings which face Eltham High Street and south and crescent as shown on screen So above is the existing situation and below is the proposed refurbishment of the local listed building in the new warehouse shown at the back of the site This slide shows the proposed facade is visible from Woodcraft Close So from the west of the site looking towards the east As shown on screen the proposed building would be visible from Woodcraft Close This is also the case with the existing warehouse building on the site As I noted earlier, the building will be set back 6.5 meters from the boundary For a width of approximately 23 meters in length, there will be an in-set into the building And this was increased through the course of processing the application and response to comments raised by the urban design officer to show the building was appropriately responding to the existing context The building will be set back at least 3.3 meters to 2.5 meters from the boundary where the in-set isn't provided As is shown on screen the proposed building will be set back further from the site boundary shown by the red vertical line It will be set back further than the existing situation So these are the views I'm about to show Viewpoint 1 from the north of the site Viewpoint 2 taken from the east of the site and Viewpoint 3 and 4 taken from the west of the site The following screen show the verified views of the proposed development compared to the existing situation Through the course of the pre-application stages and through processing the application The applicant has reduced the overall height of the building At the main bulk of the building and also further reduced it at the southern extent of the building And these changes have ensured that the proposed roof form and materials will be visually recessive and consistent with the existing character So this is the view from the north of the site looking to the south You can see the refurbishment of the building, the replacement of the proposed building This is the view from the east of the site While you can see the building from south and crescent From this view due to the setback and separation distance that will appear consistent with the existing roof heights In the area And this is the view from Woodcroft Close The materials palette is included in the design and access statement and plans and is shown here And this would be subject to officer's final agreement at the submission of a detailed stage subject to reviewing physical samples Through the course of processing the application the design was revised to remove a large extent of the metal cladding on the exterior which is initially proposed And it would often be featured on storage facilities of this nature so they're softened the designs appropriately respond to the existing character Officers are content with these changes and they chaired that the development is appropriate in terms of the products and materials In addition the roof form has been varied as I said earlier it was lowered through the course of processing the application And also additional steps in the mansard style roof were incorporated to ensure it was closer to the existing roof forms in the area Which didn't really feature pitch roof designs In terms of landscaping the proposed development will provide 69 replacement trees along with 348 meters square of linear native hedge planting It will achieve a biodiversity net gain of 12.8% and an urban greening factor of 0.5% which exceeds the targets for commercial development On screen is shown the proposed landscaping in relationship to woodcraft close including the bench seating and significant greening along the western boundary In regards to the previous slide just to note that the council's g officer and the council's consultant ecologist have found the biodiversity net gain and approached the trees acceptable As considered the impacts of surrounding properties in terms of loss of privacy loss of daylight and sunlight overshadowing loss of outlook In impacts in terms of enclosure would be acceptable as a result of the proposed development with only minor exceedances recorded to the BRE daylight and sunlight guidelines No privacy concerns are raised due to the separation distances achieved The location of the entrances which will face the east and the lack of windows generally on the proposed scheme due to the storage use In overshadowing impacts would be in line with the BRE guidance In addition to the regeneration of the site the applicant considers the development will provide four direct jobs in the equivalent of 51 to 55 employment opportunities as a result of smaller medium enterprises using the self storage facility The following financial obligations would also be secured through a section one of six legal agreement 10,000 pounds towards public loan improvements, 20,000 pounds towards active travel improvements, a carbon offsetting payment of 15,400 pounds in a GLAB contribution towards local employment of 56,270 pounds As is set out in the office's report the recommendation is to grant approval for the proposed development Thank you chair Thanks Andy questions for the officer David Thank you very much I was interested in the not that aspect which looks very good but you've turned around to South End Crescent to the next view I think It was a view after the Hilton High Street view Yeah, I was concerned about the impact that would crop close and there's also one from South End Crescent which I thought was slightly more stark It's quite a comparison in terms of the impact particularly on the Earth of Street view in the residential houses And wondered particularly in terms of what the distance was from the back of that house there to the new unit And also whether there could be better screening is a screening that is proposed I was a bit disappointed really in the tree element And wondered about living walls and so forth I mean I don't know the greening element I mean overall the UGF is good and the biodiversity is good but it doesn't look that green And I wondered if that could be screened in whether you'd looked at discussed with the applicant how that could be screened Maybe with evergreen so it's not or a living wall so it's not so much in your face particularly South End Crescent but maybe also the other view as well Thanks very much for that question Councillor Gardner The first point I would make is just I can flip back so just flipping through these slides I'm not confident that the fall landscaping proposal is shown on this slide so I can have the applicant maybe answer that question when they come up to speak But in terms in terms of the planting so the trees that are in there's large mature trees that are established in that area where it's visible from South End Crescent And the benefit of this scheme is that those larger mature trees in that area will be retained and so that's also shown in the verify view So when they're in leaf for example in the summer months it will screen views of the development and then they'll be planting it's difficult to see but perhaps we can zoom in on the plan As there will be planting along the full extent of that Eastern property boundary and there will also be a wooden boundary fence that will be provided along the boundary which will provide some screening as well In terms of separation distances it's about 18 to 20 meters from the back of those properties to the building And just to pursue the point about trees Andy the report doesn't specify what type of trees the new trees will be just native trees But that's quite important to me the height of the trees and so forth whether they are mature trees we're planting or their saplings clearly it won't make a difference for many years And how many of them will be evergreen but you know we don't want cherry trees I just wondered what whether we could be more specific Yes certainly so there's I can open up the landscape plan that helps but it has a full planting schedule so it's detailed in the plan tree by tree including the tree diameter at the time of planting And the majority of the trees trend towards the it's called heavy standard to standard so there will only be a few standard trees the majority I think over 45 will be heavy standard to advance heavy standard which is about a 12 centimeter diameter to an 18 centimeter diameter at the time of planting And that's something that are that's that's generally the first question that our tree officer will ask is where is the planting schedule where is the time at planting confirmed and she was happy with those details in this instance Thanks and if I may chair another aspect that took my attention call my attention was around our parking and the TFL made some very good comments about over parking and there needs to be a CBZ in south end present funding towards a CBZ in south end present to avoid people street parking that are using the facility but we dismissed that which given our presumption towards CPZ and and modal shift and so forth and avoiding trips by car that seemed rather odd that we sort of dismissed TFL suggestion. So TFL is called from understanding was they were supportive of a CPZ at the construction stage so to avoid construction stage impacts in officers view was it's a large site with ample opportunities for construction workers to park on the site and then at the develop stage car parking will be provided on site which generally you know it's a difficult battle for applicants to confirm the need for car parking on site and in this instance both TFL and highways accepted that the proposed parking provision was justified so consider there will be ample parking opportunities for any trips to the site. Thank you. I know the site quite well used to live very close to it and pretty well every time I drove past it I walked past it and it occurred to me we'd make an absolutely great housing site. I don't understand why we've been reduced to this could you run that army on deep please why it wasn't considered as a suitable housing site. So thanks for that question C Councillores maybe aware there was a previous draft site allocation plan that set this side aside aside for housing that site allocation plan was wasn't adopted and it's currently being reviewed. So we were advised by our policy department that that draft site allocation doesn't currently hold any weight. So this was the proposal by the applicant it's for a B8 use class is an existing B8 use class on the site. So in terms of considering alternate uses given that there's no weight to that exists that previous draft site allocation plan in alternate use for the site wasn't considered a material consideration in this instance in terms of determining this particular application. Any further questions for the officer Andy thank you very much and I wish to call on Councillor Greenwell back do you want to do do you want to go first or do you want to come after the residents. Before I start with my five minutes can I just say that one of the people who was going to speak Mr Nick Duffy has had to go home is not feeling very well he was here but he had to go. I think I think the gentleman say next you know. Yes and difficult also before I speak we can't get a true picture those diagrams do not give a true picture. Is this part of your five minutes? No I'm starting now. On the 23rd of the first 24 permission was granted to build a storage facility in method a place which is just around the corner from the proposed white woods development. The whole area is primarily residential two storage facilities will have a huge effect on people's lives. Bear in mind that the permission has already been given for one large storage facility just around the corner. 24 the first 23rd of the first. The latest proposal will have hours which nobody's mentioned yet of opening Monday to Sunday 6 am to 11 p.m. It then states in the application that outside this hours at sound outside this hours are restricted and I'm not quite sure what that means because to me the word restricted does not mean forbidden it just means reduce so it could go on 24 hours a day. The residents who live in South End Crescent whose houses quite rightly which Councillor Gardner has said back onto the proposed site will be continually disturbed by vehicles parking car headlights fumes and noise disturbance on an almost permanent basis again that has not come up. The proposed development will it states have a maximum height of 12.1 meters with the exception of a lift overrun which will protrude 0.9 meters above the roof. It also has a couple of mappies that the elevation of the land on the proposed site is higher than Woodcroft Close. So this is going to affect residents and add to the in Woodcroft Close and add to the overbearing effect because that land is higher on the site the elevation. This is also very important to note that in March 2021 an appeal was rejected for the building of the apartment blocks on Whitewood site on this site. One of the reasons given was that for the appeal being rejected was that one proposed block was going to be four stories high. How does this compare, I'm not quite sure, with the new application of 12.1 meters above the lift overrun. Also, it was clear on the drawings but numbers 8 and 9 Woodcroft were the ones just below in the cul-de-sac end, the ones just below the building, this proposed building. 9 Woodcroft are two existing cottages and they sit below the application, you have to go down, they've always been there since the last century almost, yeah, they're probably 100 years old. The plans there as I say you have to go down steps so that they will feel totally enclosed by this development. The plans also, now this is, I would like the reasoning behind this, the plans also show two benches facing Woodcroft Close. To clarify, there is an existing wall there which is privately owned by I think it's Fairlight Buildings. There's a notice up saying this is a private wall not to be removed. We in Woodcroft Close pay for our own maintenance, it's an unadopted road and that wall belongs to a building company, nobody has got any right and I haven't seen anything about removing that wall, yet the plans show no wall and two benches facing into Woodcroft. I would like that to be noted please. The council's urban design officer has said, make this your last point. The council's urban design officer has said quote, although the proposed storage building will be visible from Woodcroft Close, the proposed design will minimize the impact of over dominance, absolutely total nonsense. This proposal, if allowed, will have a huge effect on the lives of local residents both in Woodcroft Close and South End Crescent and I will now leave it to other residents to explain their reasons why. I haven't actually mentioned the fact that there is also a very busy junction at the bottom of West Mount Road, South End Crescent and Elton High Street and at the moment anybody who enters or leaves Wood Whitewood site has to press a particular button to allow access. So this is going to be an absolute nightmare because still streets are busy. Can I just like to add, most residents are in favour of some kind of housing, not another giant great box that will cause havoc and harm to local residents. And that's your 15 minutes up pack. Thank you. Any questions for the speaker? David? Thank you very much, Councillor Greenwell. That was very informative and passionate. But hasn't this site for a long time been a removal storage place? Presumably, they would have gone out early in the morning and lorries are much noisier than cars and they'd have come back later at night having been to the other end of the country or wherever. And there would have been a fair bit of noise and disturbance and they'd have been using the same junction. So if it was residential and I'm not sure that that is a, that's not a planning issue that's before us, I don't think we can consider that this evening. But if it was residential, there'd also be the problem of people coming in and out of that busy junction presumably. But my main point there, my main question is, wasn't always a similar sort of business, removal, business operating early in the morning and late in the evening as well. You can ask people who come, who are going to speak, who live in south and crescent because they're nearer. I have never been aware of any issue. I'm talking here about opening from six o'clock in the morning until midnight, seven days a week, cars coming in with flashing headlights at six o'clock or whenever, banging the doors open, trying to get the belongings in and out. Fumes, noise, yes, nightmare and then that particular clause which says, outside this hours are restricted. So what do we mean by restricted hours? It could be 24 hours a day. Is that? Thank you for the passionate. Yeah, it's close enough. I'm just trying to think if it was a housing development there, people would be going in and out unrestricted. People would not have any restrictions to the time they would come in and that they would go out. So if it is not a coffee development, they would drive at any time. What's the difference? With this one there's a restriction, quote-unquote, from 6 a.m. to the 12 p.m. I can't remember 12 a.m. I can't remember there's a restriction with that. I'm equally very much for us having and building as many affordable using the sites that we have to use them for affordable housing. But however, I'm just thinking in this instance, the traffic that you are mentioning will be negatively impacting current residents there. Would we not have the same thing if it was going to be a housing development? Of course, here we've got 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. and then actually, you know, sort of a restricted use. It's totally different from people coming in out of houses. They will be parking the cars, facing south end crescent, facing their backs, their homes, their windows, their gardens. And there will be associated noise of the clanking of, you know, when the removing furniture or whatever. Members, if I can draw your attention to condition 14 on page 427, hours of opening, we do have within our powers to alter the conditions within condition 14. So we do have that. It is conditioned, but obviously we can contribute to what hours. So there is a condition now. Any further questions for Councillor Greenwell? Thank you very much. And I wish to call on Jonathan Morris. You can pull that forward, Jonathan. It's not stuck on the desk. It's just lovely. Red light, the red light, I see it. Thank you. You've got two minutes. Thanks, Jonathan. I want to confirm my objections as listed on the sheet there. But I do just want to pick up on a couple of things that have been said. The previous application for housing went to the inspectorate and was turned down. And it was the council who objected to it. But it was because of density and a few other minor things like turning circle for a dust cart, not enough room and a disabled flat for a wheelchair. It was mind the details like that. It wasn't against houses in principle. And the other thing was that the housing development was that there would have been houses with very little windows facing the back of the houses is south in Crescent. So if the work cars, they would be sheltered from the houses. But also because of the general London and borough rules, those properties are likely to be ones where people wouldn't have garages. So there would be very few cars coming in. But I wanted to speak about this safety of the coming in and going out on the site. There are many pictures and drawings being shown on the various things. But one came up and I hadn't seen that in the booklet, which actually showed the whole junction. Because there are four major roads that all meet. One of them goes straight the way through the junction and the other one is staggered through the junction. There are eight sets of traffic lights with pedestrian lights. Two of the lights have got filters on them. And the removal site, which has been very, very inactive or very minor removal work going on for a number of years, they have a special button on the inside of their gate that they can push that turns all the lights to red so that they can come out. Because when they come out of their site, they would come out right opposite West Mount Road. And that is a very busy junction. This has been picked up a little bit on the building side because they put restrictions on the building noise coming in and saying that there should be marshals to see them in and out. So there is recognition that there is a problem. And they mentioned a couple of nursery schools. Going through the area, there were five nursery schools within about 100 metres. There were another five between 200 and 300 metres. There were two infant primary schools within about 400 metres. And three secondary schools within about a mile. There is a very substantial amount of traffic crossing that road. Where I live, I use that junction most days going out. And it is very popular with people. And the other thing talking about the storage, yes, it has been a storage. But because the storage goes back to the very early 1900s. And the vehicles then didn't cause so much problem because they were horsey carts. And I really believe that it is suitable for a degree of housing, similar to the type of housing that we have in Bulkhoff Close. Is that my two minutes? That is free and off. Thanks Jonathan. Any questions for the speaker? Jonathan, thank you very much. Thank you. I am making a note of the points being raised around traffic light control and other issues that Councillor Gremles raised. And I will bring those up after we have finished talking to the residents and to the applicant. Thank you. And now I wish to call on God-free Monroe. I think God-free, we drew it through. I think it was conflict of interest. Okay. Nick, you say it is gone? I believe so, yes. We now come to Kenny Douglas. Hi Kenny. Hi there. So for context, the rear of my property, which is 38 south end creasant, we will face the car park entrance and vehicle turning area of this proposed site. My objection is based on the opening hours of 6 to 11 every day. This will create a steady stream of customers to the site beyond sociable hour. That means before I rise in the morning and before I go to bed, there will be potential noise, loading, unloading goods as well as unloading, unloading goods as well as unloading goods as well as unloading goods as well as unloading goods as well as unloading goods as well as unloading goods as well. This is a disturbance in the proposed car park and turning circles. I consider it will help create a potential health condition to me, such as sleep deprivation and more so the right to enjoy my property in garden. I object the noise assessment outlined because there is a definite minute of footfall over 17 hours of a day every day. This is also coupled with the front of my property, 38 south end creasant, which has numerous bus routes and is a main road which has a lot of traffic during literally all day. I consider the noise from this compounded with the sure-guard noise in this area will drive significant noise levels all around my property. Additionally, as noted, the outlined landscaping raised me little insight on the perimeter line of my property. There is talks about a wooden fence. However, the agricultural drawing shows plots trees but does not state what these are. I have a lack of information to determine what latches obscure the car park and the shielding I will have from my property that affects my privacy and use of my garden. Finally, my property is a garage on the boundary line of this site. I have right of access over the passageway, which goes to 38 south end creasant. There is no outline of any security measures that we placed around this car park in front of the facility facing my property, my garage, and over this emergency passageway, which is to be used for pedestrians in emergency exits from the facility. This exposes my garage and the back of my property to more potential security hazards in the area. Thank you. Thanks, Kenny. Any questions for the speaker? Kenny, thank you very much. I now wish to call on Diane Morris. Take your time, Diane. There is a button in the middle. The red light will come on. That's it. Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. I would like to start with saying that I endorse everything that the other speakers have already mentioned. I would like to add that the issues with the light and the noise of vehicles exiting all those hours during the day and night will impact on the residents of Woodcroft Close, especially as there are several who are shift workers and therefore need to sleep in the daytime as well as those that need to sleep in the night time. So that will have a great impact on the members there of the residents. I also want to note, I would like you to note that for ease of exiting from the site it wouldn't make, it would be easy to go left, which is fine. That would take you down towards the high street or left again into Footscray Road, where which is extremely busy, you have to go past a petrol station, filling station, and you have to go past the Messerter Place road that takes cars up to St. Petersburg. You also then further down, you have the school pickup and drop off, which is very congested because you have all the parking along that road there and that therefore restricts the parking facilities for any vehicles leaving or wanting to enter the site. And I consider that could be hazardous, not only to everyday pedestrians but to the school children that are using that road constantly. Also, the school is open during the evenings for after hours activities. So it's always busy and you're always going to have some issues there, I would have thought. I think I've covered most of everybody else's, covered a lot of what I wanted to say, but that is good. I would also like to point out that in the details of the plans, there was mention of the local shops using the facility for storage. Given that a lot of the, most of the shops in the high street, a great deal of the shops in the high street are food outlets. I wondered whether any consideration had been put to that. Were you considering offering food storage facilities there? Because you have, that has to be approved by HSE, I believe. I don't understand fully, but can anybody answer that? I don't think that's a planning consideration for us. What goes into those units now? Unfortunately. No. Right. Well, then it could be more an issue then. It might be a different department. So, things like food storage and food come under a different legislation and from a different department. Okay. I have heard of people storing within a facility similar to this one, where they've had their items chewed by rats, because other people have stored food in there when perhaps they shouldn't be. So, they would be needed to take control. We're drifting there. We'll raise that with the applicant. Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for the speaker? Diane, thank you very much. I now wish to call Aisha Bhajwar. I press the button. No, it's already on. Oh, it's on. Okay. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Aisha Vajra and I live at 36 South End Crescent, along with my parents and my brother. They're since 2012. We also own next door at 34 South End Crescent. The house is a very old house. It was built in 1860 and it's very much a family home. In fact, we have a sort of joint family setup, which is why we bought it because it was large, quiet, peaceful area. And that's where my parents wanted to spend the rest of their days. They are 89 years old each, both of them, and it's very much a family home. Every single week we get together to meet. We have five brothers and their children every single week. The whitewoods' premises are actually part of the original garden of the house. So when there was no more family left, the more family, the garden was divided off. So the boundary wall is very close to the actual house. And so all the surrounding land was sold. So we've already got very little light on one side because that's where Kenny lives. Okay, so it's 38 South End Crescent. So our main living room, our kitchen, all the bedrooms, main bedrooms are all facing whitewoods, all of them. So we are extremely worried about the light, the noise, and as you say, the flood lights or whatever they're planning to put in. If I stand in the kitchen at the moment in the house, I can actually see the woodcroft estate directly right over the whitewoods' premises. That's how unobstructed my view is. We have some lovely, lots of lovely trees there, lots of wildlife, a lot of birds. I don't know if a survey was done on the bat, which also live there, I'm not sure. But this proposed development will obviously completely dominate all our living areas. And the developers, I did read their report and it said, you know, the daylight and sunlight one. And the results demonstrate apparently that the proposed development will have a low impact on the light receivable by its neighbouring properties. I can't believe that this could be true. The housing development that was already mentioned actually did admit that we would only have two hours of daylight in March. So the main living room and the kitchen and the garden, two hours of daylight in March. So we have actually about accounted 16 windows facing whitewoods, 16 windows, which we're all going to be now. We'll have you two now, Aisha. Do you want to wind up? Yeah, sure. So the boundary wall is only 13 feet away from Oakfield, so we can expect to receive little or no natural light in the living rooms, the kitchen, the bedroom and the very small garden that we are left with. So please bring this down to a much, much smaller scale if it's going to be there. And yes, you mentioned sorry, you did mention the current whitewoods people. Well, they never operated at 6 a.m. or later in the evening. They never did. And the drivers were always very respectful. They would put storage containers next to the boundary wall. Thank you very much. Any questions for the speaker, David? There's a question. Sorry, thank you. There's a question. I'm trying to find out actually the reasons for the rejection of the appeal in 2020 and no doubt the officer will illuminate. But from your perspective, you obviously looked in detail at that application for housing in 2019, which went to appeal in 2020. And I just wondered how far that high block, the 12-meter plus block, was away from you, from the back of your house compared to how high, how far this block, which is also around 12 meters, is still away from you. And this is further away. That one was very close to the boundary wall, much, much closer. And it even helpedfully put balconies in the front. So people could stand there and look directly into our bedrooms. That was actually our worst nightmare. I must admit. Thank you. Thank you very much. I now wish to call on Alan Evans, Richard Bryant and Anthony Fusy on behalf of the applicant. Hi, guys. You have up to 10 minutes. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Members. The plan application before you is a result of over 12 months collaboration and consultation with local stakeholders and also with the Greenwich Planning and Design Officers. The proposed delivery of a new self-story facility, it will enhance a local employment and economic offer, which is relevant to the wider site and area. And it will also deliver significant additional benefits. There are a number of points in terms of operation and the type of use. So I'm going to hand you over briefly to Richard, buy it from Sure Guard, and then I'll pop back later. Thanks. Thank you, Alan. Thank you, committee. Yeah, I'm Richard Bryant from Sure Guard, so I'm representing the operator. I was going to talk to you about Sure Guard as a business. I'll do that very briefly. We have 45 stores across London at the moment. We also have a number of stores, over 307 European countries. We're a very professional brand leading operator in the self-storage market. We actually have two stores in Greenwich already, in the borough of Greenwich. We have one at Horn Lane, Buzz Beesway, and we have one just down the road at Nathan Way, both of which have trained very well and bought economic benefits to the borough. A couple of points I'd like to talk about, and I'll address some of the points that have been raised by the previous speakers if I can. But first, I just want to bring to your attention the employment benefits of self-storage. While we only employ three, four full-time people eat directly. Across our stores, we find that about 20 to 30% of our customers are small local startup businesses. The storage facility provides a good economic support to the local community, and we would expect this store to support something like 200 to 300 businesses indirectly, therefore supporting jobs in the borough. I've listened to the people speaking previously, so if I may just address some of the points in terms of vehicle movements, noise, and security on the site. In terms of vehicle numbers, hopefully now I should address that. In terms of vehicle numbers, we find across our stores, and as I say, we have a huge number of stores across Europe, but certainly in London. There's five vehicle movements an hour. They generally peak mid-bombing, something like that. So during the day, there's very, very little traffic in and out of the site. The majority of our customers are domestic customers, they put their stuff into storage, they pay for it, they leave it there. The traffic comes from our business customers generally. However, so that's two to three, sorry, four to five vehicle movements an hour. So in terms of security and how we manage this, in terms of noise and in terms of ensuring that we manage the noise, all of our customers have a unique security code. So that code only lets them through the security gate. It will let them into the store, and it will only let them onto the floor that they're storing. We know exactly who's in the store at any time, so if we have any complaints, we know exactly who to speak to and how to manage it. We have 45 stores across London, we've got over 20,000 customers, and we have a very, very low, if negligible rate of complaints about noise. In some locations, we actually provide on residential developments, new residential developments next to industrial site. We provide an acoustic area because we are a very clean, quiet operation. And I think Anthony will talk about the design in terms of the landscaping and the fencing. We have put mitigating, we have tried to mitigate any impact on the local community. All of our stores, all of our trolleys and rubber wheels, most of everything that happens inside the building, not outside the building. And as I say, it's very, very quiet. In terms of opening hours, 6 AM to 11 PM, our standard hours for access for our customers, outside of that, no access. We are not a 24 hour operator, like some of our other competitors. Our office hours are 9 to 6, but we do allow our customers because supporting local businesses, market traders, white men, sometimes need to get in the morning, 6, 7 o'clock to get their goods and their tools for the day to go out to work. So we have to provide that flexibility and versatility. But as I say, it's very, very securely managed with individual security codes, so we know exactly who's in the building at any one time. I will pass back to Alan now to talk about some of the other items. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Again, I just wanted to pick up on two or three of the points that have been raised and discussed helpfully this evening. I think just in terms of daylight and sunlight, and this is linked to discussion as well with regard to the previously dismissed housing scheme proposal. There are five windows of in excess of 80 that were attested as part of this proposal, which failed. And four of those fails were less than 0.4% below the BRE guidelines. You guys will have sat here and discussed BRE fails in the tens and hundreds on other schemes, and of course each site and each application is a judgment. But there's a very, very, very low fail or transgression rate with regard to daylight and sunlight as part of this proposal. The residential scheme, you can't build a residential scheme in one singular or part singular block like you can with this proposal. They need dual aspects, they need garden space, they need balconies. So what happens is a residential scheme of any nature on this site ends up with a compressed relationship with the existing dwellings. That creates a potential policy conflict, and it certainly creates a genuine concern in terms of intervisibility and local residents. Self-stories is genuinely a almost silent use. It has a very neighborly relationship in terms of its surrounding properties. It's very, very quiet. There was a question in relation to the types of trees that were being planted. By diversity, net gain and the urban greening factor insure that on a site where there are existing tree species, you need to improve the quality and the quantity of those. In this case, we're replacing a lot of, for example, self-sold sickle moors with specific indigenous trees including the landscape plan, which is submitted as part of this application. This is on the screen now, but the actual specification for the trees is cut off there. There are a horn beam, there are some hawthorn, there's rowing, there's birch and there's some fruit trees. That is, again, dealt with by a planning condition. There was a question in terms of the verified views. I think just in terms of where the 12.1 metres is taken from effectively. The views you've seen as part of the plan application are verified. I think one way of addressing is looking at the parapet levels on the, for example, the Woodcroft close block and in the proposed building. So the levels are attuned to the specific starting point, if you like, on the ground. I'll let Anthony have a quick chat as well. Sorry, just to touch on that. The height of the building is 12.1, but the parapet line is roughly just over 7.2 metres. So that's where the Mansard roof kicks in. So the previous residential buildings that were proposed were four stories, but they were to the parapet with a flat roof. This is around 7.2 metres to the parapet before the Mansard kicks off. Thanks, Anthony. Just one final point. The existing established use of the site is a storage use. It's a removal company. There are no conditions or restrictions on the operation of that building. So if whitewoods left tomorrow and another removal company came in, they could operate it 24 or 7. This plan application will resolve that by imposing a level of control, which is deemed acceptable in terms of the discussions that we've had with officers and indeed with things like noise guidelines. I'm happy to take any questions, so I think Richard wants to quickly. Excuse me, sorry, I dropped my stick. One point I'd just like to make is, unlike the other self-storage application that was raised and you heard earlier in the year, that was a speculative application by developer. We're own rocket fires. This is our home in Elton, and we want to work with the community, and we want to provide a facility with the community, and we want to ensure that we become part of that community and we serve it. So it's not in our interests to upset the neighbours or present something to you that we have collaborated with the local authority on for over 12 months now, working out the landscaping, ensuring that the safeguarding is in there, ensuring that the lighting systems and the security measures are all there to protect and to ensure that we operate as good neighbours. Kenny was saying about the access through to his garage. We've actually put the gate inside the site, so he can access that road through to his garage. So the security gate will be on the store side of Kenny's garage, so he can actually access that without any problems. And we would increase, we would improve the social service. You all right, would that Kenny? Yeah, there's no mention of what that will look like, how it's going to be so our pedestrian access at what time does it matter? It's got any illustrations. It won't be used for access to via us. It's an emergency scout route only. Yeah, so we've got two lines of defense, if you like, in terms of security. I'm sure Garz Business is security. So there'll be an access gate at the bottom of that lane, which the residents that share access will have a key for. And then as you come up past the garage, there'll be another gate, the fencing that surrounds the site is secure by design. It's a hybrid fence, which is mainly timber, but it is reinforced with steel as well to provide SR-2 rating. When we get attention, is that the garage? You're going to put fence in front of my garage. I must take the conversation back to the presentation and happy to feel any questions. The planning condition will detail the precise boundary treatment, which I think we will then be able to accommodate any point. Sorry, members. If you've got any questions, I'll carry on. David LaDay. Thank you very much. I have two questions. Firstly, would you be willing to accept a change condition in terms of the hours of operation to eight to eight? Maybe slightly less, maybe six on a Sunday, which would be far more reasonable, eight to eight to eight. And I was also going to ask about the junction, which was raised by a couple of people in that currently they have to remove all the lorries, have to press a button in order to exit or enter. Because of the, and I know that junction, a very complex arrangement, that junction between South End Crescent, West Mountain and Elton High Street. And I wonder what your proposals there were to ensure safety both for people accessing the site by car, but also obviously pedestrians, busy pedestrian area. And sorry, I did say two, but the third point was the woman from number 36 and 34 talked about the light. And I didn't caught that before. The opening hours may help there, but what would be the light impact on the neighboring, you know, as in sort of spotlights and things like that? On, on, on the neighboring properties, would there be spotlights on that facade that backs on to South End Crescent or backs on to Woodcraft, or would it be very low level low lighting just for the car park? So will there be a light pollution impact on the neighboring properties? If I can answer the question about opening hours, I think we could probably accept a small reduction in the access hours that we allow. We would need, sorry can you hear me, we would need, I think eight o'clock to eight o'clock is, would be too tight for us, because obviously we have to operate with our customers. And if our competitors are offering, you know, 24 hour access, we're not offering that, offering that. But I think a start at seven rather than six o'clock in the morning would be something we can work with, and maybe 10 o'clock in the evening rather than 11 o'clock. Which in terms of noise, pollution, whatever around a residential estate, I think, you know, it's, it's very comparable if not better, because we have less cars, less people, less movements. So I'm, I'm having to consider that. In terms of the other questions, I'll pass over to my colleagues. No, before you, sorry, Richard, coming back on that. So the seven to ten, that would be Monday, Monday to Saturday. It's Monday to Sunday, but we don't, I mean, our offer sales are less than that. Our offer sales are nine to six, Monday to Monday to Friday, and shorter on Saturday. I'm having to consider a proposal. So, so what I'm looking following on, while we're on this topic, seven to ten, you're saying that seven to ten is workable for Monday to Saturday. And then what about on Sundays, could we possibly look at maybe an eight a.m. to ten or eight a.m. to nine on a Sunday? So I was going to interject if you don't mind. So a large part of the uses is for trades persons that traditionally the walking week will be Monday to Friday. But there is a small element of access required out of traditional sort of business or trading hours. And please remember, this is not a super market type of use. If you look at the transport assessment that's submitted with the application, the vehicle movement and the activity associated with the use, even though the hours may seem irrelevant, it's not a constant, constant use. What we're considering is the areas of whole. So if you've watched videos of this committee in recent months, you would have seen that we've gone through exactly the same process with another storage facility, which is probably less than five minutes away from where you are. And we've gone through exactly the same process, same questions, same everything else. Because what we're looking at is a residential area. And I know exactly where your storage units are. You know, we see them in each London and everywhere else. The difference with this location is that it's not as residential. Well, this is more residential than whole line and make them way. So there's a little bit more to consider. In Homes Park, we have a store. Oh, sorry, yeah, sorry, apologies. In Homes Park, which is a very similar area to Elton, it's a very minimal class professional type of area, similar housing, et cetera. And we actually have a store there, which is bigger than this one. And it's very much an industrial building. But what that does, it provides an acoustic buffer between a residential development and a much larger heavier industrial area. And that was part of the planning application and part of the reasons that the store was granted permission is because we are a very quiet user. And with the lighting, I'm sure Anthony will confirm this. It's down lighting at a low level. So it's only the car park that's lit. It's only the access areas that are lit. So I think what I'm saying is yes. You know, well, it seems like the long hours. Actually, the impact is very, very, very small. But if the council wants to come back and recommend other opening hours on a Sunday or a very holiday, then that's what we will obviously, you know, consider. Can I go, yeah, so there's another beat that number 36 mentioned. And that's the overlooking into our garden. I was just thinking, how many floors are there? This could just go back on the, because I thought I saw three floors. There's a ground floor or basement kind of. And then another floor, another one on top. Okay. And just a little bit back. Not that one. Yeah, that's correct. So there's a basement. Then you've got ground floor. And then you've got one floor above. And then there's the opportunity to put two measurements in at a later date. And the reason why we do it like that is because it minimises disruption in the future. We're building in flexibility for expansion at a later date. That's the beat, yeah. That's the beat where I'm thinking, because we need to be considered as well. That's the beat I'm thinking that in chair, that in my, you know, my submission is that the opportunity to extend any further. We should not be granting this height is just enough so that there's no future disruption to, I don't know. But that's one bit. And then the second beat is around the light. You know, the, the, the walls of the fence can be fenced up so that when the lights, when the cars put the light on, it doesn't extend out. I think that's a, a modification that we can ask for. So they doesn't disturb the piece, it doesn't disturb the neighbors so that the light doesn't go out, doesn't travel outside of the compound. Anthony will, we'll, we'll just give you the more detail on this. But we are putting close-boarded fence along that boundary with the residential and also landscaping. So there will be a solid close-boarded wooden fence there with trees and other landscaping along there. So that will stop any headlight spillage into, into the gardens or into the housing. And as I say around the building, we'll have low level down lighting around the car parking. Sorry. Could I add to the, just a point about height. So you're doing that. What you see there before you is, is the absolute maximum building envelope that is for determination this evening. There's nothing else additional on the cards on the table. Nothing. Additional flooring would be if I did, at a later date, through a mezzanine floor, would interject halfway between the two larger gaps, the two six meter, five and a half meter gaps that you see on the screen before you. So you can either have, that's double height, is shown there effectively. I have a question. It was raised during the, during the speakers. Is there a button on your site that impacts the regularity of the local traffic lights? Yes, there is a, it's, it's almost like a pelican crossing button as you go out of the site on the right hand side, the U Press. And then it kicks, oh sorry, it kicks into the sequence with the other traffic lights. We have, and Alan, you can, we have been asked to look at this as part of a potential, well, with, with TFL. So let me just pass on to Alan. Yeah, I just, I'll just clarify that point. One of the heads of terms for the planning legal agreement that would be signed up to if the resolution is granted or made this evening is to, before any development is completed, is to provide a fully automated system. So in effect, the signal junction has a new member of the family. The, the signal junction that exists now on, on the site, becomes an automatic, automated with a sensor trigger for any vehicles waiting to exit the site. So this, you remove the discretionary element of pushing a button, the, the signaling will happen automatically as a car or a vehicle approaches from inside the site to leave. And it then has a phasing effect on the remainder of the existing traffic signals that control the four roads, because you're right, it is, it is a very, very junction. And there's a significant element of the section one and six, which will require us to upgrade the signal to ensure that it has the capacity to accommodate that. So there is no more, as I say, arbitrary pushing a button, it will, it will be imposed upon vehicles exiting the site. They've, they've fallen to the phasing of the, the rest of the junction and TFL have confirmed that detail will need to be submitted and approved before any occupation of the building. That's, that's within, that's within the conditions. Okay, any further questions? Okay, I'm going to come back back. You know, I'm going to come back to Sunday. We haven't agreed a time on a Sunday or we haven't, we haven't got round to some, some, some common ground on the Sunday. So it's been mentioned seven to ten during a week. What can we agree on the, on the possibility of Sunday hours? Sorry, sorry. I think that because we have such a small traffic flow and such a limited amount of customers coming into that time, but we do have market traders, we do have some boot sales people, I suppose, we do have online traders that we'd like to keep the opening as early as we possibly can. But I'm not saying that, you know, that has to be six o'clock or seven o'clock on Sunday. So I mean, what would the, the committee, I think we, we, I mean, could we say eight to eight to ten on the Sunday? How about eight to nine thirty? I mean, there are no restrictions. Sorry, I'm bad cop here. I'm looking at, I'm looking at, I'm looking at good neighbours, you know, I'm, yeah, good neighbours, not being funny. Someone's doing a boot fair at six o'clock. They've already left at four a.m. in the morning to get the best pitches. Yeah, it's fair point. I just, I just, I just, they've come in, they've come in at ten o'clock, they've come in eight, nine o'clock on a Saturday and realistically, they're not going to turn up till three, four, five o'clock in the afternoon when they've had a long day, haven't they? So I'm, I'm, I'm looking at, what I'm looking at is the, I'm in the space of the residents that are living in close proximity and just giving a little bit of respite, you know, you never know how busy. As you said, you know, it's just, yeah, yeah, it's on Sunday. Is it acceptable yet? So I'm, I'm going to add that under condition 14. So Monday, Monday to Saturday would be seven to ten and then Sunday would be eight a.m. to nine thirty. And then what I'm also looking at is under condition 40 a.m. is looking to protect the right of way for keeps garage to make sure that there is ample space for him to get in and out turning curves and whatever. So that's also there to make sure there's adequate space for him to be able to carry on using his garage as a money. Okay. Anything else members? No, David? Well, I will have comments, but I would prefer a further reduction of the opening hours actually, but you know, that's all they're prepared to agree. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any further. Any further. It's a question that I didn't get answered. What questions that let me go back in my when I was speaking, why it looks on the other, according to one of the diagrams. There are two benches that face out into woodcut close and there is no wall there. At the moment, there's a wall there, which is old. Oh, okay. I've got that. The wall is the wall part of your property or is there a party wall agreement that needs to be discussed with whoever does under wall? There's nothing on the title that suggests there's anyone else other than the current landowners have any ownership over the site, including the walls. And the purpose of this is to show guys interest is to then purchase from that landowner. So there's a clean title as far as we understand. And the benches were actually provided as part of the ongoing collaboration with Andy and his team and Francesco and the design officer in order to provide a quiet pocket park there for the residents of Woodcroft to sit in a quiet green space to enjoy the, enjoy the peaceful. So the benches are staying and so is the wall staying in? No, we'll take the wall out and we'll put a nice fence around with lots of grass, lots of landscaping around to provide that quiet space for the residents. The wall is not planned. Not planning consideration. The ownership of the wall ends up becoming a civil matter. It's not part of this application. Okay, we've got that. Thanks. No further questions, members? No. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor. Can I open this up for deliberation now? With the points we've noted and the modification and the modifications we've asked for, I'm going to support this planning. We've opened hours making sure that the light from the cars is deflected and doesn't go, it doesn't disturb the neighbourhood. I'm supporting this application. Thanks a lot, Dave. I don't have any doubts about the management of the site. The reputation of the brand is very strong, so I have no doubts about how this site would be managed on an ongoing basis. These particular sorts of developments are not very popular when they're placed located next to residential communities, but these sort of places there is a demand for them. They do need to go somewhere, but I can't help thinking that this is just not an appropriate site for them to be located. I think given the development around the corner, I think perhaps this sort of neighbourhood has probably got enough storage to suffice. I don't think they need any more. I also think, which you might not have to be discussed today, a later discussion, but I just think it's not appropriate that you should decide. For me, it's residential all day long, but that's for another discussion. I think there are issues about the scale of it, the size of it, the height of it, which would not just worry me, but I'm sure we'll worry local residents. There's also issues around that junction. I've said that those lights many a time staring into that space, and I don't think this junction is manageable. I don't think it's suitable at all, so I'd have concerns about that. I can't help thinking that if this was to go ahead with a serious deterioration, no matter how well it's managed, I think there would be a serious deterioration of the quality of life. Public community and people will live adjacent to it, so I would be opposing it. Thanks, David. Thanks very much. I mean, I'm very much into minds about this. Clearly, a lot of effort and thought has gone in, and that is appreciated. It's good that you want to be good neighbours, but we don't see the neighbours here coming in support of this application. I tend to agree with Councillor Sullivan. I think that this is the wrong site, but it is, and we can't take, you know, how we have to account for the fact it is an existing employment site, and therefore we can't obviously oppose it on the basis. It should be housing rather than employment, but we can be cognizant of the previous refusal and the appeal decision for a similar height of building, and it can be cognizant of, you know, clearly from the views, it's very dominant. I think I would have been, in the case of balance, I think I would have been more inclined to support it, had you agreed to eight to eight opening hours, which would be far more, you know, far more in keeping with residential patterns. It's also slightly concerned that having four phases to the lights, rather than three phases, could slow bus times even further, it's such a heavy bus route, and obviously that's critical in terms of our policy. We do come down to the massing and the height, the over dominance, and obviously policy DHB protection of immunity for adjacent occupiers, which is, you know, a strong presumption against an unannabally sense of enclosure. So I do think on balance, I can't support the application as it is in front of us, and therefore I will be voting against it tonight. What if the applicant was to consider your recommendation on the hours? If it was eight till eight Mondays to Sundays, then I think that would bring me to an abstention perhaps. Chair, sorry, I wonder, is it very quickly just showing the comparison with the refused residential scheme? You can see here it was a lot closer to the neighbours, and it was also taller just to set that out. I don't want to get into deliberations, I appreciate, but there's just the comparison of the floor plans. Thank you for a bit more detail. How much difference in height left? So it's four stories, and what, and it's seven metres to, so equivalent of four stories is approximately 12 metres. But you're looking at the parapet of the storage building being about seven metres, so about a story less but also further off the boundary. It's roughly about three metres lower, and further setback than what was refused. Now what we're saying, Dave, is the previous one was higher? Sorry to interrupt, Chair, but my reading of it is that the previous application was also, they're both around 12 metres, the height, but this is the height of the parapet. As you see, the building will be seven metres, but it will actually rise to 12 metres with the roof. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, which is a similar height to the roof. But it would be further, because it's the roof, it would be further away from, so in terms of who are looking and so forth, it will be far superior to the refused scheme. Yeah, also there's no windows, because it's a storage unit, but then in terms of being just blocked without windows and so forth, it would not look as nice as the... So it's, yeah, it's still quite... When you look at the views, it's still quite dominant when you look back from South End Crescent or from Woodcroft Close. So, coming back to Richard, Richard, on the hours. Can we come to a compromise, I think, between our two suggested solutions? Because I think 8 to 8 would be too restrictive on our business. I don't have a mandate to agree that from my superiors. So, I mean, we have worked on stores before, where we've had seven o'clock to ten o'clock, Monday to Saturday, and shorter hours on a Sunday. I think 8 to 8 on a Sunday would be acceptable. David? Yeah, put the owners on me. So, if it's... No, I think I will... I mean, it's all a matter of, you know, the balance, isn't it, and I think that if there's not a movement on the... I mean, I'm pleased there's slight movement on Sunday, so that's brilliant, but if there was not a Monday to Saturday movement, I think that I will still... ...on balance photo games. When you said, um, I thought you were... I thought you were just about to say something. I was going to speak. We agreed 8 to 9 to 30 on a Sunday, didn't we? I think when we were talking earlier, we spoke earlier about 8 to 9 to 8, my colleague has just commented about 8 to 8. I think you were just about to do the big arm on the Monday to Saturday. Yeah. Can I, um, is there any chance we can take a small break? And I need to just make a phone call. Is that something that's... Sorry? Okay. And do we have a second or on the vote? Can I just very quickly... An applicant always has the ability to apply to various conditions later on as well. Um, there's nothing to stop the planning board. Oh, no, my phone's really... Not that one. And I thought I'd turn this off. Sorry. It's a wife, apologise. Yeah, as I'm advised, Richard, we can impose a condition. Okay. And it can be appealed or you can come back up. If it's a difference between a positive vote or an negative vote, impose the condition and we will discuss it. So the condition, the condition was 8 to 8. So, Monday to Sunday. Do we say that's 8 to 9? Let's do it in the interest of trying to make progress. I'm prepared to accept 8 to 9 Monday to Saturday and 8 to 8, um, Sunday. And then on that basis, I would abstain. Okay. Yeah, we're clear on that. 8 to 9 Monday to Saturday. 8 to 8 Sunday. Okay, I understand. Okay, cool. Thanks, Richard. Thank you. Okay, so, um, taking that into consideration and the cooperation from the applicant and the improved condition or the extra addition to condition 40. In condition 48 regarding Kenny's garage, um, I am going to support the application. So I'm now going to put this to the vote. All those in favour of the officer's recommendation with the additions to condition 48 and condition 14 around the hours, which will be 8 to 9 Monday to Saturday and 8 to 8 on the Sunday. All those in favour of the application. Please raise your hand. All those are ganked. Abstentions. The item is approved subject to conditions. Thanks. We now move on to items 7 and 8, land bounded by Petman Crescent, Nathan Way and Haddon Road, reference 241575NM and reference 241565R. Matthew. Thank you, Chair. We have two applications to consider alongside each other. And non-material amendment one. The application A, there on the slide, then the reserve matters details to consider. Secondly, the applications relate both to the same site known as Plumsted West Thamesmeet site, which is shown on the slide here. The site comprises the blue land and the smaller red pass with a separate. The applications today relate mainly and chiefly to Plot 1, which is that site outlined in red. And it's the last plot to come forward out of 9 for approval on the wider site. It's the last piece of the jigsaw. The site is shown there. Sure, members are aware of the site and having dealt with many applications previously. Some photographs of the wider context looking to the site and away from the site. Which again, we won't dwell on because we all quite well versed with those. The non-material amendments have come about by a designer change to the original master plan for Plot 1. The left hand slide shows the approved master plan for the site. The right hand slide shows what's currently proposed to amend Plot 1 site from the one continuous J-shaped building, which was divided to four segments previously into three separate buildings. In order to do that, some of the parameters needed change. On the consented scheme, they're all detailed in the reports and up around through all of them. But mainly, so we're separating the buildings into three separate elements. A, B, C. A is a tall tower at the north end. So 21 stories in total. B is a cruciform tower at the southern end. And C is the bit in the middle, so it goes A, C, B, not A, B, C. There's a slide show different elements of public open space and second slide from the left. So we now have ground floor amenity space in the blue area between blocks A and C, before there's none. There's a difference in the podium level amenity space, which is a third slide from the left, which takes account because you know what ground amenity space as well. What that does is open up the site and give more daylight and sunlight to the amenity space at podium level than there was near real scheme and the entrances have moved as well. Another key issue here is building B, which is a southern design, the one that's heavily aligned in black, seeks to be amended by raising its overall height by less than three meters. It's 2.85 overall from the consented scheme, which is showing red dotted line there. Another change is to the description of the original permission, which allows up to 16 stories above ground level to be built as consented. The current amendment seeks to allow 20 stories within the taller building A. It doesn't change the overall height of the building. I stress that point and it's said that in the reports. But it's come about by a change of building technique, so there'll be more stories, no more heights, no more units within the scheme. Another change is the change of housing mix, come about through design changes to the whole site. So the overall mix of dwellings will marginally change a shown in the table there. So what we have is an increase in two, bed and three bed units and a decrease in one bed units. We've had no individual objections from residents because there aren't many there now. We have had a concern expressed by the Ministry of Justice in terms of overlooking and security issues arising from the tall tower block looking towards HM Prison Temsmead and the adjacent prisons further away. The details of how we've addressed that are in the reports, so we're not going to detail now, but these slides illustrate the distances between the closest part of the tower building A, which is over 290 meters away, horizontal and over 300 meters from the top floor down to ground or down to the wall of the prison. As we detailed the reports, we believe the relationship to be an acceptable one given the distances involved. You are looking over other intervening buildings, so it's not all the floors that may have a degree of overlooking. But 300 meters is a very long distance to see anything with the naked eye. This shows the general layout of the plot. So building A, the tower at the top, the L-shaped building C, the lower one in the middle, and the other cruciform shape tower at the bottom with the open spaces in between. There's some more public amenity land on the Pettman Crescent Frontage, because of a Tim's water easement building set back off the road further than anticipated, so overall we have more space, and the whole bulk is broken up. Looking at floor plans, all three buildings have obviously access arrangements at ground floor, with cycle stores or refugee stores. There's also an occupied gym in building A, the northernmost point of the building, upper floors or residential in all buildings. So it takes you through the tower, which has a lower element of the bottom end, southern than the tall element of the northern end, so it breaks up the bulk there. This is the ground floor beneath the podium of buildings B and C, which share an access route to the only parking within the site, which is 19 spaces, 10 of which are Blue Badge, cycle storage, refugee stores, all there, all access via Pettman Crescent. Again, typical upper floor layouts across the two buildings, mixture of one, two, and three bed units. This is the Pettman Crescent elevation to building A, showing the step between the taller element and the shorter one, which came about as through a design review panel recommendations. Be buffed bricks, similar to those used opposite on Plot 3, in the main site. That's the west elevation, the return to facing the trade park at the moment. And the north south, so the north elevations, what you'll see is you come round the road, Pettman Crescent down from the prison sites, going south towards Plumstead. These are buildings B and C, so they're lower, they're red bricks, mixture of two different tones of red brick. Again, picking up on details of the existing site, and the main site across the road. And there's horizontal white banding as well, again, picking up details of what's already been approved elsewhere within the wider master plan. And there's the other elevations building B and C. So this is the elevation building C that faces north towards the open space between that and building A. This just shows a relationship between all the buildings on the southern aspect of the entire master plan site. So they are taller than the other buildings there was planned to be, and they are pretty much within the red dotted lines, shows what has already been consented as part of the parameters. A bit more detailed about landscaping, the podium garden will be landscaping in a very similar way to other podiums within the wider master plan. And finally, there's some CGI images showing how it would be visualised. We're looking from different viewpoints. This is Petman Crescent looking south. That's from Plumstead Road looking north. That's building B on the left-hand side and the foreground and C behind it. There's Petman Crescent again looking from the south looking north, with a lot of one on the left-hand side. That's looking from within the existing master plan, sorry, in the main body of the master plan looking west towards building B. And that's a view further west looking towards the tower building A with, I believe, lots of plots, three on the main side to the left-hand side. And that's it. Thanks, Matthew. Any questions for the officer? Larday David. What's alteration is going to happen to the building where you're having more floors of the height of the building is not higher. So how many floors did you have before? And how many floors are we going to have now? As consented, 16 floors are allowed within that part of the building. You'll be 20. But there'll be no more dwellings than as consented, which is to be reconfigured across the building to accommodate. It's a different change of constructions allowed more floors to be inserted. So why has that been done? That's probably a question-based answer by the applicant, I think. I just wanted to try and understand the Ministry of Justice objection, that presumably this would have been, given there's no change to the height, the same issues would have applied to the substantive approval. So in that case, it's probably not something that we can take account of because we've already approved it, unless there are more windows and balconies facing on to the that are 200 metres plus to the prison. So I just want that to be clarified. It's a point they could have raised originally. And then we could have looked it before giving our original approval. The second point was around the design. I mean, I just feel it's a pretty ubiquitous design that we get everywhere. But obviously we can only take account of any changes. And I just wondered whether the design has changed at all, particularly on that, or rather iconic site, the 21 story building occupies. I mean, it could have been circular, it could have been triangular. It could have had some really interesting features to it, but it's just ubiquitous, standard bog standard sort of brick building with balconies. But obviously we can take account of any changes since the substantive approval. And my third question is pretty similar, really, because probably this is something we should have addressed earlier. It's a very challenging site, because it's surrounded by a roundabout, and those awful car parks and retail units, and we've done all of this and everything that's there. But how are we ensuring, or maybe the applicants can ask of this, that there will be good permeability, that people can easily get to the railway station and out to the ridgeway and the other parts and so forth over that horrible busy, very wide road that's outside. But I'm sure that I'm not sure there will be any changes to improve that, but I will ask the applicant that question. Okay, all good questions, taking the win order. The Minister of Justice, the State I was in the main report, but they were heavily involved in the outline application of the applicant changes to that in the 106. There are requirements in the 106 agreement and conditions in the planning commission, which the Minister of Justice was all too aware of and helped shape at the beginning. And indeed, the mitigations are shown in the red. There are for those four plots, the prison mitigation, and that was direct consequence of discussion of Minister of Justice, the applicant and the council. So those have already been considered, which I must say is shut the door after the horse has bolted. So I think rightly so, the Minister of Justice saying, well, I won't this review it. It's reserved matters, we can review it, but the principal issue is they have been addressed in terms of prison mitigation. The applicant has done some further work and said, well, notwithstanding that point, we've looked at it again, and we can see that there's a considerable distance away. We wouldn't know how many balconies there were in the original parameter, because it was an outline. But it was always indicated to be that high windows, whether it's 20 sort of 16 windows would have been at that point above ground level. So we believe that the distance, the views would be, or their privacy would be safeguarded to what we say is a reasonable level, using the houses, being occupied by reasonable people, and I think that's how we have to consider that. So we don't believe any further mitigations required, A, because it's already been considered outline, and B, the relationship is not one where we believe mitigation should be required in this case. Second point, yes, there have been design changes. What came in at three application stage on this scheme, and it did post application in May, went through a design review in several iterations with their own head of urban design as well, and numerous changes have been made. So the basic forms have changed the same since submission. The main changes, the largest tower, had two steps, and was bulkier, so they've taken a chunk out of it, so a lower bit. Of course, that's required those flats to be relocated, which is why building B is proposed to be enlarged in height, to a cater for those flats being offset from one building to another. As I said, the overall number of units is not increased or changed from the original consented scheme. So in design tweaks and changes, and trying to attempt to reduce the bulkiness and the mass of the tall building, and bearing in mind the consented building was a continuous building, albeit in four sections, taller section, lower middle section, and then a taller southern section. And this design, of course, breaks up the bulk with gaps, more meaningful gaps, which brings on to issue of permeability. So there's already been agreed a crossing, Petman Crescent from Plot 1 to the main body of the site. That's embodied within the Section 106 agreement. There've been other active travel measures already consented, and again, all contained within the Section 106 agreement. The contributions to the highway, so the council's highway authority of over 600,000 pounds, which will include provision of cycle and footpath, signalized and un-sigualized crossings. TFL will have a contribution of over a million pounds, with bus-served improvements, cycle trading, the other ones. So there's all manner of improvements agreed upon already. This is a reserve matters submission, which is not appropriate time to seek any further. We've already assessed those transport impacts. But it's a challenging site. There's no doubt about that. I believe that answers all the questions. Any further questions for the officer? No. I'd like to call Paul Prichard and Peter Edgar. Morning, Chair and members. A long evening, but thank you. So I think your officer has very eloquently answered most of those questions. Perhaps I can just come back to the explanation around the floor height to change for building A. So that's a normally building. It is at the outline consented height building height, so we're not exceeding that. What has happened as we have reported on several of the preceding phases of development is that initially we had expected these buildings to be delivered through modular construction from a factory that Barney had, which is sadly now closed as a number of other modular system factories throughout the country. The floor to floor heights of those modules were significantly higher, about a foot higher or 300 mil higher than traditional construction. So we've effectively been able to reduce the floor to floor heights and introduce further floors without exceeding the consented height of the buildings. So building A has retained the same height. Building B, as your officer explained, has gone up very slightly, but actually building C has come down quite significantly in height overall. So hopefully that offers a clearer explanation. The reason why I ask is, are we now going to, or not we, is there now going to be more units? No. The master plan consent overall has 1,913 homes consented, including 40% affordable housing. They are all on the main site. They are all being delivered early because that was one of the commitments. This phase has acted as the balancing phase, so we're not exceeding the overall numbers within the master plan. And it is 328 homes, no more as a result of the scheme. That's what we're sort of anticipated in the outline phase. Any other questions? Family, just comment though. I must comment the fact that there's a play area for children. Because there's one key thing that had raised, I know the previous planning had been given before I became a councilor, because I know it was one of the things I raised when I came to the, we were not there, I don't think it was you I met. It was a fact that I noted that there is no play area and I was very shocked. And I'm happy and I must commend the fact that that's been captured here now that there'll be a play area for children. Yes, thank you. Unfortunately, in the middle central square of the main body of the site, there's a very significant play space there for all generations. Each podium has dedicated doorstep play as does Plot 1 scheme. Any further comments? Sorry, just to come to the design, sorry to ask you this. But how does a design actually differ? As I said to the officer, it's just quite a prominent site that many, many people pass and all the buses and so forth. It would have been an excellent spot to put a sort of a landmark iconic building with a very different design, but it's a very plain ubiquitous design. Obviously, design is subjective. As your officer reported, it has been through design review panel on several occasions. So various experts have contributed to that, including your open design officer, who was very firmly of the view that that building should be powerful in its presence, a landmark. As you come down from the north, you can see that building for about half a mile from distance. So it's thin end, as it were, it's slender elevation, is sort of the landmark statement. And then, originally, the scheme stepped up, the building stepped up in two steps towards the north. It was felt through the design review panel and on advice that actually a more muscular building, I suppose, I think the description was at the time, should be delivered. And just add to that, ample. And there are design codes throughout the whole master plan to tie to make sure that the design is back in to the overall. Sorry, Chair, can I just pick up one final point that your officer didn't quite touch upon. I think he covered everything else on the connectivity and the permeability. I think members will be aware that there is a local public realm improvement plan to ensure better permeability and connectivity of the station. The plot one site affords assistance in this by separating, retaining the existing cycleway, alongside carriageway, separating that with a more dedicated public footway, with landscaping, free planting along the street. But then it picks up and connects into the PRIP, which is GLA-funded Greenwich Council lead. And we've been through substantial consultation around that, which has been very positive. I think the works have been tended. The whole piece has been triggered by our section 106 agreement for the whole master plan. And the obligation is for those works to be completed by first occupations, which is due to being in October next year. Paul, I have a question around the road safety and crossings. As we know, the area is as a very large amount of traffic, the island site, going into Thamesmead and coming background onto Plumsted Ishtray. I think at the moment the proposal is to have a zebra crossing come in from Patman to Nathan White across to the main site. Correct. And I just wondered if there was any ways of having further discussions with TFL and the GLA to make a safer crossing, either a subway or some sort of bridge, which will then alleviate further congestion. Because you've got a set of traffic lights right on the main junction where everything splits off. You've got another set of traffic lights on the lower part where the dual carriageway is. And also another set of traffic lights as you're just approaching into Plumsted Ishtray. If you've got the addition of young families crossing either way, every time they push the button on that crossing, it's going to add to the congestion, which in turn will add to pollution levels and everything else. And I'm thinking considering the amount of family dwellings within both developments, I'm wondering if it would actually make more sense to find something that is not going to interfere with traffic flow. I think the irony with traffic movement is actually the introduction of lights and crossings, slows and controls that traffic in more safely, so you can't actually speed up. And I think one of the important things along Peppam Crescent here is that actually you've obviously got at the north and south, you've got the lights and the junction. So the introduction through two seven eight works of this additional crossing will help slow traffic. The members may be aware that I think this whole gyratory has been subject to quite a lot of scrutiny over the years, strategically about whether it should not be a gyratory around about, whether it should be a T junction, it's significant to TFL. I think there's a more strategic piece that ultimately is beyond this application and our ability to deliver. A bridge and a tunnel would be unviable in this instance for us. So I think we would say at this point in time we can't commit to doing that. I think we acknowledge there's a broader and much more strategic challenge for the borough. Maybe I'll find TFL there and have that conversation. Okay. Any further questions? No, Paul. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Members, I'm going to open this for deliberation, David. Thank you, Chair. I support this application of the officer recommendations. I think clearly the changes are welcome in terms of more three-bed units and fewer one-bed units, and understand the changes to do to layout and dimensions. The only thing I would say is I would have preferred a more iconic design in that site, and I just think a gyratory system is totally untenable, but that's not before us on the application. And TFL are going out, taking out gyratory. This isn't a TFL thing. This is Greenwich. I think, you know, it's not for planning board tonight, but we really need to lean on our transport people to do something about this gyratory. We'll make it very challenging, I think, for people living in this new accommodation. And I can see ways around it and deal with it, but maybe that's not for discussion tonight. But yes, I mean, on balance, I think very much to support this application. Thank you. Any further comments? Lada. This is in my ward, so. I totally support this, the recommendations, and also the modifications that have been brought forward. I am happy that we have increased three bed spaces, which is really important, and all the key pins that we're asking for in the borrow. I am happy and I've commented earlier the fact that we have three spaces there and the fact that we're going to be having that even across the road, which is really good. And I'm in total support. Thanks. Okay. I'm going to go straight to the vote. There are two votes because we heard the presentation for both item seven and item eight. So all those in favour of the officers' recommendation for item seven, please raise your hands. Worth the wait, Paul. Thank you very much. Thank you, members, for coming. Thanks, officers. Thank you very much.