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. I do not have any public speakers tonight, so I will go straight to the applicants and their team who are here. For item six, I have Mark Slay. On item six, I have Professor Jane Harrington, Adele Brooks,
Mark Underwood, Richard Brooks, Matt Tarling, Hannah Williamson, and Jonathan Dean. Item one, apologies for absence. Chair, I have received apologies for absence from councillors Bauer, Greenwell, and Bert McDonald. I have received apologies from lateness from councillor Larde Ollabongde. Item two, urgent business.
Item three, declarations of interest.
I see none. I see none. Item four, minutes of the last meeting, dated 14th of January. Any comments on those? Nope. Item five, Marion Road and Marion Grove Estate. Marion Road, Marion Grove, SE7, reference 243183 MA, and reference 243184 R. Andrew.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Chair.
Tonight, members are considering two recommendations.
The first is for a Section 73 amendment to the outline planning permission granted in April 2015 for the redevelopment of the site to provide up to 165 residential units.
The second recommendation is the accompanying reserve matters application for the updated outline submission.
The items will be presented together, but members will be required to vote separately on each item.
The site is located in Charlton and borders Woolwich, as shown here.
The former estate is an irregular-shaped plot bound by two roads, Marion Grove to the east and Marion Road to the west.
Here we have photos of the estate buildings along Marion Grove.
And here we have photos along Marion Road.
And here are photos within the estate.
The estate buildings, which were post-war construct, were at the end of their life and in need of modernization.
The site is immediately adjacent to the Woolwich Common Conservation Area, specifically the northwestern corner.
Two Grade II listed buildings are in the vicinity of the site, namely the Wood Hill School to the east and the Church of St. Thomas to the west.
Here are photos of the buildings within the context of the street.
So here we have the church building and the estate buildings over here hidden by an existing tree.
And here is the estate building and the adjacent Grade II listed school.
The application site forms the final phase of the One Woolwich Redevelopment Scheme.
This saw Greenwich partner with the development firm Lovell to redevelop several residential estates.
Phase I related to the former Connell Estate in Woolwich, which was re-provided to facilitate the delivery of 684 homes.
This has now been completed and is fully occupied.
Phase II relates to the former Morris Walk North Estate.
This scheme delivers 304 homes and is nearing completion and handover.
Phase III is the former Morris Walk South Estate, which will provide 462 homes and is currently under construction, as can be seen here.
And the application site forms the final phase with demolition works having already taken place under the existing 2015 consent.
The approved outline permission provided a general design basis at the time of the 2015 application.
This incorporated two blocks along Marion Grove, shown here.
All other dwellings would have been provided as houses.
However, when it came to the detailed design stage, the applicant encountered various issues with the approved design.
One of the most significant constraints were the land level differences throughout the site.
This included a six-storey difference between the north and southern ends of the site,
and a three-storey difference between the western and eastern sides of the site.
This posed technical constraints, including accessibility and inclusive design issues, which would not have met current standards.
Other issues included the requirement to remove several mature trees along both Marion Grove and Marion Road.
The lack of meaningful play space due to the prevalence of rear gardens with the only play space publicly accessible provided in this small corner of the site here.
Buildings which, due to their lack of setback, would have dominated the street scene.
And all of these houses right up on the pavement.
And a lack of appropriate frontage on Marion Grove, with this not being a truly active frontage.
In response to these issues, the applicant has sought to revise the consented outline permission.
The revised proposals would maintain the provision of houses along Marion Road,
but would introduce additional houses along the northern edge of Marion Grove.
Then setbacks would be introduced to three new blocks in the centre of the site.
And then the two sides of the site would be separated by a new green spine,
which would address the land level differences between the two areas.
Importantly, the changes have not resulted in a reduction to the number of units on site,
with 165 dwellings still proposed under the revised scheme.
The heights proposed in the revised scheme are largely consistent with the original outline consent,
but are positioned more sensitively within the site.
The larger six-storey elements have been pushed back from the pavement to reduce their dominance,
both on the street scene and within the context of the listed school building.
Likewise, the four-storey houses along Marion Road would be set back to provide more visual relief.
While new houses are proposed on Marion Grove, and these would be positioned closer to the road than previous,
these would be at a reduced height of 2.5 storeys in comparison to the previous six storeys,
which again would positively impact the street scene.
Access from Marion Grove would remain similar to the original outline permission,
with a new ring road created within the estate.
However, where the previous access roads from Marion Road have been removed,
while the reduced permeability through the site is regrettable,
officers do acknowledge that this is required to address the accessibility issues.
It also provides more secure amenity spaces for both the houses and flats.
The updated design also sees a significant shift in open space provision within the development.
The removal of many of the rear private gardens has allowed for open space provision along the entire frontage of Marion Grove,
which together with the more appropriate placement of massing results in a far more appealing street scene.
The incorporation of the green spine also allows for a far more ecologically friendly planting and biodiverse benefits
than would have previously been expected from the private rear gardens.
The spaces are maintained by the management company serving the flats,
meaning that the benefits will be secured in perpetuity.
Place-based provision shown in yellow has also been significantly increased throughout the site
from the previous 240 square metres to now 1,557 square metres,
accounting for a 549% increase.
This provision is both within the private space within the green spine,
which would be for sole use of the flats,
but also publicly accessible spaces along Marion Grove and Marion Road.
You will see here the tenured distributions of the revised scheme are largely similar to that of the previous outline.
However, you will see that there is additional affordable housing highlighted here in yellow for ease.
These are private sale units which will be purchased by the council's regeneration and housing teams
from the developer to provide additional affordable accommodation.
It's important to note that these additional affordable housing units are not material to the current planning application,
as they won't be secured in section 106 agreement.
However, as this relates to a former council estate and it is an agreement with the council,
it's being raised here so everyone is aware of what will be provided.
So when considering the section 106 provisions, 35.29% of dwellings will be provided across the one Woolwich site as affordable.
However, when factoring in the additional affordable units provided in the Connaught and Morris Walk North estates,
together with that currently proposed, this increases to 50%.
Regarding the current unit mix, the scheme has been designed to maximize larger units,
with 46% provided as larger family-sized dwellings.
And regarding the phasing of the development, it is still proposed to be constructed under a single phase,
as shown here in an updated parameter plan.
In respect to the detailed element of the proposals, the previously mentioned green spine acts as an integral part of the revised scheme.
In addition to addressing the level changes throughout the site, the area will also act as a new biodiverse corridor,
featuring significant increases in tree and other soft landscaping planting.
It will also act as a communal immunity space for the exclusive use of flats,
with equipped play space distributed throughout.
Here we can see a cross section showing how the area will act as a transitional space between the higher level houses on Merriam Road
and the lower level flats on Merriam Grove.
The large extent of tree planting over time will result in a green buffer between the two,
providing both greater privacy and increased green outlook for occupiers.
Here we have a wider cross sectional view demonstrating how the design has mitigated the significant height differences within the development.
And you can also see that the green spine will be accessed from the first floor of the flats,
which will ensure that space is for sole use of the residence.
The site incorporates significant planting throughout all green spaces, not just the green spine.
As a result, it will provide a biodiversity net gain of 76.6%,
well in excess of the minimum 10% set out in national policy.
It will also meet the London plan urban greening factor requirement of 0.4.
Regarding amenities, the development provides six key areas.
The central area of the green spine will provide space for older children and adults within the development,
with informal seating to enjoy the space and suitable equipment such as ping pong tables.
The northern end of the spine will provide equipped doorstep play for under fives,
which is conveniently located for parents within the semi-private communal space.
And this is replicated to the southern end of the spine to ensure provision is easily accessible for all units.
This area would also provide access from Marion Road for easy management and maintenance of the green spine area.
The new urban square on Marion Grove would be the focal point of the scheme,
providing quality equipped play space for residents of the development and existing surrounding community.
The space has been specifically positioned in close proximity to the adjacent school
to ensure it maximises the use of the space and contributes to increased community cohesion.
The urban square will be supported by two smaller play areas to the northern end of Marion Road.
This serves as both doorstep play for the adjacent houses and also as a route of play
as parents and children walk down Marion Grove towards the urban square.
The intention again is not only to provide immunity for future residents,
but also to draw in the wider community into the site and foster greater community interaction and engagement.
Between the houses on Marion Road would be a second larger equipped play space,
which would also be publicly accessible.
The design of the development has been heavily influenced by local character of the area,
with the scheme's architect taking inspiration from both new and historic forms.
The houses along Marion Road would be grouped in pairs,
which not only helps to address the level changes along the road,
but also references the existing buildings on the opposite side of the road.
Elements from the nearby Morris Walk development has also been incorporated
to provide a more contemporary feel to distinguish the houses from their more historic neighbours.
Here we can see the proposed finish of the buildings with traditional red brick,
with white brick accents to complement the existing streetscape.
Variations of light and dark mortar together with alternative setbacks and projections of the houses
would subtly distinguish each pair of houses and provide an attractive rhythm along the street.
And here we can see an artist's interpretation of how the houses would integrate within the street on the left.
The proportions and vertical and horizontal accents of the blocks of flats also draw inspiration from the larger adjacent school building,
complementing the neighbouring heritage asset.
However, as with the houses, the design of the residential blocks also draws upon the successful design of the nearby Morris Walk scheme in its form and finish.
This not only provides a contemporary feel to distinguish the development as a new addition,
but also provides synergy across the former estate sites.
As with the proposed houses, the blocks of flats would be primarily finished in red brick with white brick accents.
Variations in the brick, including detailed brick panels below windows, provide architectural interest without being overly dominant within the design.
Here we can see another artist's interpretation of the blocks within Marion Grove with the urban square place-based centrally framed within the space.
The houses along Marion Grove would feature a similar design to those on Marion Road.
However, owing to the smaller terrace grouping, coupled with their lower two-storey-plus roof height,
the design is performed as single dwellings rather than in pairs.
The detailed finish, distinguished with alternative motor colour, ties it into the larger houses along Marion Road.
And here is another artist's interpretation of the street scene along Marion Grove with the houses on the right-hand side
and the blocks of flats sitting in the background.
Overall, the standard of accommodation as provided within the development is considered to be very high quality,
with all homes either meeting or exceeding the minimum space standards.
66% of homes would be provided as dual aspect, with no north-facing single aspects within the development.
One group of six units has been identified by officers as having lower levels of privacy due to the proximity
of habitable windows within the adjacent block.
Excuse me.
However, officers consider that this can easily be resolved through additional privacy measures
such as angled secondary windows within the adjacent block.
A condition has been recommended to secure these details and the applicant is actively exploring solutions.
All other dwellings within the development would have adequate privacy and outlook within the context of the suburban area.
Regarding daylight amenity for future occupiers, all of the proposed houses would meet the minimum BREE requirements.
The results for the flats are lower, with the northern block having only 66% of rooms which would pass.
However, this is largely as a result of the changes to ground level throughout the site, which have inevitably impacted the results.
As can be seen here, the results improve as the blocks move southwards and the level changes reduce.
As a whole, the development is still achieving a very high daylight amenity compliance rate of 86%,
which results with results over 70% in larger developments generally considered to be a good standard of daylight amenity.
Regarding sunlight amenity, the results are lower, showing less than half of rooms would receive the minimum 1.5 hours of sunlight recommended in the BREE guidance.
However, for the houses, this lower score is less problematic.
Due to the orientation and terrace design of the dwellings, one side will inevitably receive less sunlight than the other.
This is a typical arrangement for terrace dwelling houses and explains why approximately half of the rooms pass and half fail.
When assessed on a unit-by-unit basis, as opposed to standard room analysis, this result shows that each house would have at least two habitable rooms,
which would exceed the BREE sunlight targets.
Consequently, it can be concluded that the houses would have adequate sunlight amenity within the suburban context.
Regarding the flatted blocks, as with daylight, the sunlight results are inevitably impacted by the land level changes within the site,
with the scores again improving as the development extends southwards.
As with the houses, when assessed on a unit-by-unit basis rather than a room-by-room basis,
the compliance rates do improve from 41% to 48% to 57% to 70%.
45 flats would have less than the 1.5 hours of sunlight in all rooms,
although three of these would be just below the target at 1.4 hours, which is considered to be a negligible shortfall.
Of the 45 dwellings falling below the recommended sunlight targets, 25 would be more significant shortfalls of below one hour.
This would represent 15% of all dwellings across the development having sub-optimum sunlight amenity,
with two units, or 1% of dwellings across the entire site, receiving no sunlight.
Where shortfalls have been identified, they primarily affect lower units, where level constraints and site-specific design features,
such as retaining walls, projecting balconies, contribute to reduced levels of daylight and sunlight.
However, these elements are integral to achieving the efficient use of the site, optimizing unit delivery,
and ensuring that the development provides high-quality amenity spaces.
Offices also have regard to the flexibility afforded in both the Bree Gardens and the MPPF,
in respect to daylight and sunlight considerations.
In particular, MPPF paragraph 130 advises that authorities should take a flexible approach
in applying policies or guidance related to daylight or sunlight,
where they would otherwise inhibit making effective use of a site,
as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards.
Therein, the site would otherwise deliver a very high standard of accommodation for future occupiers.
While alternative layouts could potentially improve compliance rates,
such changes would likely compromise other critical aspects of the scheme,
such as accessibility, streetscape design, and open space provision.
Officers also have regard to the wider planning benefits of the scheme,
including the delivery of 45% affordable housing within this phase of the development,
and 35% across the entire OneWoolich redevelopment site.
The current scheme delivers a generous amount of public open space,
with complimentary publicly accessible play spaces,
which will enhance community cohesion amongst existing and future residents.
On balance, therefore, officers consider that the sub-optimum sunlight amenity for some of the proposed units
can be justified in the overall planning balance.
Parking provision would be provided in the form of off-street parking for the houses on Marion Road,
and within a car parking area for the flats and houses on Marion Grove.
3% of parking spaces serving Marion Grove would be provided as blue badge from the outset,
while all off-street parking spaces on Marion Road would be capable of facilitating disabled users.
In total, there would be 34 on-plot parking spaces on Marion Road,
and 25 within the parking area serving Marion Grove, totalling 59 parking spaces.
This is in excess of the London Plan standards, which owing to the varying PTEL of 1B to 4 across the site,
requires the most restrictive car-free standards to be applied, which in this case would be car-free.
However, officers are mindful that the lack of on-street parking controls in the area,
officers are mindful of the lack of on-street parking controls with London Plan policy T2,
also requiring developments not to result in any increased vehicle dominance on London's roads.
Due to the lack of restrictions, coupled with the poor PTEL along Marion Road,
and the extent of family housing proposed on the road,
a failure to provide any on-site parking would inevitably result in displaced parking on the street.
Officers are also mindful of the extant outline permission,
which allowed for up to 138 parking spaces,
with the current proposal reducing on-site parking by 57% from a ratio of 0.87 to 0.36.
Nevertheless, in addition to the reduced parking on-site, which has been agreed with the developer,
the applicant has also agreed to contribute a £40,000 fee to facilitate a CPZ consultation,
with a further £40,000 should that be supported by existing residents.
Given these factors, officers consider that the proposed parking provision can be supported in this instance.
Here is an indicative image of the parking along Marion Road,
together with the existing parking arrangements at neighbouring properties on the opposite side of the road.
Each driveway would be provided with EV charging facilities,
with the aim of promoting the switch to more environmentally friendly EV vehicles.
Driveways would also incorporate trees and other low-level planting to provide green frontage along the road.
This is considered to be a significant improvement on the previous road frontage,
which was dominated by impermeable hard landscaping surfaces and boundary fences.
The parking area serving Marion Grove would be largely tucked away to the rear of the site,
with vehicles access gained from the new service loop.
Again, this is considered to be a marked improvement on the previous street frontage,
which was dominated by car parks and garages.
Overall, the development is considered to be a high-quality addition,
which maximises affordable housing provision and delivers valuable public open space,
play space and a sizeable biodiversity net gain to the area.
Members are therefore requested to approve this Section 73 application,
subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix 3 of the main report,
and the satisfactory completion of a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 agreement.
Members are also requested to approve the accompanying Reserve Matters application,
subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix 4 of the main report.
Thanks, Andrew. Questions for the officer? Olu?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Probably it might be the same question to the applicant.
Thank you for your presentation, which is a detailed one.
In your presentation, when you spoke about the privacy,
you said certain types of window will be, you know, used.
However you use the word, the applicant are exploring.
So does it mean they will do it or they won't?
Thank you, Chair.
So they will do it.
There will be a condition that requires them to do so,
but they're already, they've been advised that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
So before, you know, it's even gone through committee,
they're already looking at alternatives in the design that can be incorporated,
whether that be some kind of privacy film, angled windows.
You know, there are different options.
But they're aware of this and are trying to address it.
Any further questions? David.
Thank you.
I'd just like to ask the officer whether any consideration has been going to ask
the same with the applicant to what support through this development can be given
to the new Charlton Community Centre, which is adjacent to it and on the corner
and is a great resource and facility, but perhaps could do with some investment
and how that will help anchor the development with, you know,
a ready-made community centre on its doorstep.
And I'd also like to ask about the off-street parking provision, which you pointed were,
you highlighted were actually in breach of the London parking standards, which are a minimum,
sorry, which are a maximum, not a minimum.
But also more concerned from my perspective is that policy, planning policy for many years has increasingly been a presumption
against carport parking, where people park their cars immediately in front of their houses.
We know why. It's a loss of biodiversity. It lowers the urban greening factor.
It leads to higher car ownership, certainly leads to much higher car usage.
It undermines active travel because people take their cars if they're outside.
And it means constant movements over the pavement with people reversing and so forth,
which obviously goes against our Vision Zero objectives.
And it's also very bad aesthetically against the old cave guidance or office for place,
whatever they're called now, guidance, and against most architectural thoughts,
which are against our design, well, in conflict to some extent with our design guidance as well.
And it doesn't actually increase the number of spaces.
Just because of the narrow width of the houses and the relative narrow width compared to opposite
and therefore the space between the crossovers,
it eliminates any parking on Marion Road, on that side of Marion Road.
So it just replaces an on-street place with an off-street place.
So it really seems to be at odds with our overriding London and local policy
and doesn't have any sort of significant benefit unless they're blue badge holders and so forth.
So I would like to press on that point while recognising that the overall scheme is,
I think, of very high quality as the other similar level schemes have been.
Thank you, Councillor Gardner.
There were quite a few points in that last point.
I might have to come back to you on some of those, but we'll tackle the first one first.
So as part of this application, there hasn't been any specific requirements
to provide mitigation or a financial contribution for the existing community centre.
That wasn't identified by any of the consultees as part of the engagement process.
However, you know, that doesn't preclude the developer from engaging with the community centre.
And as I say, the developer is in partnership with the Royal Borough.
So if that's something that members were keen to do, then I imagine some sort of engagement between the two isn't, you know, beyond the realms of possibility.
So perhaps something to ask the applicant when they speak.
In terms of the car parking, in this instance, it's trying to strike a balance.
It is a difficult area to manage car parking because of the lack of existing parking constraints,
which, when you combine that with the varied PTAL on the site, is going to result in some car parking from the development inevitably.
On Marion Road, where you have the off-street parking in front of the houses,
that's the area of the site with the lowest PTAL, where you have half of the road in 1B and the other half in 3.
However, the site as a whole has PTAL 4 on the other side.
And so you are correct that the London plan policy requires the most restrictive parking constraints, which for PTAL 4 would be car free.
However, the London plan is somewhat of a generic threshold set across the whole of London
and doesn't necessarily take into account specific factors of an area.
In this instance, we have three former estate sites which are going to be redeveloped,
each of which are going to increase on density in terms of the numbers of units than were there previously.
And so parking stress, which was already a problem when all three estates were in place,
is likely going to increase further because of the lack of parking controls, meaning that people will just park on the street.
That not only causes issues for active travel in terms of discouraging cyclists when there's roads lined with parallel parked cars,
people opening doors, coming out, you know, there is likely to be conflict there.
So that can discourage people from cycling.
But it can also cause significant inconvenience for existing residents who might be displaced if they have existing parking outside their houses.
You know, it results in additional parking stress when you factor all those things in.
So as part of the negotiation process, we did agree the CPZ consultation contribution, which is in excess of what was agreed under the outline consent granted in 2015.
The thinking behind that is that if members of the existing community, when they're consulted, when some of these developments will be brought forward,
some of that existing parking from the Morris Walk North, potentially Morris Walk South will have started to appear on the road,
that if it's voted for in favor by residents, then any future development on the site would be genuinely car free.
And all of the residential units which don't have dedicated parking won't be able to park on street.
And it also therefore detracts from the possibility of homes having more than one vehicle parking, one on their plot and one on site.
In terms of some of the other points you raised in terms of biodiversity, like I say,
the scheme is maximizing biodiversity across the scheme with some 76% increase of biodiversity net gain.
And it does represent a substantial increase in comparison to the previous estate buildings, which were largely hard landscaping.
The movement over the pavements, as you will have seen in the photos, was already an occurrence.
There's one off street parking space, which the mouse isn't working on the bottom left.
There were four of those along the entire of the estate, each having seven or so spaces.
And then that's in addition to the on street parking, which you can see in the top right,
which in combination really did result in a car dominated scheme.
In comparison, the proposed scheme would introduce large numbers of tree planting, would remove all of the cars from the street,
providing wider roads and incentivizing active travel via cycling.
And for pedestrians walking along the road, although it is acknowledged that, you know,
there is some potential conflict with vehicles exiting and entering drives,
the design has been done so that there aren't any obstructive visual barriers.
So it'd be good visibility and vehicles would be moving at slow pace.
So the likelihood of of collision is probably reduced when considering the preexisting arrangement,
where vehicles had lowered visibility due to on street parking.
In terms of the incentivizing people to own cars, like I say, I do think inevitably,
because of the low P-tail on this area of the site, as well as the high provision of family size housing,
there will inevitably be some provision, some parking, some residents with cars, essentially.
But the benefit of putting them on site rather than on street is that each of these plots are provided with EV chargers,
which, although it's, you know, not entirely without environmental consequence,
does have benefits over petrol vehicles, where if you provided them on street,
the likelihood of people having EVs would reduce because there wouldn't be anywhere to conveniently charge the vehicles.
And in terms of the aesthetics, ideally, if this was in a CPZ, I agree with you,
front gardens would be the preference here.
However, like I say, we have to determine each application on its own merits,
and this is almost a means to an end if we get that CPZ consultation, the contribution,
and we can go out to consultation.
Hopefully with the estate developments coming forward, if residents are already feeling the impacts of that,
they're more likely to vote in favour of it, which will then mean if it is implemented in the future,
any other developments in the area can be delivered as genuinely car-free, where appropriate.
So hopefully that's all the points, but if I've missed any, let me know.
But just, if I might share, I mean, thank you very much for that.
I mean, I do understand, and I understand also it's an improvement on the outline 2015 permission,
and obviously the policy landscape was quite different, and we didn't have our transport strategy.
But that does strike to me as a chicken-and-egg situation here.
That there's no point having a CPZ consultation if you allow, if we allow all these parking spaces,
because there won't be any, they'll be very apart from inside, in front of the green area,
there won't be any, and very little on the other side apart from in front of the flats,
there won't be any on-street parking places, because they'll all be taken over with crossovers.
So we're asking the applicant to fund a CPZ consultation for a road,
which there will be hardly any parking spaces left anyway, because they'll all be taken with crossovers,
with not sufficient distance between the crossovers to park any vehicles.
And out of sync with the southern part of Mayan Road and the Kid Place Estate,
which don't have any parking ports, and they're all on-street parking.
So just to clarify on the consultation, it wouldn't just be for Marion Grove and Marion Road,
it would be for the wider area.
So in effect, it wouldn't only be benefiting this development, it's the wider area.
It would be Woodland Terrace, Prospect Vale and Marion, the lowest, the northern end of Marion Road as well.
Yeah, I mean, you know the roads better than me, but within the surrounding area, there would be, you know, consultation.
So it wouldn't just be for this area.
At the moment, the site falls in between two CPZs, and it's a bit of a grey area for parking.
And so the intention would be that that area either would see an extension of an existing CPZ or creation of a new one,
which again is why I'm saying that it's a means to an end, in that if we get the contribution and it's voted for favourably,
then it means that we are able to insist on more kind of restrictive parking controls where they're appropriate.
Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to comment on the community facilities point that you raised.
So the overarching section 106 for the four estates did secure a contribution towards community facilities of 330,000, just over 330,000 pounds.
I don't know where that's, whether that's been paid or where that's been spent, but there was money secured towards community facilities.
Any further questions?
No.
I have no public speakers, so we are now going to go straight on to the applicant's team.
Mark Slade? Mark, you want to come forward?
If you want to do the introduction, and then if members have questions, obviously you can bring up other members of the team.
Yeah.
Thanks, Mark.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.
I'm Mark Slade, the planning agent from Sphere 25 representing Lovell for this application.
As you're aware, the Merriam Road site forms the final part of the Council's One Willage Regeneration project, also consisting of former estates Connaught, Morris Walk North and Morris Walk South.
The Merriam Road site was built in the 1970s and were no longer fit for purpose, having been in use past their recommended 30-year building lifespan.
The site has been identified for redevelopment since 2007 with residents supporting the wholesale demolition and rebuild of the One Willage Estate.
Outline planning permission was granted in April 2015.
The first homes have been delivered at Connaught alongside construction work taking place at the Morris Walk sites, the latter having won awards for its high-quality design by PRP architects, of whom have been retained for the Merriam Road application.
The outline parameter plans for Merriam Road did not consider the notable topographical gradient across the site, with a ground-level difference of three storeys east to west and five storeys north to south.
This has led to a series of opportunities across the site to improve significantly upon the approved outline plans.
With the passage of time, Lovell felt that the permission of Merriam Road could be improved in a number of ways, whilst also ensuring buildability.
Firstly, it is acknowledged that the outline proposals were very car-dominated.
Parking spaces were predominantly located on newly proposed streets within the site boundary, thereby encouraging car dominance and reducing public realm.
A total of 138 spaces were approved under the outline permission, resulting in a ratio of 0.87.
This has been significantly reduced under the revised proposals to just 59 spaces, resulting in a ratio of 0.36.
Nonetheless, as part of the revised Section 106 agreement, Lovell will provide financial contribution towards the consultation and possible implementation of a controlled parking zone,
with future residents of Merriam Road being exempt from applying for parking permits.
Secondly, the outline permission's approach to open an amenity space was to concentrate on private amenity, thereby resulting in just 576 square metres of communal amenity space.
The revised proposals have encouraged a significant increase of this, up to 5,246 square metres,
whilst also remaining fully compliant with the delivery of private amenity space in the form of gardens and balconies.
This also incorporates an increase of play space for all ages up to 1,556 square metres, an uplift of 549%.
Several of the play areas, including the urban square facing Marion Grove and Woodhill Primary School,
will be accessible to the wider community and has allowed for the retention and planting of trees.
In order to manage the topographical gradients across the site, a green corridor has been designed into the proposals.
For a suburban environment, this addition has resulted in a biodiversity net gain of 76.6%, far exceeding the legislative requirements.
Thirdly, the application delivers 48% of affordable homes.
Of these, 29 are designated family-sized three-bedroom dwellings, representing 37% of the total affordable provision.
In addition, the council intends to purchase dwellings across the site for use as additional affordable housing.
This arrangement designates the eastern side of the site for affordable housing, benefiting from the large play area and urban square,
as well as views along and across the green corridor.
Taking these additional affordable homes into account, a total of 80% affordable housing would be provided upon completion of the development,
including 43 family houses.
All the affordable housing proposed will be social rented.
For the avoidance of all possible doubt, the amendments do not change the number of homes,
the density remains the same and the resulting parameters of affordable housing would increase with the council's additional purchase.
The housing mix and percentage of family homes is also fully compliant.
Despite viability challenges, we have been able to achieve these improvements.
The site has a notable topographical gradient, one which the team has approached as an opportunity to the proposals rather than a constraint.
Increasing floor space to meet or exceed the nationally described space standards has naturally led to increased cost.
Loveworth also committed to further contributions through SIL and the Section 106 agreement.
In summary, the proposals represent a substantial improvement to the outline permission.
There is a significant increase in the amount of communal open space as well as a large increase in play space.
The reduction of internal vehicular routes throughout the site has encouraged a pedestrian focused proposal with a high biodiversity net gain.
There is a reduction in car parking, increase in cycle spaces, reduction in amount of carbon emissions, retention of more trees and increase of financial contributions to the council.
Furthermore, the proposals being considered tonight allow for a significant growth in affordable housing across the site.
If approved tonight, Lovell are able to begin work on delivering the 165 homes immediately as the final part of the One Village regeneration project.
I hope that you can support the officer's recommendation to approve the application.
Thank you.
Thanks, Mark.
Any questions?
No questions, Mark.
There you go.
Thank you very much.
Members, I'm opening for deliberation.
Remember, we are voting on two points.
Application one and reserved matters application two.
David.
Well, thank you, Chair.
And could I thank the applicants as well?
Well, there's been a very difficult road.
There have been a few twists and turns.
And I know this or what was this estate very well and walked around it many, many times.
And it was really, really challenging and some of the worst.
1970, I think it was something like that.
One of the worst sort of of its time estates that really suffered, particularly in the last few years.
So, I mean, it's very, I think this redevelopment is very, very welcome.
I think the quality of design, as in Morris Walk, is very good.
And obviously, I used to represent Woodage Commons.
You know, the Trinity Walk development on Connaught is also of high quality design.
So, I very much, I think this is a vast improvement on the 2015 outline planning permission.
I like the way it mirrors the late Victorian streetscape in Mayan Road and complements and augments that.
And I think in terms of placemaking and so forth, it's very good.
My, my one concern I've already expressed, but I'm not, I mean, I've got to take a wider view.
And while I have concerns about the, on the off street parking overall, it's a, it's a big, it's a big improvement and a very good scheme.
So, therefore, I'm very happy to support the application of the officer's recommendations.
Thanks, David. Any further comments? No.
Okay. All those in, I'm going to application one, which is reference 243183 MA.
All those in favour of the officer's recommendation, please raise your hands.
Application two is reference 243184, the reserve matters.
All those in favour of the officer's recommendation.
Thank you very much. Item five is approved.
Thanks, Mark.
We now move on to item six.
It's Devenport House and Cooper Building 66 to 68 King William Walk.
Greenwich SC 10 9JW.
Reference 243426F and 243427L.
Tim.
thank you chair this is item six which relates to a scheme on devonport house and cooper
cooper building which is off king william walk in greenwich and it's brought forwards by the
university of greenwich includes the demolition of existing hotel conference center and restoration
and upgrade of the grade two listed devonport house restoration of the churchill room original
staircases and other internal alterations upgrades relating to devonport house relocation of a monument
to the garden fronting devonport house link services from the basement of cooper building related to the
associated energy strategy and construction of a new build free story extension and additional art
wall building and landscaping incidental development so the site is located on the corner
of romney road and king william walk residential properties are located along king william walk
and adjacent to the site and also managed and owned by the university of greenwich are the
student accommodation blocks which fall outside the red line boundary to the south and the east of the
site is the national maritime museum the sites located in within greenwich town center within the
metropolitan open land within the greenwich park conservation area within maritime greenwich world
heritage site and within an area of archaeological high archaeological potential the other areas owned by
the university of greenwich are also highlighted in blue so looking slightly closer in the site itself
includes landscape gardens at the front i.e. this area here the existing devonport house building requires
modernization from its previous use as a hotel for educational purposes so this element here of devonport house
the demolition of the conference center which is this which is this building located centrally
and then cooper building is located here which is also associated with the development
so looking at that in 3d so the existing conference center here centrally was built in the early 2000s
and is proposed for demolition below both the conference center and the car park located along here
is the greenwich naval pensioners burial grounds which the applicant has worked hard to respond to
by minimizing basements placing pile and pile caps away from burial remains where possible
and providing some flexibility in their location subject to detailed archaeological works which will
secure by condition
these are some site photos of the site as it currently exists so looking top left you'll see the existing
conference center here looking through the existing car park as you would come into the site
and then the grade two listed devonport house building behind stepping down this is the existing car park
between the national maritime museum and devonport house so this is if you were to follow this road
down and look between the buildings then looking up this is the existing substation which is proposed to be
demolished adjacent to the national maritime museum this is the shared access between uh as you would sort of go
left towards devonport house here looking forwards uh towards this element is the servicing area for
the national maritime museum and then finally looking at the right hand image is the uh route is the view
from king william walk along a pedestrian route towards the conference center seen here behind the scaffolding
the devonport house here the grade two listed element and national maritime museum in the background
so these are some final photos just showing that existing relationship between the existing conference
center and the devonport house with ancillary bin stores poor public realm and inactive frontage that
the existing conference center provides around the site
so these are just some snapshot images of those surrounding buildings and heritage assets
so just to clarify adjacent to the site not within it is the grade one listed national maritime museum
devonport house is a grade two listed building and part of that forms part of the part of the
the development we brought forward today and then the bottom image is the cooper building which is also
grade two listed and associated with the development in regards to its energy strategy and associated plant proposed within it
so just to look at the heritage assets in slightly zoomed out style so uh the pink is the grade one listed
buildings within the surrounding area and the gray grade two highlighted by the blue with the world heritage
site boundary shown by this dotted line around the site so heritage is a key consideration for this application
site also sits within the greenwich park conservation area and it sits adjacent to the west greenwich
conservation area the site also sits within metropolitan open land as designated by the local core strategy
so as you can see here it forms all around the greenwich park around greenwich park
across the site here and then over the road in regards to the old royal naval college
so as outlined by section 10 of the report the proposed development does not comply with our
local core strategy regarding development mol but it does comply with the national planning planning
policy framework and london plan noting they are more up to date and which refer to previously developed
land noting the proposed extension would occur in an area of mol which is considered to be previously
developed land due to the existing conference center and car park which are proposed to be
demolished and removed and there is no loss of public open space alongside landscaping and public realm
improvements the proposal which i'll show you shortly is therefore considered to cause no harm to the
openness of the mol and that's been confirmed by our policy and the gla in regards to public consultation
there's been two comments received to date and two letters of support including from the greenwich society
these are summarized here and they're set out in detail within the main planning board report
so moving on to the proposal itself the image on the left is the existing situation and the proposed
scheme on the right so as you'll see the existing conference center shown here centrally proposed to be
demolished the existing substation down here and the proposed scheme would bring forward a free story
wrap-around extension which would wrap around devonport house it would include a glaze link which would
intermediately between the proposed extension and the existing grade two listed building and i'll show
you some more details on that shortly servicing would be in this area with the car parking reduced from 59
car parking spaces on site to two blue badge spaces in total with the proposed substation
refi store and opportunities for art within this building
so public realm and landscaping improvements including an urban greening factor of 0.48 are set
out within the development and they are proposed within soft landscaping improvements throughout the site
within the front garden the proposal would see the existing gates so these highlighted by the
uh orange circles here here here and here um would be open to allow students residents visitors to come off
the adjoining pavements and move through the site either moving north to south or east to west or vice versa
and these are considered to be key public benefits of the scheme
looking into the site the proposal includes two small civic squares
so at both ends of the proposed extension so this this the one on the left is this area here and this
is king william walk just to orientate you and this is this blown up in a bit more detail and this is
where the communal entrance to the building is proposed with a small ancillary cafe located in this corner
and uh ancillary sort of overspill space into the public realm the pink image the one in centrally is
the proposed eastern entrance which would be primarily for students with improved wayfinding to and from the
river thames and the university of greenwich's other buildings and then there are also green pockets
provided along the west and east of the site so this is an example of that within the area here between
the proposed extension and the national maritime museum
these are some some visualizations of those spaces i.e next to the national maritime museum
and then looking south from the route with the proposed extension on your left here
and the student accommodation building which adjoins the site boundary with improved public landscaping
throughout
the proposal as mentioned also includes a new substation which is located here and provides an opportunity for
public art to be displayed within the northern elevation fronting towards the square
the development also includes a cooper building which is greater listed the application includes a number
of minor alterations to facilitate and allow new plant to be installed to aid and feed the
proposed extension to devonport house none of this minor work is considered to cause harm to cooper building
internally within devonport house the remaining historic fabric is proposed to be retained with
significant amounts of heritage assets already having been removed when the building was previously in
use as a hotel some examples of this include the retention and where required repair of the churchill room
so looking at the left hand image the plaque room historic staircases and then repairs to existing brickwork
and timbers where required
looking at the ground floor plans of the proposed extension so again this is the proposed extension
here and this is the existing part of devonport house
the extension includes a large 150-seater lecture theater a number of teaching spaces
so and support student facilities provided within the existing part of devonport house
at first floor level a smaller lecture theater teaching spaces and works
spaces are also provided with bridge links between the new and existing shown here here and here
second and third floor level again a variety of teaching spaces workspaces and plants are provided
and then workspaces are again provided within the existing part of devonport house with plant provided on the new proposed extension
moving internally to look at the space between the existing and new this is a visualization of the internal communal western entrance
which will be a triple height space with large glazed entrance providing natural light into the space
so just to confirm this is looking from here towards the entrance there
and then turning 180 degrees and looking from a similar place but back towards the elevations of the existing devonport house
the proposed
with the closed glazed link roof and also the bridge links which are proposed at first floor level between the buildings
looking at the proposed elevation in context with the surrounding buildings the top image shows how the
proposed extension extension is just visible beyond the existing devonport house although notably these are
2d elevations which do not show the existing trees which lie in this view
the proposed eastern elevation is the view of the student entrance we've glazed uh glazed link and brick built
form the proposal has been designed to respond to devonport house proportions in terms of its windows where
possible alongside meeting some meeting the stone banding at ground floor level and then also at the east line
at roof level with a recessed brick course
so this is the southern elevation as proposed uh the free store extension shown here with and without
the national maritime museum for clep for context obviously you would not see this elevation as
as displayed you would see it more uh partially and it would be hidden behind the national maritime museum
and then coming around to the western entrance with and without devonport house so the part that
doesn't form part of the development again this is the um the western elevation but again would be
partially hidden as if you were looking from king william walk
materials are proposed throughout the proposed free store extension and substation building a pale brick
stone detailing and bronze metal for entrances windows and door details final details are proposed to be
secured by condition
looking at the scheme from a towncape townscape perspective notably the general wharf statue the scheme
would minimally if at all be visible from this strategic viewpoint in winter and then looking
closer the potential for two parts of the building i.e this tiny corner here and a tiny bit of the roof
there is potential for the scheme to be visible but it's not considered to cause harm would only occur
during the winter months noting this the most important views of the development are from the immediate
area surrounding the site for instance from this court the southern corner of greenwich park so this is the
cooper building just to um orientate you and then the building this pale brick here is the proposed
building behind the trees and this is the national maritime museum so it would it would form part of the
setting in where it is located and then moving to the southern footway the footway south of the national
maritime museum i should say as highlighted in the officer report there is considered to be called to
be less than substantial harm to the greenwich park conservation area national maritime museum cooper
building and devonport house itself primarily due to the extension to devonport house shielding the
existing elevations of devonport house and therefore affecting its settings and those of those adjoining
surrounding heritage assets however the public benefits are considered to outweigh this harm and i will
discuss this later in the presentation so again just for context this is the proposed extension in
this central area here behind the trees
the following sides just provide some greater insight into the proposal
this is viewed from romney road so as previous as i showed in elevation
the extension would be behind these trees here and we've improved pedestrian routes and wayfinding to
them from the thames highlighted
the proposal also aims to move the grade 2 listed monument south of the nurses home i.e this monument
here highlighted in the existing view um it's noted that this has already been moved twice and if this is
not its original present present present position it is proposed to be moved to the northern landscaping with
this view demonstrating the changes between the existing view that you currently see of the conference center
in car park to the proposed extension to devonport house shown
this is again highlighting the previous existing view shown as you walk towards greenwich park and the
proposed development which would come forwards it would be further set back from the student accommodation
it would improve include improve public realm and landscaping improvements throughout
and then looking at the eastern entrance and the adjacent communal square which we provided again
this is the student entrance to the proposed building
so as outlined the scheme does cause less than substantial harm at a low level to a number of
heritage assets externally devonport house and cooper building which grade two listed the national
maritime museum which grade one listed the greenwich park conservation area and archaeological remains
however this harm must be weighed against the public benefits offered offered by the scheme
these key public benefits include and in officers opinion outweigh the harm caused
they include the demolition of the existing conference center which historic england called as unsightly
the substation and poor public realm and in salaries ancillary space the removal of significant car
parking which adds nothing to the heritage setting of the site increased access and securing the long-term
future of the grade two listed devonport house providing modern facilities for the university of greenwich
within a well-designed building appropriate for its setting and context public realm improvements throughout
and the relocation of the monument south of the nurses home to the northern landscape where it can be more
celebrated improved access to and from the site and surrounds for visitors students and staff and biodiversity net gain and ecological enhancements
and overall the officer's recommendation is to grant planning permission and listed building
consent subject to conditions section 106 and mhc lg referral noting the site's location in mol land thank you
thanks tim questions for the officer
tim dead quiet oh so david i nearly put the mallet down thank you very much i've read the uh report with um
great interest um and i do i remember trying to navigate around this quite recently and and and found it
very car dominant so it's good to see this will be a largely car free um development i was just going to
ask about the comments from um historic england uh in terms of its the impact on the listed building status
um and and and whether you feel that uh i mean their their broad um
conclusion was that there was a slight detriment to the um to the current status of the devonport house
um by the the the new extension and whether you've but that is outweighed by the public benefits
and other benefits but whether whether you feel that sufficient regard has been taken to
the the overall context in terms of um in terms of the quality of design and obviously a lot of these
are reserved matters the materials and so forth to be used but in in in in if we approve this in
looking at those reserved matters in terms of materials and so forth um will there be full consultation with
historic england um and uh and through our conservation officer what did that reassurance really
so yeah it's um the application's been part of a long pre-app process and the applicants spoken to
all key stakeholders throughout the application glass historic england ourselves in detail and our
conservation officer and urban design manager have been involved and had long and um important
discussions as you'll understand noting the the site's location um the scheme obviously yeah we
we reserve the details in regards to the final details of materials to be secured by condition
because those are not yet confirmed but we are content with the principles that they set out and
obviously our urban design manager and our conservation officer have seen that as well as the details have
been put out by historic england and on any condition application we would consult with them again
noting the importance of the site in its heritage setting
amazing thank you very much for the report um could you just show the slide again that has the gates
on romney road being opened and just um just explain what you meant about the pedestrian routes
that would go through the site and just show that again
so yeah on the screen um there are four existing gates both on romney road so there's two gates at
the front which are locked um and have been for some time and then there are two gates along the
boundary with the national maritime museum which again have been locked and obviously don't allow access
between the two um the proposal aims to open those up and that's part of the heritage benefits of the
scheme but also of the wider public benefit allowing people to come off romney road and go through the
site and towards the national maritime museum as well as come back the other way and it will also just
open up that space at current the only gate that you will find normally open is this one and this one
but obviously there's no proper way finding through the site there's no the landscaping's minimum so there is
no clear route about where and how you're getting to places so the scheme offers and provides and
it's secured by the section 106 these gates to be open and obviously improved landscaping to allow people
to come through it but also wait and dwell within that landscaped area as well no i think that's really
good thank you any further questions no tim thank you very much i now wish to call on professor jane
harrington vice chancellor and chief executive university of greenwich um adele brooks and the
rest of the production team hi jane
good evening and thank you chair um as you just said i'm i'm jane harrington i'm speaking on behalf of
the university of greenwich as the vice chancellor so i'm really i am delighted actually to have the
opportunity to present the proposal for our devonport house project i do believe it's a project that
combines our commitment to preserving heritage with the vision of creating modern sustainable
teaching and learning facilities that will bring huge value to our students also i do believe
universities themselves should be spaces where people actually want to come and be in and stay in
and i've and i regard that as equally important for the community as it is for students and staff and
that's why i'm particularly proud of this project now as you've heard from your officer today to
deliver this vision we're proposing to restore and revitalize the grade two listed devonport house
interior and exterior and demolish the devonport house conference center to make way for the
construction of a modern extension that's connected very sensitively to the listed building by a glass atrium
and we plan to undergo considerable landscape enhancements around the immediate area of the building
as well as on the devonport house lawns the north of the campus and actually the opening of those
gates that's just been talked about is really important because i think it will take a lot of
people off romney road and i'm very keen because my students also are on there a lot of the time so
as the university of greenwich we take great pride in our historic campus and its position within
the greenwich world heritage site we do recognize that we play a really important role as key custodians of
that site and we see the devonport house itself as having the potential to be an integral part of
this story and that's why we're committed to restoring and revitalizing the building and the
grounds and we're committed to retaining and enhancing its historic features while also bringing back the
safe space to life by creating spaces that are practical sustainable and usable for everybody
so through really careful and sensitive design we've developed plans that blend that heritage
conservation with innovation and really i hope you agree carefully reflect and complement existing
buildings and material to create spaces that honor the past but also importantly support the needs of
modern education and our student base and we're very proud actually of our of our student base as many of
you will know our students come from very deprived areas over 56 percent are first in their family and
we're very proud that we have a gold award for our teachings we pride ourselves on teaching excellence
and what we can actually contribute to our regional community we also want to take our students along with us
on the process so there'll be numerous opportunities for learning throughout the construction and delivery
and we're committed to working with our industry partners to incorporate relevant students on
courses to get involved in the devon port house project so the project will include advanced
digital infrastructure flexible education spaces and design features that promote health and well-being
so it will help us to continue to be a leader in education and to meet the needs of our student
population but it is much more than just about the university we've always approached this with the wider
greenwich community front of mind so our ultimate goal is to create lasting benefits for the for that very
community and i'm very conscious that at the moment devonport house and grounds are not accessible you know
they're not attractive and they're not inviting as they could be and they could really transform that area for the
community visitors and tourists and that's why we've included sensitive but substantial enhancements to the immediate area around
devonport house as well as the front lawn including the creation of a community square improve routes
and connections through the world heritage site and we propose as proposed as already been said opening
up currently closed gates having much clearer signage and information to facilitate better access for foot traffic
improve green landscaping areas that are more inviting than the existing space will also promote
biodiversity and provide tranquil spaces that we hope everyone will enjoy
so the benefits of devonport house project go beyond the landscape and access and into the building
itself because we're proposing accessible areas on the ground floor and functional spaces for the
community to hire and use at very affordable rates and we also often actually allow certainly allow some
members of the community to use them for free and we would still continue to do that additionally there's
a cafe on the ground floor that's situated in the community square and that will be publicly accessible and
available also for events so the devonport house project will provide wider benefits outside of the site
boundary too the removal of the existing car park will reduce local traffic and the opening up of the
currently closed gates as we've already said will provide additional routes our approach to planting and divert and
biodiversity has been prepared in collaboration with the royal parks and it's to be complementary to
greenwich park's existing flora and fauna to create biodiversity corridors beyond the media area the devonport
house project will also provide economic benefits to the town centre and wider community through town centre
footfall and business patronage and the creation of new jobs afterwards but also during obviously
construction and operation and by facilitating greater social interaction between the community the university and
the world heritage site and so we really have tried to put the greenwich community at the heart of the project
and getting this project to what you see today wouldn't have been possible without really extensive
engagement and collaboration with key stakeholders in the community so throughout the design process we've
listened very carefully to feedback we've worked to reflect insights ideas and issues into our final proposals
and this approach has ensured that the devonport house project is not just a university initiative
but a shared vision for the future of a key site in greenwich and that's been reflected in the broad support support for the
planning application that we've secured from key stakeholders including the greenwich
maritime world heritage site steering group the national maritime museum royal parks
greenwich park the greenwich society in the southeast london chambers of commerce as well as broad support amongst the community
now should planning permission permission be granted we are committed to maintaining
open and transparent communication with all stakeholders throughout the construction process
and we'll make use of already established
contact channels that will enable a meaningful two-way communication and will enable us to use our established
relationships within the community to ensure that residents and local businesses remain informed and involved at every step of the way
so in summary i genuinely believe that the devonport house project represents an exciting and
transformational opportunity for both the local community and the university it's a project that
respects local heritage while embracing the future delivering modern facilities creating new opportunities and
enhancing the area for everyone we're really proud to bring forward these proposals and i look forward
to working closely with you to make the vision a reality so thank you for your time and consideration
thanks jane any questions lardai thank you chair um thank you very much for your presentation we're not
presenting um what forms of consultations have you done and what mode did you use and what were the feedback
hello adele brooks um yes we've worked quite closely from the very early stage of the project so when the
inception of the project was a vision we started to talk to our students amongst them were the business
school our wider school students that were taught on the greenwich campus so the faculty of health
education and human sciences and we also looked at some of the potential research projects that we
could draw in and use some of these spaces the feedback was really engaging they are fantastic and actually
saw things in the building that we could move shift and adjust and improve so we took that on board we found
that some of their earlier sessions were really informative with um visionary ideas and also about the smart
building that they're looking for in the future so we drew some of that um early in advice and
information from our students into the project and looked at how we could use technology to enhance
their student life within the building so yes
thank you
what formats of what how did you get the feedback from them what was something like very one-to-one
consultation group meetings we did a lot of group meetings some on teams and some in person
we did some faculty-led targeted meetings so with our greenwich business school and looked at specific
business school students and we looked at our research office team and what they could bring to
the building and our research students and the innovation and enterprise space that sat in cooper we used
their open space for a forum just to just to add to that we've also had um the ability for any student or
member of staff to actually put in comments throughout the time as well so they so as well as running
those those sessions we opened up a channel so anybody could put in comments
thank you thank you very much uh and thank you for all the work that you've put into this um
very considered application um my question is is slightly different really i i um i remember a few years
back uh visiting the new what was then fairly new stockwell street and your architecture department and
seeing the great uh work that they've done on the green roof there um and and you've got a you know
well-respected landscape architecture discipline and so forth and and wondered to what whether
i couldn't see any reference to green roofs or living walls in this extension um this might be a
question for your architects and wondered is that something that's missing given your expertise in
this area and to what extent you've used your own uh great research center and um experts uh within your
within within the development of these plans yeah i'll let my experts reply in detail but one thing i
would say is we were restricted by what we could do in terms of height particularly
so i'll i can reflect on the stockwell street um landscape there are 14 different landscape
roofs and they've actually proven to be very extensive and they're still continuing research
on those we have collaborated collaborated with the same group but because of the sight lines that
didn't offer the same um access and ability for them to safely use these roofs as we did at stockwell
street so we haven't considered it in that context to replicate stockwell street over um we have got a very
large area on the ground floor that we've turned in from car parking into pocket gardens and that is
much more an educational shared use because as we know the national maritime bring out school students
and do a lot of school activities and those pocket gardens at ground floor level make a much more
accessible um space for landscaping
okay any further questions jane adele thank you very much thank you now going to open this up for
deliberation we have two points recommendation a and recommendation b which is the listed building
consent any comments from anybody david well thank you chair i've read this report and heard the
officer's report i i'm i'm i'm very pleased that this seems to have um received uh virtually unanimous
uh support from the local community in greenwich and uh from the the various uh statutory and voluntary
stakeholder bodies as well um so i i i i think it's obviously been through quite a significant
process in a a a very sensitive uh a very sensitive area i don't pay much regard to the in this instance
i generally pay huge regard to the mol status but i don't pay much regard because essentially it's brownfield
at the moment and there is a biodiversity net gain and and it does meet the ugf um uh minima so i think um
um i i i i think it's been handled extremely well uh clearly um it's important for the university
and it's um and its growth it adds as uh my colleague councillor richard scott was saying to the sort of the
overall permeability to the attractiveness of um active travel and so forth and it's a car-free uh
development which is um which is excellent so uh while i'm you know i'm not a fan of demolition and
and losing especially a building built so recently i can see that by doing that it produces significant
benefits and probably on uh makes a much better use of the area and overall enhances um the concept
greenwich park conservation area around the world heritage site um so i'm therefore very uh very happy
to um support the officer recommendation thanks david any any further comments okay i see none um okay
i'm going now to the officer's recommendation a which is reference two four three four two six f
all those in favor of the officer's recommendation please raise your hands
recommendation b which is two four three four two seven l the listed building consent all those in
favor of the officer's recommendation
recommendation item six is approved thank you
thank you for your attendance today members thank you
