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 speaker 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 retain the right to reduce time given to speakers. Councillors will have up to five minutes each. Accepted representatives of residents and amenity groups up to four. Individuals two. The applicants and their teams ten. On item four, I have Councillor Majella Anning, Councillor Callum O'Byrne Mulligan, Scots Fitzgerald, Yohannathan Saba, Charlotte Kiddy. And on behalf of the applicant, I have Phoebe Juggins, Nick Lawrence, Tim Tolcher, Richard Coleman, Xenad Giorgio, Ian Thodee and Corey Russell. On item five, I have Tom Lawson, Mike Stoll and Oleg Sevilikoff. On item six, I have Paul Pritchard, Barclay Holmes. On item seven, I have Robert Hooke and Colin Goad. And again, Paul Pritchard on behalf of Barclay Holmes. In respect of item six, Kidbrook Village, phase five, building A and B, and South Cater Park and item seven, the Rope Yard, Royal London Riverside, members are reminded that the planning board has previously resolved to grant permission for both applications. These applications are being returned to the planning board to consider just one single issue, which affects both applications, namely, proposed change to the wording of one of the conditions in order to allow the possibility of the use of a brick-facing system. Members in each need to be satisfied that they have sufficient information to decide the applications tonight, accepting that the deliberations at tonight's meeting are limited to considering the alternative resolution to grant, with the amended wording, to one condition. This is important because some members of the board tonight have previously had the benefit of hearing the officers' full presentation on the schemes in their entirety, listening to and questioning the public speakers and deliberating in full on the application, whereas other members at tonight's board meeting did not have these benefits. If any individual member tonight does not feel that they have sufficient information to decide the application tonight, then they should recuse themselves from these items. Do members feel they have sufficient information to decide the application tonight, accepting that the deliberations at tonight's meeting are limited to considering the alternative resolution to grant and amend wording on one condition? Thank you. Does any member feel that they do not have sufficient information to decide the application tonight and wish to recuse themselves on items 6 and 7? No? Okay. Thank you. We now move on to item 1. Apologies for absence. Apologies for absence have been received from Councillor Maisie Richards-Cottell. I'm not sure if there's any apologies received from any other member for Councillor Bert McDonald. No. Item 2, urgent business. Planning officers' addendums have been circulated in advance of the meeting in regards to item 4 and 6. Public submissions have been received in regards to 4, 5, 6 and 7. Item 7 received three public submissions, all circulated in advance of the meeting directly to members. And the applicant's submission in regards to 6 and 7 has also been supplied to members by email directly. Item 3, declarations of interest. Callum. Item 4, Chair, where I'll recuse to give comment on the application. Item 4, Greenwich Quay, Clarence Road, London, SE8 3EY, reference 233847F. Joe. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, everyone. This is the Greenwich Quay application where the planning board is requested to grant full planning commission for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a building comprising of student accommodation, commercial floor space, together with landscaping, public realm improvements, access works, cycle parking, refuse and recycling, stores and associated works. So, this is the site location plan. The application site is an approximately 0.29 hectare irregular shaped plot on the western bank of Deptford Creek to the north of Creek Road on the junction with Clarence Road, close to the borough boundary with Lewisham, which is to the southwest, if you can see my mouse here. So, the boundary is this, where there's Trinity Le Ban, the boundary runs along here and then up out of sight. So, this area here is to the west of Deptford Creek is in Greenwich and then further to the southwest is the London borough of Lewisham, although the application site is wholly within the borough of Greenwich. The site is located to the west of Greenwich Town Centre, but does not fall within its defined boundaries. The site has a good level of public transport accessibility with a PTA of four from a manual assessment. The Cutty Sark DLR station and Greenwich Rail station are both within walking distance of the site and Creek Road is served by local buses. The site is also located within the Deptford Creek, Greenwich Riverside Opportunity Area, which is a strategic development location with an indicative capacity of 5,500 new homes and 3,000 new jobs. The Deptford Creek area is currently undergoing significant change with redevelopment of former industrial sites and buildings with modern residential apartment blocks. The site is not within the vicinity of any listed buildings and is not within a conservation area, however, there are numerous listed buildings comprising all grades, as well as six conservation areas in the surrounding area. The Greenwich Maritime World Heritage Site is also 420 metres to the northwest of the site, however, the site does not fall within the World Heritage Site buffer zone. Deptford Creek and the River Thames adjacent are also designated as sites of nature conservation importance. The site is also within Flood Zone 3 and the Thames Policy Area. So this is just an indicative of context of the surrounding higher education institutions, given the current proposal is for student housing. So the application site is indicated by this yellow star here, and you'll note that the University of Greenwich is 0.5 miles away or a 10-minute walk. Goldsmith College is located just over a mile away in New Cross, and that is a 28-minute walk or 25 minutes on the bus. Ravensbourne University is further to the north-east on the peninsula, and that's accessible by public transport of 15 to 20 minutes. As I said before, the proposed scheme is about 10 minutes from the Cutty Sark DLR and also from Greenwich Rail Station to access other higher education institutes in London. So the next few slides are some aerial shots. So you'll see the site here in the foreground comprising of these three buildings here outlined in red. This is Deathford Creek, the road that runs on the left-hand side here. And over Deathford Creek, you'll note there's several other tall buildings existing. You've got the Union Wharf building here known as Colliers Point, and that's 22 storeys. And then the building next to it is Walton Heights, which is 11 storeys. Just in the corner here out of frame is the Thornham Estate, which is an 18-storey building. And then over on the other side, this is the New Capital Quay development, the tallest element of that being the Admiral Tower, which this far extent is 14 storeys. So again, this is the view looking south. This is the view looking west. This vacant plot here is known as in the London Borough of Lewisham, and that's the boundary. And that is the site where the planning proposal is called Creekside Village East for a 30-storey tower. And these are the three buildings that occupy the site. They're all four storeys. And they currently comprise primarily of offices and were originally built as offices. And this amounts to about 2,500 square metres of floor space. However, only 55% of that is understood to be occupied, and at a lower rate than would be typical of this location. Some of the commercial floor space on the site has been converted into residential uses via prior approval under permitted development. And this amounts to nine self-contained flats distributed throughout the buildings. The proposal would result in a significant net loss of commercial employment space on the site. However, this would be mitigated by the employment generating potential of the proposed mixed-use development, which is comparable to the occupant job generating potential of the site as it currently stands. And on that basis, the loss of the employment space is considered to be acceptable. And this is an existing photo taken from Creek Road of that same one of the buildings. And just to touch upon the emerging context, so the current proposal is for a 13-storey block in the western half of the site, which is this one here that says G plus 12, ground plus 12. And then there's a taller block B, which is 17-storey or ground plus 16, linked by a single-storey podium. The dark grey show, the other grey buildings show the buildings within the emerging cluster, within the opportunity area. And as I've mentioned before, you've got Union Wharf at ground plus 22, and then a 12-storey building there as well. Where it says number two here is Ravensbourne Wharf, which was recently granted consent for a 27-storey tower. And then here are the Quickside Village East developments, which are going through the Lewisham planning system as it stands, although they are with a provisional grant of planning permission. And there's a 30-storey tower out there as well. Again, this is that same cluster visualised. I won't go through it again, but you get an idea of the emerging context within the opportunity area. The application site is not located within an area identified as appropriate for tall buildings in the local plan from 2014, but it is located on the periphery of this emerging cluster. And as is detailed in the planning board report, officers considered that its juxtaposition to this cluster and its subordination to the taller elements, which you can see there, is beneficial in that it mediates with a more low-rise character to the northwest, which is the bottom of this picture. So in terms of the public consultation, this is summarised in the planning board report and in the addendum. We've received 294 letters of support from members of the public and 251 letters of objection. So there are significantly more comments in support than an objection. I guess, again, these are summarised in the report. Just one last thing on that. So as is discussed in the addendum, there was previously an objection from the World Heritage Site, the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Sites, due to the height of the development and its impact on the setting of the World Heritage Site. However, as detailed in the addendum, that objection has been withdrawn following a reduction in the height of the tall element of the scheme by three storeys. There is still an objection raised by the Royal Parks, which is also addressed in the addendum. So now I'll go through the proposal in slightly more detail. So the proposed building comprises of two blocks. Block A in the western part of the site here is 13 storeys, and block B in the eastern site here is 17 storeys, and that is linked by a single-storey podium level, which you can see here. The ground floor of the development comprise of the main communal student amenity area with views onto the creek side, which is this area here, and also most of the bottom of block B. The entrance to this is indicated by the blue arrow here, which is in the centre of the two blocks. The main entrance to the commercial element is here by the red arrow, and there's 227 square metres of commercial Class E floor space. There is also a new pedestrian access down onto the creek side proposed from Deptford Bridge, which is in this yellow arrow here, and that links around to an area of public ground which is publicly accessible and would also allow pedestrian footfall through onto Clarence Road via the site entrance, which is here, which is the vehicle entrance to the site. This scheme is a car-free development, but there will be one disabled person's car parking space, which is here just to the left of that purple star. There's also the main delivery and servicing area as well. Green element here shows the primary location for the ancillary facilities, such as plant rooms and bin stores, and these are accessible from the delivery and servicing area. So this is the basement plan, which shows where the vast majority of the student communal cycle storages as well as the associated plant for the entire scheme, and this is accessible by multiple lift cores and also a dedicated cycle lift or two dedicated cycle lifts, one here and one here within block A. So in terms of the purpose-built student accommodation component, the proposal will provide 590 student rooms or 598 bed spaces with a residential mix compising of 43% self-contained studio rooms with their own washing and cooking facilities within the self-contained rooms, and then 56% of those rooms would be what we call en suite cluster rooms, which don't have any internal cooking facilities and instead just have an en suite bathroom, and they would be split into cluster flats, which would have their own communal within that flat living kitchen dining room areas, which you can see in this plan and the end of block B. So block A is where the studios are, and block B is where the cluster en suite rooms are. There would also be 10% of rooms would be wheelchair accessible or adaptable in accordance with the London plan. The proposal would also provide at least 35% of rooms as affordable student accommodation. This amounts to 224 rooms, and they would be let in accordance with the mayor's requirements for purpose-built student accommodation in terms of the rental levels. This is a typical type floor plan. Again, on the right hand side here in the corners, you can see the communal kitchen living dining room areas. And this is the proposed roof plan. So the student accommodation would be supplemented by 738 square metres of communal internal amenity space, which is provided mostly on the ground floor level, but also some on the first floor level of block B. There would also be two communal roof terraces as well, the larger one on block A, and then another one on block B. There's a condition restricting the use and the hours of use of this roof terrace and prohibiting any amplified music. There's also a student housing management plan, which details how overall the student population would be managed by the on-site 24-hour management team. The proposal would also be supported by a high-quality hard and soft landscaping scheme. You can see that at ground level and at roof level, the scheme would achieve a 131% biodiversity net gain over the existing circumstances and an urban greening factor of 0.4 in accordance with the London plan. The roof would also accommodate PV panels and air source heat pumps. So these are the proposed elevations. The proposed building comprises of two blocks. As I said, one is that block A, 13 storeys, and block B, 17 storeys, linked by a single-storey podium. The upper storeys would be cantilevered and the flat roof of each block would be set back, as you'll see in the next few slides. This white building here on the top right-hand one is Union Wharf and again on the bottom one. So this is the view from Deptford Creek near to the New Capital Key or Greenwich Reach Spring Bridge. The 13 storey block creates some legible transition with the 12-storey shoulder of the contemporary buildings opposite Creekside, which are these buildings you can see here. And it would act as a mediator from the taller Union Wharf block down to the more low-rise character, which you'll see in the next few slides. So this is the view from Dreadnought Walk, which is directly to the north of the site and also the view from New Capital Key. The two blocks would be orientated away from each other and be separated by a significant gap of 11 metres to 26 metres, which is this gap you can see between the two blocks. This allows permeability from Creek Road to the Creekside and avoids an acute canyoning effect. On the upper floors, the student accommodation is expressed in the facades of the blocks and would include brick grids and infills and incorporating windows, metal spandrel panels, recessed brickwork, and other elements such as shadow gaps, which you can see down the vertical facade of block B, to break up the monotony of the quite rigid student housing floor plate. There'd also be a variation in the shades in the rhythm of the bricks to avoid the two blocks appearing as one building in more acute views. And this is the view from Norway Street, which is further to the east of the site, and it shows the relatively narrow face of block B, and this is also the profile which is shown to the World Heritage Site, and it's been a deliberate design decision to minimise the prominence and the scale of the site when viewed from the World Heritage Site. So the proposal would clearly read as part of an emerging cluster of tall buildings on East Creekside due to its proximity and subordination to the existing and consented tall buildings within the cluster and the more low-rise character, which you can see in the right-hand side of this image. So the last few slides. So during the current application, which was originally submitted at the end of 2023, the scheme has undergone numerous amendments which are detailed in the proposal and detail section of the main planning board report, but has included significant reductions in both the height and footprint of both blocks. So on the left-hand side here, you can see the scheme as originally submitted, and on the right-hand side is the latest iteration that was amended in March 2025. As you can see, the dotted outline of the original submission, the height and scale has been reduced substantially. The smaller block A on the right has been reduced by two storeys and its footprint significantly reduced. And then the taller block B on the left-hand side has been reduced by three storeys and, again, significant reductions in the footprint. These amendments have come about to address the concerns raised by members of the public and also those by the World Heritage Sites. And we are grateful that the objection from the World Heritage Site has been removed following these amendments to the scheme. And then, just lastly, this is the scheme proposal would achieve a 34.2% reduction in on-site carbon emissions and would apply the energy hierarchy in accordance with the London plan. The commercial element would also achieve BREEAM excellent and incorporate a range of renewable technologies. And then, in summary, the proposed development, as set out in the planning board report and the addendum, the development would cause less than substantial harm to the Grade 1-listed National Maritime Museum, the Grade 2-listed Royal Naval College, Pepys Building, and the Grade 2-listed Church, Grade 2-star-listed Church of St. Nicholas, and a low level of harm to the wider setting of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. However, it is considered that this harm would be significantly outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme, which you can see up there, and also detailed in the addendum and planning board report. So, in summary, members are requested to grant full planning commission for the item. Thank you. Thanks, Joe. Questions for the officer? David, Pat, hello. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Joe. I have a few, so you might want to come back to me. So, my first question is in relation to the creek side permeability for active travel. As you know, it's in our local plan to safeguard that. We've had lots of difficulties on the other side of the creek side due to developers not fulfilling their conditions. So, first, how watertight is the condition that they must deliver on this and deliver it before the premises could be occupied in terms of the creek side pedestrian and cycle space along the creek side. And, secondly, going forward, is that land to be given to RBG to manage or will it be managed by the applicant and what assurances of it to be managed by the applicant that it will be 24-hour public access in perpetuity. So, that's my first question in relation to the creek side. It's good to see it's there in the application and that will make a difference in providing that join. Secondly, in paragraph 10.6 Policy H15 of the London Plan states that where it's industrial land at least 50% should be affordable and clearly as we've discussed before the other the other 65 the other student rooms are beyond the reach of the vast majority of domestic students anyway. So, how if this is industrial I've visited some of these units there and yet we're only 35% how have we not managed to implement policy at age 15 in this respect or is it that commercial is different from industrial and thirdly if I might I'm intrigued by the comment of the Royal Parks in relation to strategic views. now I couldn't bring my London plan today because I had enough papers to bring and you can't download it down here anyway my local plan rather so can you remind us of the strategic views from Greenwich Park and whether this is on any of the strategic views in Greenwich Park that are ring-fenced within our local plan and whether they have an impact on any of the strategic views. Yep, so I think I can address those so your first question was to do with the new creekside walk that's proposed from this new creekside walk here which is indicated by the yellow arrow so there is an existing and proposed creekside walk on the southern side of Deptford Bridge proposed on both the east and west side of Deptford Creek that has been secured in the section 106 agreements of those consented developments although I'm aware that even though there's not been built on there is still they haven't opened those up yet my understanding is that that's partially due to the relatively undeveloped nature of there's several plots that have been built out but only sort of sporadically there's a plot and then a vacant plot and then another plot so as far as I'm aware there's still the as long as the legal agreements for those schemes are written correctly the council has the ability to require those access to be opened up when it's feasible to do so we will impose similar requirements in the section 106 agreement for the current scheme to allow public access down along the creek side and that's been agreed to by the applicant in the heads of terms my understanding is they're not intending to I'm not sure what the word is but to transfer ownership of the land over to the council but they would still even if they don't do that they're still bound by the terms of the section 106 and that's not been what's been required of other sites to the south if that makes sense so it will be secured in the section 106 and that once the schemes are all built out will be implementable sorry on that Joe can we be sure that the condition is strong and I haven't looked at the condition but it's strong enough that they can't actually no students can move in until that footpath and cycleway is open so this is to be secured in the section 106 which obviously hasn't been drafted yet but we can include that requirement in there and I believe it's because I worked on the Ravensbourne scheme as well which had a similar clause and I'd have to check but yes that can be a requirement and I'll make a note of that can I sorry can I finish the other sorry councillor Gardner also asked about the affordable housing target for the scheme you were correct that were this for industrial land that's got the formal use of industrial the affordable housing target is 50% however the application site was always built as offices and that's still the lawful use of the site so offices are not considered industrial so the affordable housing target for the scheme is therefore 35% yeah that's that's what the policy says and having looked at the buildings they do appear to be lawfully in office uses if there's any sort of there may be some unlawful uses that may not be but that's not our understanding so yeah it's 35% and this is what the scheme currently achieves as a fast track scheme and then your last question was to do with strategic views particularly from Greenwich Park so the two key strategic views in Greenwich Park is the view from the General Wolf statue which is a panorama that looks over the Queen's House and the World Heritage Site towards well you can see this you can see all the built development behind it so in that view it's visible on the periphery of that view ever so slightly and is large and is at least partially obscured by trees and we address that in the planning board report and the harm to that view is well there's no harm identified to that view because it's not it's on the periphery of the view and there's other built development as I've pointed out in this scheme in my presentation the other view is the view from Blackheath Point which again if the scheme is obscured by existing vegetation some views during the winter of the scheme might be possible however it's visible within the context of that emerging cluster and it doesn't appear visually intrusive there are lots of other views that are considered in the heritage townscape and visual impact appraisal they're picked dependent on the scheme and we in collaboration with the conservation officer historically and we picked the views that have been considered and they're addressed in the report I think it was about the Royal Parks comments I think Councillor Gardner okay yeah sorry so in terms of the views that the so the Royal Parks in their comments they sent two comments in this is in the first letter they sent us they commented about three views and those views are copied so I copied the actual views into the addendum the main view that they're concerned about is HTVA view 18 from the end of Lover's Walk and that's I don't have it in my presentation but it's in the addendum and that's where the building when viewed from this end of the park it projects slightly above the roofline of the Greenwich Maritime Museum building which is grade 2 grade it's a great listed building I can find you which grade but and we identified that that's going to cause some harm to the to the setting of that individual building and a low level of harm to the Royal Heritage site as a whole and more so to the park but when you consider it within the cumulative context of other tall building developments the harm is clearly less than substantial and particularly as it relates to Greenwich Park it's only in one view out of multiple views because from all over Greenwich Park for the most part the scheme is not visible at all in the other views that are raised by the Royal Parks is the view 27W from the Henry Moore statue and I've included a winter view and a summer view in the addendum and thanks to the reduction in the height of the taller element of the scheme by three stories it's not visible in the summer when the trees are in leaf and then it's only partially visible in the winter as you can see in the photo while one might attribute some harm it would be extremely low particularly within the context of the park as a whole and then the last view that was raised by the parks Royal Parks was view 27A from One Tree Hill which is from an elevator position within Greenwich Park and that's included in the addendum as well and I put an arrow on there to show you where it is and yes you can see the scheme but it would be one of the lower rise buildings that you can see in the immediate vicinity of the area where the site is and again any harm would be very low level and just because you can see something from the park doesn't necessarily mean one should attribute significant harm and that the benefits of the additional housing would far away those concerns is the consideration we've set out in the planning board report and particularly in the addendum and thank you Joe for that very detailed presentation right can I go back you said that the building that is already there the four story building is predominantly commercial but the report states that there are nine self-contained residential flats now are you saying that it's I know it's some maybe unlawful conversion but I don't know do we as a council I've read somewhere that we have a duty to protect existing does that not come under social facilities so the London plan and also Greenwich's of course strategy has policies which do seek to protect the loss of existing housing however in circumstances where the site is being redeveloped to provide a significantly greater amount of residential accommodation student accommodation in this instance which is considered residential accommodation the loss of only nine units is considered to be acceptable in terms of policy terms and also in terms of the merits so it's nine units nine residential units that would be lost as part of the scheme however the London plan says that we've got 590 student rooms in this scheme and they amount to a residential dwelling at a 2.5 to 1 ratio so in other words the scheme would you'd be getting in excess of I think 203 let me do it I'm trying to find where I've written it down but I can just divide 590 by 2.5 236 so you're losing nine existing dwellings but you're also getting the equivalent of 236 new dwellings so that justifies the loss of these units in this instance three questions and I'll come back to some later like my colleague can I apparently Clarence Road is 3.7 metres wide now can I ask you how much traffic and I know you said that some of the loading and loading will that be expected to carry when the accommodation is built is that going to be classed as a main road for traffic so the site access so the site is accessible from Creek Road but in terms of the delivery and servicing bay within the scheme it's where this purple star is on the plan this is accessed via Clarence Road which is a dead end because the road ends here this is not vehicle accessible so if I have another image of it somewhere here we go this one might be better so or not here we go so the red line boundary here is the site Clarence Road is this road here and it is a dead end as it accesses the current site and it would be used for the delivery and servicing access to this site however the applicants submitted a transport assessment which considered what the likely trip generation would be for the scheme and it only amounts to when you compare it to the existing use of the site as offices and these nine residential units it's expected to result in a decrease in the number of trips in the AM and PM so even though we're building the scheme the applicant's transport assessment indicates that the likely amount of traffic along the street would be comparable if not slightly less than the existing circumstances I understand the transport consultant is here this evening and might be able to elaborate this access arrangement has also been reviewed by the council's highways officer who raised no objections to it we are going to review the waiting times on Clarence Road it's also been reviewed by Transport for London who've raised no concerns on this ground either so on that basis we're satisfied with the access arrangements I was just thinking if it was a cul-de-sac that might be awkward as well but my third question it's regarding light to individual properties that haven't come up yet it's I'm thinking of 193 Creek Road and 191 Creek Road and I think is it apparently Admiral Towers and is it Dreadnought Walk will also be affected by daylight and sunlight loss thank you so this plan wasn't included in my presentation but sorry it doesn't have a title but it's the blue building here is the proposed development and then it shows the nearest neighbouring property so 191 and 193 are right next to the site they are so 193 is the former Hoy Inn pub we have no records of planning consent for residential use within that building but I believe the upper floors appear when you look on Google Maps they appear to be in residential use and that would be the most affected property by the scheme however this property benefits from windows in its side elevation which face development are those that are most impacted but it also has windows secondary windows which look out onto the creek to the north so the secondary outlook mitigates much of the harm that would occur in terms of loss of outlook and loss of daylight to that property 191 is also right next to it but I think is impacted to a lesser degree and also benefits from a relatively unobstructed view to the north and then the other property you mentioned I think was Admiral's Tower which is this one on the top here which is I think Admiral's Tower is 86 metres to the north so again fairly far away overall when you look at the daylight sunlight assessment for all of the neighbouring properties that are relevant to be assessed there's actually a very high level of compliance with the building research establishment guidance I think when you look at it in terms of daylight sort of 88% of the windows assessed in the neighbouring properties achieved the breed targets and then an even similar amount for sort of sunlight direct sunlight and for a scheme of this size that's an extremely high level of compliance and even when you look at the actual impact on each individual property even though sometimes there's an impact that's greater than what is recommended by the guidance it's only a minor deviation overall the daylight and sunlight conditions that would be maintained on the neighbouring properties would actually be extremely would be perfectly reasonable and appropriate within an urban context does that address your question going back to creek road how close are those properties to the so 193 is 13 metres and 191 is 23 metres but like I said the impact is only to the windows in the side which was already constrained by the existing buildings on the site and overall I think the benefits of the scheme and its otherwise high level of compliance with the guidance shouldn't be a reason for refusal for this scheme yes thank you chair and thank you for your presentation I believe some of the questions I wanted to ask you answered them due to the question from councillor Greenwell however I will still ask it this is regarding bullet point number nine on the objectives and then I will read it out you said the impact of neighbor amenities due to loss of outlook loss of daylight sunlight and loss of privacy what are the mitigating circumstances to satisfy that objective thanks so I think in terms of the neighbor amenity overall as I said the scheme performs extremely well given its scale and that's largely due to its somewhat isolated position on the edge of the creek with no close neighbors to the north or the east but even to the south with the exception of 193 there's actually quite generous setbacks from the neighboring properties Union Wharf is the really tall building that exists that you saw earlier in my presentation that building is 27 meters away across creek road and you'll notice in this plan I've got up here that the relationship between Union Wharf and the other tall buildings is actually similar to what's currently been proposed on Greenwich Quay so the reason that there's no major concerns in terms of neighbour immunity is because the building is actually quite set back from the nearest neighbouring properties overall and that's what often makes the biggest difference in terms of things like loss of outlook loss of daylight sunlight and loss of privacy the separation distance is really what makes the difference and lastly I'd say we have reduced the height and the footprint of the neighbour immunities even further any further questions for the officer no Joan thank you very much and I wish to call on councillor Magella Anning good evening Magella thank you chair first a point of clarification chair you didn't mention anything about whether a site visit had been carried out has a site visit been carried out and if so how many councillors attended site visit hasn't been requested though we have had a presentation fine thank you let me tell you about Creekside ward where I'm a councillor it's the smallest geographical ward in the whole of the borough only 4.8 square kilometres it is also the most densely populated ward in the borough with a population of 11,000 people this ward already has large amounts of student housing provision Macmillan Students Village houses 900 students Cutty Sark Halls houses 230 students the recently approved Ravensbourne Wharf student block will house 414 students this current application if approved would house 590 students that would make a total student provision in my ward of 2134 that is 20% of the current population of the ward the tiniest in the borough all these student halls would be within a few hundred metres of each other does anyone here really believe that this complies with the London Plan Policy 3.9 on mixed and balanced communities communities and I quote mixed and balanced by tenure and household income should be promoted across London through incremental small scale as well as larger scale developments which foster social diversity redress social exclusion and strengthen communities sense of responsibility for and identify an identity with their neighbourhoods the current Greenwich Local Plan states that over concentration of any one type of provision can have a detrimental impact on an area and is not compatible with the aim of achieving socially mixed communities I'm in favour of the provision of student housing in my ward what I object to is the scale of what is being proposed and the lack of a mixed housing offer in particular social housing for local Greenwich residents according to financial analysts student only blocks are considered to be the new cash cow for developers and you can see why they do not have to provide permanent social housing for local residents and in addition in Greenwich they can pay a lower community infrastructure levy known as SIL than in many other parts of London for example currently the rate of around 95 pounds per square meter in Greenwich for student accommodation compares to the borough of Newham just across the river where they charge developers 189 pounds per square meter so for this development the council and therefore the community will receive a comparatively low rate of SIL and no council tax as all students are not required to pay council tax this council must provide for housing for all sections of our community and that has to include permanent social housing for rent student only tower blocks do not provide any relief to the 28,000 people on our Greenwich council waiting list these are blocks of temporary accommodation by their very definition and let us not go with the bogus argument about how this will free up HMOs for local Greenwich people we have no regulation that can tell HMOs who they have and who they don't turning a fifth of Greenwich ward into a student dorm does not adhere to the principles set out in either the London plan or the Greenwich local plan it short changes the council when it so desperately needs the funds to provide more social homes and it creates an imbalance in the local population because a fifth of that population won't be in any meaningful way an integrated part of the wider permanent community given the context of the ward I am quite frankly amazed that the proposal has reached this stage one would have expected that the council would have stressed in earlier discussions with the developers that social housing must be part of the mix so I'm finishing now chair with my ask it makes no sense for the council to give the green light to this while it may have to close down an adventure playground just down the road so my ask is this I urge that you reject the application on the basis of 3.9 of the London plan and 4.1 .48 of the Greenwich local plan and alternatively I would propose the decision be delayed pending the commissioning of a second fire statement taking into account new evidence that will be presented tonight by Scott Fitzgerald the director of the Millennium Key Residents Association who you will hear soon thank you thank you very much councillor questions for the councillor Olu David thank you councillor for your presentation which I you know listen carefully to but can I ask you are there any unoccupied student flats in that area unoccupied I don't know councillor I think it's up to you to find that out I don't know that okay because the reason why I'm asking that is that if all the flats are being occupied by students that means there's a demand for it that's number one and then can I just maybe if that is the case that is the school around this Royal Borough Greenwich are excellent that is why we have students there and that is why they are demanding for the flats so that's just a question but as you don't have the answer and I don't have the answer I leave it to the chair probably you have insight on that thanks thanks I think from previous applications we do know from the various universities that there is a demand but I think the point being raised is it being consolidated into a small area I think that's what the question was raised David thank you and thank you councillor running the you represent creek side ward and this proposed development clearly to the south side has some other high rise developments but to the along the creek to the north and west side are some low rise developments along riverside walk and the millennium key development just wondered if you could comment on what impact you think that this high rise development would have on your constituents there and and and secondly I want to play devil's advocate if I might and say is it not a good thing if the University of Greenwich is doing well and Trinity Le Ban and Ravensbourne and so forth are doing well and there is a demand for more student accommodation wouldn't you normally find clusters of student accommodation to be close to where the institutes of higher education are because that's easier obviously for people to get to their lectures and seminars and so forth thank you in terms of the density and height of the buildings I think they are completely inappropriate in the context they're ugly and they will in fact create more wind tunnels because there's such a close proximity of several very very high buildings and it's a very windy area anyway so I think that the local residents will find it a very unfortunate addition to what is a very beautiful and historic Deptford Creek secondly of course it's brilliant that we have such brilliant institutions in Greenwich and that students wish to be nearby but we also have excellent public transport and therefore we need to have as I stated a proper mix because as you would be well aware and all the councillors here would be very well aware in our ward like every other ward we have people who are in social housing and council housing where they have got five or six people in a family in sometimes a two bedroom flat and they have children three children sleeping in one room they have mothers who are sleeping with the female children and fathers who have to sleep in another bedroom with the male children so there is that aspect too and we must balance that and as a council we have to balance we can't just say you know the students would like to be there so therefore we tick it off no we have to balance all needs and I think that we've got the balance wrong in this instance I'm going to go back to the talk of HMOs I mean I'm not sure whether we have got I know that there is you know we say that there's a direct benefit from getting some of these students out of HMOs and releasing properties back again for families I don't know perhaps I should have asked the question of the officer whether we have whether it's relevant whether we have any proof of this have you seen you said you hadn't seen any proof of this in your ward I mean I haven't I wasn't referring to HMOs in my ward I was saying that there was no the council has no powers to direct HMOs to do this or that so there so there is no basis on which to make the statement that this will free up HMOs for other things we don't know that because HMOs are run by the people who own them any any further questions thank you very much I now wish to call on Councillor Callum O'Byrne Mulligan thank you very much chair and colleagues as you're going to hear from residents later on there remain a number of concerns about this application many of which I share both as a resident and the local councillor I'm going to focus my comments on the scale of the development the heritage implications therein strategic views and the need for proper housing mix and so as not to repeat and because I think residents will be far more powerful advocates than me I'll let them talk about their views on impact on amenity aspect and access so I welcome some of the revisions that lead to a reduction in harm but there still is harm and we should be conscious of the cumulative impact here arising from tall buildings along the creek on the buffer zone of the world heritage site the royal parks maintain their objection and as policy HC2 of the mayor's London plan requires developments in or near the buffer zone of heritage sites should conserve promote and enhance the outstanding universal value of these assets as the royal parks make clear they maintain their heritage objections to the application and I would just like to remind the committee that some of the language around acceptable harm things like quote less than substantial harm to the queen's house these are the same types of language used by planners in Liverpool before it lost its UNESCO heritage site due to a cumulative effect and so I plea with the committee as a member of it and a local councillor that we do not risk this most unique and special asset that we have as a borough moving on to tall buildings these are tall buildings in an area not designated as appropriate for tall buildings as the report itself acknowledges very clearly stating quote the proposed buildings are not in a designated tall building area making them non-compliant with policy and from a planning policy perspective quote the tall building aspect needs further review by relevant council teams this report urges the committee that the tall buildings are acceptable as they are immediately adjacent to an area designated as acceptable for tall buildings but I'd like to remind the committee that our role as members of this committee is not to set policy but to consider if applications are in line with policy as agreed through democratic practices with the local plan the London plan and national policy and I would just say we would make a mockery of drawing lines moving on to strategic views the application is within the field of strategic views as specified in the local plan I believe it's views 9 and 12 and it also impacts the protected townscape view from island gardens towards the world heritage site of the town centre Royal Naval College and the park all these views will materially suffer if permission is granted and so we go against the principles of existing policy on strategic views further our local plan and policy 3.9 of the mayor's London plan oblige us to encourage the creation of mixed communities as we've heard already so I won't go into this much more I am concerned that we have an over concentration of one form of development in the area undermining the policy ambitions of both our local plan and the London plan I would further agree that we do need accommodation for students not least to free up capacity in the local housing market but I do think there is a risk of an over concentration of one tenure of housing which creates ghost towns for large stretches of the year when those welcome students are not resident further it's important to note that these developments are not designated only for local higher education institutions but are open to students from anywhere in the city other than addressing the latent demand we have in the area it may serve to only induce demand and pressure on local services which will be exacerbated by the lower sill payments associated with this type of development I'd also just like to draw the committee's attention to Thames Water's particular concerns about local capacity for waste and foul water as well as clean water and would suggest we may that if you take this forward that would seek to strengthen some of the conditions around that and I welcome those on piling I think that probably covers most of my points and so just to conclude I urge the committee to reject this application as a scale and mass of the buildings not in a tall building area go against existing council policy I fear that this development risks the intangible strategic asset that we have in the world heritage site and jeopardizes protected views going against our local plan the development goes against our local plan and the London plan's ambition to create diverse and mixed communities by contributing to an over concentration of one form of development in the area so I urge the committee to further consider the comments that will come from residents later on this evening thank you thank you questions questions for the speaker no thank you very much thank you very much chair can I just add one thing which I think Councillor Greenwell highlighted an important point about the cul-de-sac on Clarence Road I think it would be something worth asking some of the residents about further as I know they'll have some important points on that I would just note there was a slight issue in one of the illustrations which showed Clarence Road is continuous onto Creek Road it's not it is a cul-de-sac and it would bisect cycle way I think that was highlighted okay thanks I now wish to call on Scott Fitzgerald hi Scott I've got you down as representing Millennium Key Residence Association therefore you will have four minutes sorry I did give out some slides oh they'll be circulated okay fantastic firstly thank you to the planning board for allowing me to speak my name is Scott Fitzgerald and I represent the communities at Millennium Key I've lived there since 2007 I've served on various boards as director and chair since 2009 I've previously submitted objections to Tribe student housing proposals for Greenwich Key and regrettably I must do so again today the public consultations held by Tribe have repeatedly failed to address reasonable concerns I'm going to focus predominantly on emergency vehicle access and access generally via Clarence Road Clarence Road is just 3.5 metres wide barely meets the minimum UK road width requirements it is the primary access point for emergency vehicles according to Tribe Zone documentation which you'll see on page 2 of the slides yet this is completely inadequate we have seen devastating fires locally at Meridian Point being one example where access where emergency vehicle access was crucial and despite full accessibility even that fire burned for 11 hours you'll also see on the slides that I've included two other examples of fires that burn for a long time in high rise apartment buildings even though all sides of the building could be accessed via fire engines turning on to slide 3 this proposal fails to meet London Brigade fire standards dead end roads over 20 metres long like Clarence Road must have turning circles available to fire engines of between 26 and 29 metres these are completely missing from the proposal as a result fire engines would have to reverse nearly 50 metres delaying critical response times it's important to highlight an important precedent where this very board has rejected an application because of inadequate fire engine access this was the ONG in Eltham the application number is 17-3843-8 F further parking on Clarence Road during weekends especially by Greenwich market storeholders reduces further access as you'll see in the slides as well add to that the 23 bins required for waste likely to be stored on the street whilst they await emptying will result in the footpath and road becoming nearly impassable particularly for people in wheelchairs or those people who have prams on slide 4 on top of this the fire safety documents submitted are inaccurate they incorrectly state that Clarence Road is not a dead end road over 20 metres the latest diagrams even increase the size of the space available from 15.2 metres to 18.6 metres with no real explanation and still they fall short of meeting fire access requirements delivery access is another major flaw the transport assessment is completely wrong it is beyond the scope of my understanding how 600 students will produce less deliveries than underutilised commercial space and nine residential developments my personal experience if I may indulge for just a moment when I go to the Sainsbury's on Creek Road which is also the entrance point for Macmillan students housing generally I see two or three delivery bicycles etc waiting to drop off their orders large vans particularly supermarket delivery vans will struggle to enter and with little or no turning space will have to reverse all the way down Clarence Road creating regular congestion this will happen daily with food deliveries especially in the evening the final point I want to make is on the evacuation plan the evacuation space is exactly where the fire engines are proposed to go to safely have 600 people in the evacuation area right next to the building is not a feasible plan when that's meant to be where the fire engines go finally finally it's important to consider what's really motivating this development offsetting the enormous cost of repairing the river wall a small repair to millennium key section of the river wall in 2018 cost nearly a million pounds tribes proposal is a financial solution to that problem not a desire to improve the surrounding area during summer months this building may also house up to 600 short-term A&B style lets as the owners will not allow such a valuable asset to sit empty over the summer months when there are no students this development is about short-term economic game not long-term community diversity as Councillor Magella has highlighted as well as Councillor Callum it prioritises financial return over inclusive sustainable living and would turn Greenwich Quay into a de facto student dormitory not a diverse residential neighbourhood for all of these reasons policy breaches inadequate emergency access traffic issues I strongly urge the board to reject this proposal thanks Scott Olu, David, Pat sorry chair the question is not directly to the gentleman but I just want us to have a clarification regarding the fire access and the dispute between the distance we the officers gave and then the assembly points close to where the fire engine should be I'm not sure whether this question is for the officers or for the applicants so please let go let's give Joe a crack first Joe okay thanks yep so I can address that image I actually have okay a slide on that because I thought it would come up so this plan is taken from the applicants fire strategy this submits a fire strategy to demonstrate at planning stage that the scheme would be in its general arrangement acceptable in terms of fire safety so this plan is taken from the fire strategy and it includes it shows the emergency services vehicle access so while the primary access is via via the Clarence Road which as I said is a dead end here there is also the opportunity for emergency services vehicles to access the site via Creek Road there is a there is a segregated cycle lane that does run along the northern side of Creek Road but confirmed with the applicant that that shouldn't be an issue and you'll note that there's various dry rises and other firefighting facilities distributed around the site so it's the conclusions of the applicant's fires consultant that the development would comply with the relevant building regulations at least at this point we've also received comments from London fire brigade raising no concerns based on the submitted details and we've also received comments from the health and safety executive they have a what's called planning gateway one who specialize in the fire safety for buildings over 18 meters such as these ones so I can't quote you the specifics of access lengths and distances we take a steer from these external bodies on the appropriateness of the plans that we submit application stage and they're happy with this arrangement and also the other plans that have been submitted so on that basis the fire safety as far as we're concerned is acceptable I don't what was the question in terms of particular distance yes thank you chair that does not answer my question I'm sorry first the distance as the gentleman said that we give certain distance but it's not accurate that is what the gentleman says if he's got proof let's let him show again the assembly point is it where the fire engine will be yes or no thanks chair sorry chair before you start I think I think the comment the comment the comments made were the turning circles for emergency services was not adequate or not up to standard again it's not my area of expertise in terms of what the appropriate standard is like I said we defer that to alternative authorities but my understanding is that there's a turning facility if you look here where it says turning facility there there's an opportunity to turn both within the existing servicing area where delivery and servicing vehicles would also be turning around as with the Greenwich refuse vehicle there's also this opportunity here although I'm aware there is car parking on some of Clarence Road up here so they're the opportunities for a vehicle or a fire engine to turn around in terms of what the appropriate distances is in again against it's not my very very expertise we do have a section 106 heads of term to review the weight that the waiting restrictions and the parking spaces on Clarence Road as may be necessary and there's money secured to fund a review of that the working assumption is that the access as it is would be acceptable sorry does that answer your question if it doesn't the applicant is here this evening and I'm sure they can perhaps elaborate David Thanks my question is similar light but it's to Mr Fitzgerald thank you very much for the research that you've done and your evidence this evening but you would have read the report and you would have seen the London Fire Brigade as the officer just said have have considered this application and had no comment to make has Millennium Key been in touch and liaised with the fire brigade about your concerns on this because that they would be that they they should be the authority on on matters of fire safety I reached out to them on multiple occasions but received no response unfortunately the other thing I might call out is that the fire trucks in that diagram are not to scale a fire truck is between eight and ten meters long if you look at the one that goes on Clarence Road that's 17.6 meters and that fire truck barely takes up a quarter of that space also don't remember seeing that particular diagram on the submission documents certainly not in the most recent fire one maybe something was submitted more recently but that turning facility none of those are within the fire brigade definitions thank you Mr Fitzgerald first of all I'm I'm going to ask I'm looking at this is it Glacier Street on the map is I mean those streets around there would you say that they are really busy Can we change the slide view? Is the African pronunciation correct? Glacier Street is correct There was an area actually that one is probably the best one so you'll see forgive me I'm pointing so on the proposed site immediately to the north west corner sorry where the mouse is sorry I think I just spotted that that is Glacier that is Glacier Street can it get busy when things on Creek Road get busy a hundred percent and certainly there have been times where I'll put my hand up here if I may tell a personal story councillor I used to own a car I don't anymore because when I would drive out onto Creek Road I'd sit in traffic for 20 minutes Can I just ask you this the more I'm thinking about it do you think that this application would benefit from a site visit? I think absolutely absolutely would because I appreciate the the diagrams that the the planning officers have put together but when you see how narrow and tight some of these spaces are you'll get a true appreciation for the difficulties that will be presented by some of the things that I've talked about this evening Any further questions for the speaker? Scott thank you very much Thank you I now wish to call on Yonathan Saba Hi Yonathan, you have two minutes Yeah I think I got two minutes If the chair will indulge me I would like to ask the officer if those three hundred people that were in favor for the application we know where they live are or because or even if any of them is present here I would love to know that because I've never seen one with so much people in favor for something everybody around me seems to hate That's it Better things to do with my time Yeah so like I said we received 294 letters of support They came via the council's online portal which is how the vast majority of the comments are received They all had unique email addresses and they all had unique They all came with an address and I looked to see where the addresses were and the majority were in Greenwich We have no alternative to treat them as any other comment I have no reason to believe that there is anything untoward I think John, I think the question was answered earlier on With two universities in close proximity students are allowed to respond to the consultation as well So there is a strong possibility that the students that are in need of accommodation in that area Have probably filled out the forms themselves Perfect, that's the view of the council I'm happy with that So you've got ten seconds left Then you're not indulging me then I must say I had something prepared that mentioned for instance the London plan policy And how obviously this development will over concentrate I mean I know the councilors have spoken about what's inside the council But you also have from the same developer something in Surrey Keys and Lewisham So that 2000 number becomes thousands more once you take all this into account So I had all this planned but actually hearing the comments of the councilors And what I'm hearing I wanted to give maybe the view from a resident there Please come see the site because you're going to notice a few things First noise, there is echo, a lot of it Any sound in there bounces all over So how are you going to monitor all the students there All this new thing that's going to be open Light, all the developments there are from the times where one aspect buildings were allowed to be built Meaning all of us are just looking one side and that's the side side So we will basically lose all of our light from both places And just come to see how that mass will basically take all over So if you do have to kind of approve the scheme So I respectfully request that you do enforceable conditions to limit the harm to the amenity of the existing resident So restrict the use for full-time students in higher education So this cannot become some sort of hotel or summer vacation camp A detailed and enforceable construction management plan Comprehensive noise management Please come to the site, clap your hands You will hear the noise bounce all over around Think of 700 students parting there How are you going to control that when they don't even pay council taxes or anything? That's none of their fault Design safeguards to protect privacy And the neighbors like all of us All of our windows or bedroom or living room Everything just sees one side and this will be 700 students there And obviously studies to mitigate the noise, light pollution and wind impact As have been requested And obviously I mean it's new to me But all these things about these little baby fire trucks I've shown on that chart That measure 50 centimeters I would love to know what the fire brigade thinks about all that So thank you very much Thanks Hold on Any questions for the speaker? Jonathan, thank you very much I now wish to call on Charlotte Kiddy Hi Charlotte, there's a little button in the middle there The red light will come on That one? Thanks So I'm not personally impacted by this However, I'm strongly opposed for a number of reasons Firstly, the proposed It contradicts several components of the 2023 Greenwich urban design guide Excessive building height and massing Inadequate community infrastructure Poor integration with local character And failure to respond to local community needs And second, apart from the lack of architectural merit And the distinct threat that Greenwich will lose its UNESCO status If these proposals continue to be approved What I find most galling is that a borough with 28,000 people on its social housing waiting list Is considering a proposal that includes zero provision for social housing Either now or in the future There's also no real provision for medical services Those proposed do not include the ability to issue prescriptions Forcing students to register with local GPs Which are already oversubscribed I've heard the argument that building dedicated student accommodation frees up other housing for private rental However, there are plenty of readily accessible examples where this theory has not been borne out in practice And price being a big factor in that At the advertised price points of other tribe towers Almost 500 pounds a week to live on the old Kent road Students could rent rooms in a shared flat That would be a cheaper total annual price And covering a full year rather than the partial year offered by tribe They could also rent by one bed flat in New Capital Key for similar prices Within this proposal not only does the social housing waiting list remain untouched We have overpriced buildings empty for part of the year While local families remain in temporary accommodation Which is an appalling prospect Who benefits from this proposal? Not those on the social housing register Not local residents Not London which risks losing one of only four UNESCO sites Not Greenwich council unable to generate council tax Nor even the students who are being overcharged The only party that benefits from this is the property developer And I urge the council to reconsider Thank you very much Charlotte Any questions? David Thank you very much I'll be doing my research on how much tribe charges But I'll be asking the applicant about that I just wanted to ask you about your reference to the 2023 urban design guide And which I don't have in front of me But maybe you could just help me Because I should know off by heart obviously To specify where you think this is in breach of that design guide So I have a document here I'm happy to share It goes through each of the individual sections Just where you think this application In terms of its design is in breach of the guide That's fine So excessive height and massing It exceeds recommended scale and height thresholds for its context Which is section F2 and F3 Undermining local character and leading to visual dominance Inconsistent with surrounding development plans That's one of six Inadequate community infrastructure It does not provide sufficient public services Green spaces, communal immunities, healthcare or transport infrastructure To support the increased population density That's section B1.1 and B2 And that additionally states could lead to overcrowding and strain on services Poor integration of local character The project fails to align with contextual development principles That's section B6 and A4 Showing little sensitivity to the area's architectural identity and historic form New developments should enhance, not dilute the existing urban fabric I did have wind tunnel in here But I think Magella covered off that But that's F10.1 roof design and G2.2 daylighting I also was worried about times where I skipped over the insufficient walkability And active travel support But since you asked It does not contribute meaningfully to a 15 minute neighbourhood Or promote walkability So that's section B4 Active travel connections and street level engagement are minimal Contradicting the guide's sustainability goals And failure to respond to local community needs There's no evidence of meaningful engagement with existing or future residents Which is section B.2 My printing's gone off the page here But good development must reflect community input Particularly in deprived or sensitive areas Yeah? Okay Any further questions? Charlotte, thank you very much Thank you I now wish to call on the applicant and their team Phoebe Juggins, Nick Lawrence, Tim Tocha, Richard Coleman, Zena Georgia, Ian Thodee, and Corey Russell Chair, can I suggest that the applicant try to answer some of the points raised by councillors? On this panel And then Probably instead of giving us all these preambles and you know Thank you So, did you hear that request from our member? I think so What I was proposing to do is to speak with my colleague on some of the points we've prepared Some of which may cover some of the points that have been already spoken about tonight I also have some notes that I've made whilst various members of the public and various members have been discussing So there may be some additional points of clarification that we'll pick up But we do have members of technical teams that I'd like to draw upon for that So what I might do is pick off some of the points that we as the applicant can answer And then defer to experts for some of those other points So we might not take the points sequentially but we'll try and cover everything off And if we forget you can remind us Okay, thanks Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight I'm Phoebe Juggins, Senior Planning Manager with my colleague who is Director of Your Tribe We're a specialist student accommodation developer established to help solve the undersupply of student housing in the capital At present, there are almost four students competing for every purpose-built student room in London In Greenwich, the demand is even higher Within one mile of the site, there are around 2,010 existing purpose-built student accommodation beds This represents accommodation for only 15% of students already living locally For context, the University of Greenwich is home to over 24,000 students And Ravensbourne University almost 3,000 students Both with ambitions to grow further by 2030 According to Universities UK, universities in London support nearly 126,000 jobs Making a substantial contribution of £27 billion to the city's economic output Addressing the challenges of institutions face Addressing the challenges of student housing in London is critical to protecting this economic prosperity If these academic institutions face setbacks due to housing shortages It can jeopardise their growth, the employment opportunities they create And the thriving sectors supported by major universities in and around the Royal Borough of Greenwich If students in the area are forced into private rented accommodation, this has knock-on issues Data from the rental platform's spare room shows that as of March 2025 5.4 people were competing for each room listed to rent in South East London PBSE developments do help alleviate pressure on the widening housing market Particularly for your non-student renters who are often young people and young professionals Who cannot access home ownership in London And are competing with students at your local universities for accommodation Business London reports that in London students are occupying over 30% of built-to-rent accommodation Further emphasising the level of demand for purpose-built accommodation and the opportunities it offers We expect that through delivering 590 PBSA units will free up the equivalent of 236 homes in Greenwich And importantly will mean that students are living in a well-managed, supportive environment We have engaged extensively with Ravensbourne University in Trinity-Larbon Who are supportive of the proposals and have expressed a need for further rooms to support their existing student numbers and proposed growth The provision of 35% on-site affordable student housing, which is exactly the same high quality and has the same access to amenity across the site Is especially welcomed by universities This is in recognition of the affordability challenges for students studying in London These universities will nominate eligible students to these properties at rents set by the Mayor of London each year The site itself is well suited to student accommodation It is bordering the town centre, close to nearby campuses, transport links and sits within an opportunity area We will be implementing contractual standards for the 24-7 on-site management team To ensure that students act as a good neighbour at all times If students wish to socialise in the evenings, they will be directed to internal lounges The rooftop external amenity spaces will be controlled by condition and managed by on-site staff Furthermore, any students lingering outside in the public realm in the evenings will be directed inside to the lounges The design of the building has been robustly developed with offices and a design review panel To ensure that the spaces are well designed and the overall building is coherent and of high quality Following engagement with stakeholders, residents and the World Heritage Site Executive The design was refined to reduce the scale of development We have removed three storeys from the tallest element, two storeys from the lower element As well as increasing the separation gap between the buildings and slimming key facades This has resulted in a reduction in PBSA beds from 700 to 590 Sustainability is a priority for us We are seeking to reduce carbon emissions against building regulations Through utilising air source heat pumps and solar panel technology And integrating smart technology into the student rooms and shared spaces Allowing monitoring of individual energy consumption to remotely manage energy use And encourage reduction at the user level We will be opening the Creekside Walk as true public realm And we will be replacing the river wall flood defence And integrating an intertidal terrace into this Helping us achieve a significant biodiversity net gain in excess of 100% We want this scheme to not only invest in the education of the next generation But to the local area Delivering £7.3 million annually to the local economy 43 full-time jobs plus over 500 construction jobs The Section 106 will provide contributions for the NHS Alongside sustainable transport infrastructure Public realm along the creek and local employment and training We will be paying circa £2.5 million in Sill I will now hand over to my colleague to say more about your tribe Thank you Thank you So just to give you a context I have spent 37 years running student accommodation I have delivered over 35,000 student beds for higher education universities across the country Recently I spent six years as Director of Accommodation at UCL And delivered their residential accommodation strategy So I joined your tribe because they were absolutely laser-focused On delivering to students and what students need and want At your tribe we build, hold and operate our properties Demonstrating a deep investment in our local stakeholder relationships Our long-standing partnerships with universities Highlight our shared commitments to supporting their growth and development By providing quality housing We help universities attract talented students to London Bolstering their economic contributions And ensuring students have access to convenient accessible living options Your tribe has been built on the belief that student housing should exceed expectations Raising the bar for both university and private sector accommodation With extensive experience we understand that students' living environment Significantly impacts not only on their academic achievements But also their personal growth and overall wellbeing That's why we focus on creating homes Where students feel valued, supported and truly connected with dynamic communities By prioritising wellness and mental health We provide homes and spaces where students can thrive academically While achieving a balanced and fulfilling lifestyle The Knight Frank UCAS Student Accommodation Survey from 2024 Sets out that by the end of the academic year 78% of students rated the operators' commitment to mental health and wellbeing As important for their accommodation choice And more students in PBSA Compared to university-operated accommodation and house shares Believe their accommodation impacts on their academic outcomes Accommodation ranked as most of the important factor influencing student wellbeing With students ranking the quality and usability of social and amenity space highly Our dedication to this is reflected in student-led accolades For the current academic year, two of our South East London sites Ranked first and second on student crowd, list of best accommodation We're also on track to receive gold accreditation from the investors in students Both honours directly voted for by students Underscore our wavering focus on putting their needs first So what I'll probably do now is try and run through some of the queries that have been Kind of discussed already this evening And then bring up kind of additional members of the team to help discuss that If that's okay What I was going to do is probably start with some of the comments on the FHIR strategy So there has been a regime change in recent years Which is the central government mandated gateway process That you may or may not have heard of At planning stage you undertake a gateway one assessment Which we have done and as Jo mentioned The HSE has seen that and are content with it Then when you are preparing to start on site You work with your design team to submit a gateway two application You then submit this to the building safety regulator And they then have to approve that before you can start on site So the FHIR strategy that you've seen is simply setting out the high level principles For fire safety at the site The gateway two process which will involve full coordination from the full design team And deals with all aspects of building safety And is controlled by a separate legislative regime in the building safety act That will govern the exact detail of the layout of the rises Exactly what the access strategy is What our fire engineers and the same fire engineers will be working on that as well So we have a consistency in the professional advice we've been getting What our fire engineers have done is worked with other members of the team To understand an input on how the building's been designed Ensure that it meets the key principles outlined in the approved document And in the British Standard that have all been published Kind of in recent years So what they've done is made sure that we are complying with all of those parameters I.e. the building is not fundamentally flawed in that sense But the actual detail of that will be assessed by the building's safety regulator at gateway two When the building has reached kind of REBA stage four, four plus So the strategy is absolutely correct The turning positions for the fire tender has been tracked by the highways consultant The fire engineer has not just assumed that that will work The fire engineer has sought evidence that that will work And they are satisfied that it complies with the relevant diagram In the approved document part B Sorry, approved document B part 2, I believe So that combined with the fact that we've not had comments raised by HSE or the London fire brigade During the planning consultation means that we're content that from a fire safety strategy We can progress this strategy, add detail to it at gateway two And we'll be able to manage a safe building And I should also note that we'll be only using the highest rated of facade material In terms of from a combustibility perspective Right, next I was just going to talk about the Thames water comments briefly When we do residential and student development It's very common that Thames water require further capacity assessments before the occupation of the development We are very used to dealing with Thames water at the post planning pre-development stage To ensure that any assessments are done and any further upgrades are required And we're always happy to just accept the conditions from Thames water And work through those issues once we have planning permission In terms of the summer occupation point We don't just offer 38 week tenancies We also offer 51 week tenancies So we find that we do have a large amount of students that remain in place over the summer We also offer up some of those rooms where students haven't wished to take the room over the summer To students who might just need two or three months of accommodation in London Perhaps before their other student accommodation becomes available Or to undertake work or further study during the summer period So we try and fill our rooms to ensure that we still maintain a community on the site during the summer So the other comments I've got listed Tall buildings not in a designated area Impact on strategic views Lack of mixed community Yeah, what I'll probably do is bring up my SWAP colleagues And bring up our townscape and heritage expert to discuss the tool building comments You might be back Good evening, thank you for this opportunity I might just start by reflecting on what Councillor Mulligan said about certain views and concern for the park And I'll also comment on the park's view as well Some of what Councillor Mulligan said is somewhat misleading Of He did mention the two views in the local plan Which are important and strategic in local terms Borough terms He mentioned view 9 and view 12 View 9 is from the wall statue Looking on the axis And in that view you'll see in our set of views That when you look towards our scheme You're looking through the belt of trees That are part of the observatory And the building will not be visible And view 12 Which is from the same position Is actually the view to All Saints Church In the opposite direction So neither of those views are affected If we turn to the parks concern They haven't really changed their view From their earlier view Even though the building was lowered by three stories And therefore the view from Henry Moore's statue Which was referred to by your officer The building is way below the tree line You might be able to discern it through the trees But it's also behind the tall building on the estate So it's sort of immediately behind that in that view So that's not really an issue The only other two views that the parks raise Are the view that we found Not a strategic view Which is the top of Love Lane Where it's really the only place That you can experience some level of interference With the skyline of the World Heritage Site But it's very much a sideline sort of view Diagonally across the lesser, I would argue Lesser wing of the National Maritime Museum It's not the actual central Maritime Museum building But the annex to it It's still listed And so we have admitted there is some measure of harm Although its visibility alone Does not necessarily portray harm It's a well designed building And what we believe it does do And this moves to the area of the high building Outside the high building's designated zone Which is based, by the way, on a document that's 11 years old And the context has changed considerably since then There you have our very insignificant building Compared to Union Wharf Union Wharf Union Wharf is a very harsh end to the cluster If that is to be the end of the cluster And knowing the concern Or knowing the condition That we are outside a high building's zone We put to your planning officers That if we step that building down It sort of softens the effect of Union Wharf And that is something which is reflected in the report The only other view which is referred to Is from One Tree The Highland anyway One Tree What's it called? One Tree Hill One Tree Hill gives you a view Of the whole of London And most of the important aspects of the World Heritage Site Are screened by trees So you do see the Hawksmoor Towers But they're way to the right And our building is way to the left Councillor Mulligan also mentioned harm to the Queen's House Which of course is the masterpiece Enigo Jones' masterpiece There is no conjunction with our building In relationship to Queen's House As can be seen by the views And if there's any views you want to refer to here I have the full set Which we can look at One further complaint he had was a view from Island Gardens So yes you can see the building from Island Gardens Between Admiral Tower and Union Wharf But it's way to the right of the view Nowhere near the axis obviously Nowhere near Cutty Sark It's way to the right of that And you see that in these views And actually it mediates very well between Admiral Tower and Union Tower By as it were infilling that space With buildings that just gently rise towards Union Wharf So we think we've moulded this set of buildings very carefully To each and every one of these circumstances And so the only significant view from the park And I'm extraordinary that the The Royal Parks say that the development would be highly visible from Greenwich Park Well it won't be highly visible It would be visible in one view And that's the view where we come slightly up above the height of the secondary wing of the National Thank you Thank you very much I've got a few questions I'd like to ask firstly in terms of the Riverside Walk Whether you're happy to ensure that's open And available public 24 hours a day before the block is occupied If we give approval Yes that's fine Thank you Secondly I'd just like to ask about the The affordability I mean you're proposing here 35% affordable Only 35% Which you might be able to afford As a hard-pressed student But if you're a hard-pressed student Um Then what are you proposing to charge for the other 65% Given that your The tribes Student accommodation Southwark properties Are going at £341 a week Which is equivalent to Over 42 weeks Equivalent to £14.362 a year Which is actually more Than the Maximum student loan for living costs of £13.348 What students on earth could afford these Especially as overseas students are Due to going down Who's going to be able to afford these This accommodation What Greenwich students will Will manage to move in here You know when they're They'll be paying more for their accommodation Than they will be able to get in a loan Um Well I think it's a A misnomer that all students are poor Um We Are obviously offering The 35% The affordable Which the university And it's the right thing to do But we have a lot of other students Because of the The amenities and the support And feedback from students And what they want As far as the mental health wellbeing The events we put on 24-7 Not security This is 24-7 Concierge We put on events We manage the accommodation appropriately We are seeing that we are having high demand For our accommodation And in conjunction with the universities We set the rents So I think it's a misnomer that all students are poor Um I know of students In certain areas In Bloomsbury That are paying over £800 a week And they're not necessarily international students That's also a misnomer Um A lot of our international students Tend to be at the lower level Um Our effective rate Across both properties Uh We are at Around about £260 Effective rate And if you look at The South East London private let Averages They are currently at 285 For an en suite And 382 For a studio So we are We are absolutely on the money And we provide Everything That in addition to What Other providers Uh provide So it is Absolutely Value for money For students Thank you One Final I won't I won't have it Not having a dialogue Um Final question Um Not necessarily your Um Company But other applicants That we've had For student accommodation Uh After several years Uh Remain Un Unstarted Not started So we've approved an awful lot of student accommodation Um But Not necessarily your company I'm not suggesting it's you at all Um But What guarantees do we have That if you have approval this evening Uh You will actually Uh Start As soon as you've got the section 106 agreement finalised Um You may recall that we were in front of you for Ravensbourne Wharf Um I can tell you that that application for Ravensbourne Wharf was submitted to the building Safety regulator in November We are engaging with the building safety regulator to respond to um any queries but I'm sure it won't surprise you if you read um the industry news that there are lots of delays with with gateway applications in the regulator at the moment so we are trying to get on site um as quickly as we can everything we have done everything by the book and it is all with the regulator this has involved us appointing an entire technical team and agreeing up front costs with a contractor we have a contractor fully engaged and ready to go on that site we've spent over a million pounds in fees since we got planning permission for Ravensbourne Wharf to get us to that point such that we can start on site as soon as we get regulatory approval we have no we we understand absolutely everything that's entailed by the We have no we we understand absolutely everything that's entailed by that process we have a dedicated team who do look after that process we are going into this I'd wise open and we know um all the technical requirements that will be needed um we also have development finance for Ravensbourne Wharf so again we know how to get funding for these things we are in these things we are in the absolute best position we could be um to be someone that will actually go forward and build this out as soon as we can Thank you chair um thank you for um listening to well uh yes right um you have I've got yes before I've got um a grandson at Manchester University and I'm sure we all know We all have and we all understand that there is a need for student accommodation but I have to say all the time you've been talking it's all been students students students and you haven't mentioned anything about the residents that are affected and 248 objections have been brought forward one of the questions I would like to ask you is actually what depth of consultation have you have you had with the residents who live locally um that's one of the questions another question is I don't know whether we discussed it there's talk about commercial but also I can't remember about car parking um and I'm thinking students coming to and from the end of term I think there's something in here about drop off but how how are you going to cope with that and which is actually the main the main entrance as well for the I can't remember now for the site is that sufficient to go that sounds good you might have to remind me of your first point but I'll take them in reverse order because that's easy to remember so in terms of move in and move out so due to the kind of mixed nature of students that we have some undergraduate some postgraduate there's unlikely to be a single kind of day or even a single weekend and what we find is our students arrive over a number of weekends and weekdays um from the kind of early September to mid-October because different institutions have different course start dates some students like to come early some students come the day before their course starts so we stagger it over that time and what we do is um offer up space on site in the kind of delivery area for up to two vehicles at any one time and vehicles must book a slot with our management team so once you've confirmed your place you'll be sent a link to the website you'll book your half an hour drop off slot and then staff will be on hand to help you um when you arrive with whoever's dropping you off to bring up your bags and then half an hour you're off site so that is how we kind of manage the student move in and drop off and that all comes from the the main entrance on Clarence Road but like I say a number of students will not need that because students who come via train from other parts of the country are more likely to just come by public transport that's going to be from Clarence Road as well and that actually is the main entrance for is it car free then I can't remember so the development is car free except for one disabled space so there won't be any cars parking on the site in association with either the student accommodation or the commercial use on Clarence Road we have agreed to a section 106 obligation which will monitor the levels of parking deliveries and waiting on that road which allows the council if there is an issue to have the evidence to put in further parking restrictions on that road which we would obviously support them with if that's what was needed um so Clarence Road the site access is the existing access into site we're not changing that access the principle of an access in that in that location has already been established with the use the current site has 32 car parking spaces on it we will have one disabled space right so and then on the you had a question about the commercial space yes yeah so um there's a we'll we'll have one kind of 200 and circa 250 square meter um commercial unit fronting onto Creek Road on the corner before the road elevates um towards the bridge um and that will be a kind of classy commercial unit um providing kind of flexible space across different uses within classy um but we're happy to discuss kind of any use class restrictions with offices um if required do you say the entrance to that would be so that's um got a pedestrian entrance um off kind of the corner of Clarence Road but it deliveries and everything to there as well so the deliveries to the whole site are where the purple star is on there so it's all from a vehicle perspective it's all Clarence Road yeah that's all right thank you chair I have several questions I am extremely concerned just like um Councillor Park said earlier that there hasn't been a lot mentioned around consultation with residents this um I'm sure you've heard what most of them have said the objections their fears their concerns their worries um in the I said earlier that there hasn't been a lot mentioned around consultation with residents. These, I'm sure you've heard what most of them have said, their objections, their fears, their concerns, their worries. I am assuming that there has been a consultation, and I don't know the type of interactions you've had with them to allay or to respond to the questions and the fears they have. That's the first question. Second one is around the statement the gentleman made earlier about the affordability, the 35% affordable units that you're going to have, and the 65% that would be non-affordable. And what he said that he, it's a misnomer that students are poor. So that means that I haven't even asked what the rent will be. I'd like to ask if you could just include that in your response as well. What's the rent for the affordable, and what's the rent for the non-affordable? And under that, I would like to know what the financial viability assessment that was done. From what you said that the rent was agreed with the university. So I'm assuming there was an assessment that was done to have determined the various rents, both affordable and non-affordable. Third question is around the impact of the local amenities, 590 units. It's the fact that you have those 590 persons, individuals impacting on the wastes, on the transport. I know you said it's car free, but where you have 65% who are paying, I don't want to use the word non-affordable, but where you are paying above the affordable rates. We know that some of them will have cars. I know developments in my word, for example, where they're called car free, but we know that those people have cars. And they're parking in neighbourhood streets, and taking up spaces for other residents there. How are you going to monitor this? Is the impact on waste transport link, the community centre, it's just those impacts. I would like to hear what you have done, the viability assessment, not just for finances, but also what have you done. Because these are the kind of conversations I would expect developers to have, to allay the fears of residents, to let them know that these are the things that we are going to put in place. It's about the interactions you've had with them. And lastly, the community infrastructure levy. I know that one of the councillors mentioned that question earlier. What's the liability for the development? It would be great to know. And lastly, but not the last one, section 106. What specific contribution are you making towards local amenities? I know section 106. Sometimes, you know, I see that sometimes it sounds like a tick box exercise from developers, or we've contributed that amount. But what specific contributions are you making towards the GPs? What specific contributions are you making towards the roads? It would be great for you to just break all of that down. Because these are the kind of answers that would allay the fears of residents. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Natalie. Okay. So, first of all, and apologies for getting your first question, councillor, on the consultation of residents. So, we held a pre-submission public exhibition in November 2023, which was in person. And we also held an online webinar event during the same week. Then the application was submitted. We then, again, in April 2024, when we looked to working with officers and other stakeholders, we looked to revise the plans. We took a draft of those revised plans back to members of the, you know, back to the community to an in-person public exhibition in the April. And then our website has always been open for comments. We've always been happy to kind of offer kind of further engagement via our website. So, we have engaged with the members of the public. We understand that this application brings about change. The site is very low rise. It's underutilized in such a kind of prominent location within an opportunity area. And it really is one of the last pieces of the jigsaw for this creekside opportunity area to come forward. So, we do understand that there is, you know, there is going to be a difference in the physical appearance of that site. And that is the nature of doing development in this part of London. But what we've done is through the kind of rigorous policy assessment through extensive pre-application with officers, which has continued post-submission, you know, the application went in taller, bigger, more students than it is here before you. And that's a result of your officers, you know, talking about the impacts and us working with them to mitigate those impacts and reduce the scale of the development to make sure that we don't create any kind of unacceptable impacts on any of the sensitive receptors we've been discussing. In terms of the kind of local amenity impacts, the full set of contributions for the Section 106 are set out in the planning committee report, which I do not have that page tabbed in front of me, but they are all outlined specifically, including a contribution to the NHS specifically, which we have discussed with the NHS who do body, who will kind of govern the kind of management. So they basically have a calculation of a contribution that they work out when planning applications come in. I don't know what their formula is. They come up, they give us a figure. However, we actually said to them, OK, but we actually offered them part of the commercial unit in the scheme. So we said, do you want to take any space here? They said, we'd rather have the contribution because they tend to operate on a kind of strategic contribution level and they don't necessarily have specific requirements for small parts of kind of developments, but obviously what they do know is where their existing capacity is, where they need to fill that capacity and they ask for a contribution as part of that. So they have asked us for a contribution. We have agreed to pay that contribution. Do you still have the offer of the commercial space open? Yeah, and we're happy to put in Section 106 that we can offer space to the NHS if that's something that people want to see. We don't have an issue with that at all. It's just at the moment that they weren't in a position to agree or not to having space within the scheme and instead wanted a contribution, which we're happy to agree. On the community infrastructure levy, we've calculated it at 2.5 million contribution. Obviously through indexation, depending on the date of the planning permission, that could change. And then I'll just let my colleague cover off the student rent. So currently the affordable rent is £193 per week, as defined by the London plan. So 35% of that. As far as the rest of our accommodation, as I said earlier, that if you take an effective blended rate, we're at £265 a week. And the Knight Frank survey is currently saying that the average rents in South East London are £285 per week. What people forget, and sorry, just as a point, is I didn't say that all students, I said the majority of students regarding rental, they're not all poor and needing it. We accept that there are a number of students and we aspire to supporting this affordability on the basis that education should be open to everybody and we support them. These are tenure-blind, so they get everything that other students get. So within that rent, they get all their utilities. So that's gas, electricity, water, 250 megabytes internet as standard. They get in-kitchen cleaning. Some of the students, if they elect to, and they do, is they get additional in-room cleaning. So what we're doing is laying up the services to make it sure that it is value for money. We're not offering it because we just think it should be offered. We offer it because we regularly speak to students and ask them what they want. We regularly speak to universities around rental levels and what the students want. We are in negotiation with a number of universities that, when it comes to nominations, are looking at ditching all their other nominations and going with your tribe because of the laser focus we have on supporting students through their education journey and that is key to us. Sorry, you said I would like you to please talk about the financial viability assessment. I know you said you're engaging with students and also with the uni. How do you arrive at that? Are there empirical data to supporting that or are they just conversations you've had with the universities in determining that rent? So just to be clear, the planning application did not submit a financial viability assessment because it is policy compliant with the London Plan fast-track approach at 35% on-site affordable students. So there has been no council involvement in the financial viability assessment. When we talk about the rents, we obviously go through regular exercises where we benchmark rents and locations against what other products are in the surrounding areas and what other products are charging for their developments and what other universities are charging for their surrounding developments. So we benchmark them based on a number of different data points, which is well as our own experience with managing two blocks of student accommodation and the kind of discussions that we have with heads of estates and asset managers at universities who do those roles. I think there's just one more point that you had on transport and cars. Yeah, so waste will be collected by a private contractor, so we don't take services away from the council on that, and that's secured in the Section 106, so we'll pay for that and cover the cost of that. In terms of transport impact, the scheme will be car-free, say, for the disabled badge, and in the Section 106 it sets out the legal requirement we have to put on students to prevent them bringing a car into the accommodation. So that is kind of a legally binding requirement, and obviously if any student tries to get a permit for one of the surrounding streets, that will be flagged to the council when they try and do that and they'll be prevented from achieving a permit. Part of the Section 106 requirement on monitoring the surrounding area for transport impact is to ensure that areas where there is no permitting in place, there aren't suddenly an influx of third-party vehicles that might impact residents. So that's something we've committed to monitoring, but I think in general students don't expect to bring cars to London. I don't know if you kind of have anything from your UCL experience on that, managing 10,000 students. Students just don't tend to bring cars. Those that do, there is a clause within the agreement that says that they will lose the right for accommodation if they plan to bring a car. They are very much on the green agenda of not allowing students unless there is a disability requirement for them to do so, in which case they provide us with the necessary, which will normally be done through the university. Pat? Pat, can I just ask you, bike, how many cycle spaces are there? Where will they enter? and also i'm thinking about knowing students knowing my particular grandson um takeouts you know sort of where you've got bikes coming with food are they all is that all going to be from clarence road yeah so i might just kind of take you to the basement plan if if i may so um the basement contains the policy compliant level of bicycle storage so that's 0.75 spaces per student and that's across a range of different types of cycle stands so double stacked cycle stands larger bays for students with disabilities or or needs for a larger bike and then at ground floor there is also an additional cycle store um just onto kind of clarence road so students can access um the cycle store directly through the cycle lift which is in the ground floor cycle store but ultimately there is a lift in each core which is large enough for a bicycle for some reason if you were coming back at night and you wanted to be you were coming from a different direction and you wanted to get into the building you would be able to use um and come through the immunity space with your bike um and then in terms of deliveries that's all kind of factored in as part of the delivery trip rates that we've assessed um ultimately that the purple star that is the kind of delivery zone is you know does cater also for um bikes as well as um kind of delivery vehicles obviously the times of day that these two different sets of deliveries come is different in terms of most deliveries of goods being within the daytime and delivery of kind of takeaways being in the evening but ultimately within the kind of management pack that students receive they'll be kind of informed about kind of ways to minimize the impact of deliveries i.e advising them to get deliveries to kind of nearby um pickup services etc to avoid the the kind of impact that it might have but ultimately as kind of is shown in the transport assessment we don't think that the kind of impact of deliveries is going to create an unacceptable um kind of relationship with the with the road um thank you very much i wanted to go back to another aspect of the uh discussion this evening in in in the balance that we have to come to uh in our decision and that is in relation to the heritage and the view aspects now your um consultant um said that um there was no um no no no harm at all from the queen's house and yet paragraph 211 of the report clearly states the top of page 20 as councillor byrne mulligan referred to um that uh there would be less or there would it would be affected but it would be less than substantial and further in 212 uh they set out that some views would be affected but it would be less than substantial and is outweighed by the public the apparent public benefits so i just wonder why your account of the views um and the impact on heritage buildings is different uh from that in the report um so the are you referring to the the main planning board report the yep so um after publishing that um i realized that there was an error in that assessment so i clarify that in point um in the addendum report uh in section 4.4.1 um i mistook the queen's house when i wrote the original um paragraph um paragraph in the main report as the actual as the the wing of the um maritime museum naval college so um it's not the officer's assessment that there is harm to the queen's house there's less than substantial harm to um the grade one listed um national maritime museum uh grade two listed royal naval college pepi's building which is a separate building and uh the listed church of of saint nicholas so um i'm sure they i'm sure the applicant would have clarified that point but that was my mistake there's no harm that we consider to the queen's house thank you so so in summary then i'll obviously accept that uh that there is less than substantial harm to three important listed properties and some impacts on strategic on some views um but you believe they're outweighed by the public benefits is that right the officers have have agreed that they are outweighed by those public benefits it's not for me as heritage consultant to declare that but yes we we are quite open and declare that there are there's less some low level of lesser substantial harm on saint nicholas church where i can show you the the image if there were no trees you would see the building very small up against the northern facade just beyond the corner which is really very low level um the um there is some uh i would say very low less than such a harm on the peeps wing of um uh of the ancillary buildings to the west of the main group and that is a view where we pop up above the peeps wing which is greatly listed um where already union war pops up to a much greater extent so you know that's sort of modified in its level of harm so um that pretty well constitutes all all i mean this is the most crucial one i i guess you should if you haven't seen this image you certainly should be seeing it um view sorry when we look at these illustrations you cannot gauge the impact of a tall building i recall going back for applications where we've looked at blackheath and we've looked at other areas and until the building's built you cannot make a true assessment so so looking at a picture which is taken from what two miles away and and looking at a small picture doesn't give you an idea of the the community the cognitive impact of tall buildings and you'll make and we're making these assessments without the presence of the previous application so your previous application i actually remember that application and members here raised concerns about the impact and it was like okay you know it it went through it got approved but we're now talking about a separate building which is going to be added on to another building that we can't even see yet so so there is concern and we don't get we don't get the support from from the english heritage that we were looking for last time so when we're talking about less than substantive you know that is an assumption but it's not the same assumption that's shared by the community um and and other other people that that value the park and value the history of of the greenwich area so i just don't think those pictures do justice to what is being pro uh proposed can i respond to that thank you and you're right to make that observation these are not the real thing these are a tool which you should go onto the site with and interpret that in the real life that's what that's what our methodology says that's what an inspector would do at a public inquiry would go to the site and we often at their request produce little cards which you can put exactly in place to represent and these are accurate visual representations which enable that to happen you cannot replicate the human eyes two eyes that is and the active brain in a two-dimensional photograph you're absolutely right um and you need to go to the site and use this as a tool to interpret it that is written in our methodology and we we strongly advise you if you you know but we advise the officers that they should do that and i think that problem solved have you finished with your questions yes chair i'm i i i tend to think that we need a site visit but i will come back to that when we come to our deliberation okay so um i also have a point on on waste management so so during during the presentation i think we were told there's 23 bins 23 so i'd like to know a bit more about waste separation and how you will be encouraging recycling within the development because obviously we've got a carbon neutral plan which is trying to encourage as much recycling as possible and i'm just wondering how you're going to manage 23 bins and 500 people and you know if you can tell me the logistics around that thanks yeah of course so each um student studio room or communal kitchen has both the general waste and recycling bins separately um so we're not claiming we're sorting it later and chucking it all in the general refuse so when those units get cleaned the cleaners will collect them separately and we'll take them into the segregated separate bins within the bin store so the benefit of having the managed approach is that we're not relying on kind of students taking down their rubbish and not quite knowing which color means what obviously we are relying on educating students about what is recyclable and what isn't but we can do that within the kitchen units and within their management packs and then the cleaners will have the kind of full training and experience on how to actually come down empty those bins into the bins that are prepared provided within the general store ready for collection okay um and the collection process so we would we were told that bins are going to be put out onto the highway for collection like normal residential collections no so because it's privately managed and it will be a private waste contractor we'll have management staff in place at those pre-arranged times because we're not leaving them out because we know that the bin lorry will come at some point in the morning we have a specific time that the bin the refuse collection will happen and at that point the management staff will bring the bins out to the collection point working with the waste contractor to maneuver the bins in and out of the bin store straight off the public highway um kind of very quickly we'll also be detailing that in a kind of delivery and servicing management plan planning condition so at that point we'd also be happy to discuss if there's any time restrictions or anything else that the council want to put into that we can kind of agree any further detail at the time just to make sure we're kind of avoiding any particular times if if residents have kind of particular issues around that my last comment was about tall buildings in an undesignated area and i know you've reduced the building by three stories but 17 stories is still a tall building and i'm just wondering very similar to my last question where do we draw the line on tall buildings when before they do become a major concern around the world heritage society well we do that so by analysis and by providing you with the evidence and relying on the judgment of your officers to respond back to us during the pre-app stages and we look at the level of impact we look at the the benefits that the the buildings provide as well in this case in mediating between the union tower and the admiral tower if you take the view 16 which is further along the river towards the sort of northeast and look back at the front at an angle across the front of the world heritage site you see that our buildings complete a sort of curve which goes down from union morph and up to admiral key admiral tower on the on the river edge and i i could show you that view as well i don't know if you have it available but um it's looking at the scheme from all directions say is there a case for tall buildings of this particular height in this particular arrangement which is a stepped arrangement that enables um one to accept it because it does in fact really soften the current impact very harsh impact of union morph which is like a cliff edge and so we're dropping down at what is a sort of resolved edge uh to the cluster no 16 16 yeah well you can you can kind of see it there if you could point out the development there it is between union tower which is popping up much higher and the admiral tower on the river edge and and in the view from 16 which is from the other other other side of the world heritage site it makes a very elegant curve so i mean it's a question of judgment and um you know if you're going to uh um i'm not sure if it's actual policy but if you're going to go outside a recommended area for high buildings you have to justify it and we feel we have been able to do that in uh um uh in working with your officers thank you i think i just also add that we've also undertaken an assessment against london plan policy d9 um which is which concerns tall buildings in the planning statement which is also set out in the officer report in terms of the policy requirements that are set at a strategic level that require assessment um when proposing a tall building thanks phoebe any further questions no phoebe nick thank oh sorry nick is is it tim thank you oh yeah sorry richard i've got the list here sooner or later i've got there members deliberation david pat lardy thank you very much um as i'm going to propose uh chair that we have a site visit as a planning board and i think we should all go and we should go to the site and we should uh because obviously there is um we need to look at the um the the impact both the proximity to other tall buildings but the impact on um on on on the neighboring development millennium key that we we've heard about um but it's setting and so forth and some of the issues been raised um but i think it would also be useful as that site visit to uh look at some of these potential strategic view as well um that that that might or might not be affected um in and i think that would be useful so so not to um i am concerned about the cumulative impact as you know which are on the world heritage site which is something i've mentioned a few times um and each application no doubt has great public benefit but at some point you get to the tipping point um so i i i do think we need to consider this uh no doubt we do need student more student accommodation i'm sure the demand even for really expensive student accommodation but um but i do think we need to think a bit more and and a site visit would um would would be helpful so are you going to make that are you making a proposal david a propose that we defer for a site visit chair do i have a seconder yes i will second that chair just because um when it comes to the fire assessment and regulation i want to see it myself and i hope i will be able to attend whenever it is so yeah i will second that thank you chair okay the recommendation for a site for a deferral for a site visit has been made and seconded i'm they're going to put it i'm therefore going to put it to a vote all those in favor of a deferral for site visit please raise your hand all those against abstentions this item is deferred for a site visit thanks we've been on that item now for nearly two and a quarter hours i'd like to propose a five minute break um for everyone to go and do your business before um we now move on to item five flink glass wharf three herringham way row herringham road charlton london se 7 8 nj reference one eight zero seven three two f jonathan thank you chair uh good evening the application of all members tonight is for a hybrid planning application and a site known as flink glass wharf and charlton riverside the scheme is proposed to deliver up to 500 conventional resident residential units and approximately 1782 square meters of non-residential space including community retail and workspace uses public realm improvements are also proposed which will feature high quality landscape spaces improved pedestrian friendly links and an improved thames path the current application has been subject to three rounds of consultation the site is located within charlton riverside and falls within the designated opportunity area and strategic development location as well as the charlton riverside spd area the site extends 1.64 hectares bounded by the river thames to the north herringham road to the south the thames barrier site to the east and riverside wharf to the west although the site contains no listed buildings it adjoins the thames barrier bow water road conservation area with a grade 2 listed building nearby the site also lies within an archaeological priority area and borders a site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation currently the site accommodates a range of uses including waste operations and indoor adventure venue known as bunker 51 a go-kart track and and churches help housed in a former office building and adjacent warehouses currently currently transport accessibility is relatively low with public transport accessibility level of between zero and two however charlton station is approximately 1.4 kilometers away and a number of bus routes are available on woolwich road to the south as mentioned the application is brought forward as a hybrid planning application comprising two components the detailed component covers the eastern part of the site and seeks full planning permission to demolish existing buildings and construct two new buildings ranging from seven to nine stories this phase will deliver 142 new homes 482 square meters of commercial space and and the energy center along with new public open spaces and improved public realm the outline component seeks permission for up to 45 000 square meters of floor space sorry residential floor space including up to 358 homes and 1300 square meters of flexible non-residential space and non-residential space details of appearance landscaping and scale are reserved for the outline for future for reserved matters application for plot c to e in terms of the proposed blocks the detail component features a u-shaped layout with buildings a and b connected by a lower link block the riverfront will be raised by about a meter for flood protection building a maintains a consistent height and emits windows on the eastern side to respect the adjacent thames barrier security building b steps down from 10 to seven seven stories and includes residential units and retail facing the thames path with communi sorry with communal amenity spaces on the roof the outline component is divided into three plots plot c d and e also comprising a u-shaped block and a standalone block each separated by immunity spaces these include podium level private open spaces and publicly accessible areas around the buildings the extent of the areas to be developed within the outline component are outlined in the development specification specifications and relevant plans it's also relevant to note that the proposed building heights fully align with the Charlton riverside SPD which supports buildings of up to 10 stories specifically on this site the scheme proposes building range from 7 to 10 with the tallest element positioned centrally and stepping down towards the river and site boundaries to reduce visual prominence a planning condition has also been detailed to ensure that in particular for the reserve matters that no building can exceed 10 stories it is also relevant regarding the density where the eastern detail component as well also aligns with the Charlton riverside SPD however the outline component marginally exceeds the SPD requirements of 340 sorry at 341 hectare units per hectare instead of the maximum 300 for that for that plot apologies for some of the text appears to have been cut off but a key component of the scheme scheme is the improvement to the public realm and connectivity uh two wide green corridors between 22 and 25 meters link herringham road to the thames path improving pedestrian cycle access in line with the Charlton riverside SPD as well as two large communal courtyards between blocks which open up to the river providing shared amenity space following detailed engagement with the environment agency and the pla an approach to the thames path has been agreed where it has been uh where has been widened raised um and landscaped creating a flood resilient um uh riverside edge now apologies about the clarity of this plan but i included one uh excerpt of the revised um thames path which shows that the thames path will be up to 13 meters wide in places um across across the length reducing down to 8 meters but the um the main distance is about 13 meters between the edge of the uh between the edge of the uh river side and the closest building from a townscape perspective the proposed development represents an improvement over the current site condition and introduces well-designed buildings that can contribute positively to the urban environment and help define the emerging character of this regeneration area the two photographs on scene provide one example uh from the thames barrier park on the northern bank of the thames the top of the so the existing situation with the second image depicting the scheme um it's very modest um here is the scheme between one that doesn't exist there and apologies it's not clear on here but obviously clearer in the HTVIA submitted with the application and the ES but there are cumulative lines for other schemes that were approved within Charlton such as the Hyde scheme adjacent and Cooper's yard and um a number of other schemes within the vicinity of the site in terms of heritage the site lies near the thames barrier and bow water conservation area while the scheme does result in less than substantial harm to these setting to the setting the planning um the planning framework allows us to um allows for such harm to be weighed against the public benefits in this case the benefits being housing delivery affordable homes job creation and enhanced public realm all clearly and demonstrably outweigh the heritage impact the environmental statement and subsequent addendum have been independently reviewed and found to be robustly found to robustly assess the environmental effects of development all required mitigation have been secured through design planning conditions and obligations and no outstanding environmental objections remain or there are unresolved matters in terms of one particular environmental issue it is relevant members to be aware that but the site is near a number of safeguarded wharves where there is where there have been objections raised historic objections sorry raised from the pla port of london authority and safeguarded wharf operators the the air quality and noise assessment have been interrogated by council officers as well subsequently by the port of london authority and the safeguarded wharf operators who have following significant engagement by the applicants team have now agreed a comprehensive suite of mitigation strategies to ensure that there are minimal that there won't be any uh operational conflicts and will safeguard the ongoing operation of those wharves and protect the amenity of future residents the recommendation has secured a number of 12 conditions to protect the future residents uh and and to manage um sorry to manage issues relating to noise and and air quality consideration uh significant considerations given given to residential quality the homes will provide a good standard living with access private and communal amenity spaces i mentioned earlier although there are some minor deviations from standards these are acceptable given the regeneration context and the site's particular constraints in terms of uh my reference to that is only in terms of the detail component obviously uh the outline component and the reserve matters application will have to demonstrate uh their compliance with the relevant standards at time of submission although there are no existing uh neighboring residents the scheme impact has been assessed against future developments in particular herringham quarter scheme which has been approved the analysis confirms acceptable daylight sunlight privacy and outlight and outlook impacts most windows and adjacent blocks meet bre guidelines with only minor reductions due to design features such as recessed balconies however uh the the final design will be refined at the reserve matters stage to ensure that uh there will be no unacceptable impacts overall the amenity impacts are in line with what is expected for a dense urban generation site and uh and are remain outweighed by the by public benefits as mentioned earlier proposal includes a minimum of 25 percent affordable housing this represents the maximum viable amount from for the site as confirmed by an independent viability assessment the affordable offer includes a mix of social rent and shared ownership units addressing a range of housing needs early mid and late stage reviews have been secured in the section 106 which will ensure compliance with these affordable housing commitments there is also a requirement to provide an updated viability assessment at reserve matters stage when the when the submission for reserve matters for plots uh c d and e are submitted to the council the site benefits from potential walking and cycling routes across the riverside uh through connectivity through charlton rivers sorry though connectivity through charlton riverside is currently poor public transport is it is low uh with with as i mentioned bus stops located 600 meters away uh on woolwich road and charlton rail station approximately 1.3 kilometers away the scheme has therefore uh or secured a number of uh contributions towards public transport and infrastructure um uh upgrades including one for uh 1.5 million towards charlton infrastructure uh towards the charlton infrastructure charge to deliver out to deliver of new bus services into charlton so these two have been agreed by by the applicant to improve the accessibility uh for the site so in summary the proposal aligns with local regional and uh policy sorry local and london plan policies um by delivering much needed housing including affordable homes supporting economic growth and enhancing the public realm the proposal offers high quality uh sorry the proposal the proposal offers a high quality uh development that supports regeneration of child from riverside and offers offers substantial public benefits the scheme will also as mentioned contribute to local infrastructure services including health care and transport through various financial contributions in conclusion officers recommend that planning permission be granted for this hybrid application subject to the conditions and obligations as outlined in the committee report thank you for your attention and i'm happy to answer any questions from members thanks jonathan oh look at that um pat or lu david i'll go i'll go callum because he's just got here palum callum pat or lu david oh sorry sandra thank you very much in particular it was most welcome confirming about the viability um assessments on affordable housing as well um what sorry i've lost my thread now um yes uh on the the um thames path continuity that is proposed um is any sort of closest equivalent outlined as to what that will be like i.e will this be replicating approximately the way that um um thames path is has been done following quite similar kind of visually developments in east greenwich at um um from the cutty sark pub through to enderby that's it thank you um and also i think it might be so the transport committee are doing a report on the thames path at the minute which um i think if this were were maybe at the next session or the one after we might have some more concrete recommendations for some of that reshaping um but i guess the question is what do we know is there any um information provided around what that will be modeled on so we can have a sense of what it will look like and will there be separate segregated um pedestrian and cycle and wheeling so you know be that people on scooters wheelchairs etc um along the thames path to ensure full connectivity and as seamless um and kind of unified a sense to the thames path as there is at other sites sorry i got there in the end thank you no thank you for your question i i can say this has been quite a complicated aspect of the scheme to resolve concerns that the environment agency held about the thames path both in terms of uh the actual distance between the the river itself and the buildings but also achieving um ecological improvements as well which was one of the key driving factors for them and and also um as i mentioned earlier in the presentation that they they were seeking to raise the uh the wall itself to prevent flooding issues which i understand occur along there so it has been raised so indicatively the um the uh thames path and i and i apologize i don't have any any closer um illustration is is what it is depicted here which they're showing as uh the title um uh intertidal terraces but um the main path it's yeah it's shown up there that we've we've agreed minimum dips like uh sorry depths like i was saying before of 13 meters uh there are some instances where it reduces down to eight meters because of the curve and to and to introduce things like the tidal terracing but there are uh a number of planning conditions that we've secured to to agree the final detailing of of the design but also the the other challenges to um ensure that whatever we approve here interface oh sorry apologies um but what what i was just saying is that if you didn't hear there are depths of about 13 meters it reduces down to eight meters uh because of the intertidal terraces um i think the challenge uh sorry what what we do have is we do have a number of planning conditions to secure the final detail of what that actually looks like because i know that there is uh requirements from my colleagues at tfl about having designated um separated wits between between the users which is what we support as well um but also the challenges about interfacing this with the adjacent site and when that's actually delivered so either or which way comes first the the details will ensure that they uh seamlessly integrate with each other on both sides of that um the line there so jonathan just sorry sorry for interrupting um the port of london the port of london authority and the ea are basically orchestrating um the supervision of the improvements along the the thames path so surely they're looking at continuity with materials and surfaces because it's in nobody's interest to have a patchwork of uneven um proposals with different surfaces and yeah no no that's right i mean i i think all all i was trying to say is that we're also trying to secure and knowing that detail so there's uh conditions about how these how these elements interface with each other both on herringham road and adjacent sites but also the thames path and adjacent sites so there is that you know you're walking down and it's exactly the same experience all the way through thanks sorry about that um i'm going to come back to sandra now because sandra hasn't spoken this evening um and then we'll come back to the order that i called out thanks very much chair i was just really commenting on the mix um that that's going to be available the fact there are few three-bedroom homes moldable homes across the detailed as well um is it is it the case that the um affordable that are in the um shared ownership would stay there or after a certain time move over to being rented if they weren't taken so so whatever whatever the offer is that we have in the afford uh sorry apologies and the detailed part of the scheme will be fixed as that will be the deed that would be what is being offered uh there is obligations that require as i mentioned earlier that will require us to reassess the viability when it comes to it reserve matters to take into account if there's been any changes um but but it answers your question if the shared ownership that's available in the detailed side will remain as as such so thank you for your presentation as well jonathan um yes actually the that one of my questions was about again about the the mix and you know we're always saying we've we've got plenty of one bedroom uh sort of apartments and studios but it's three bedrooms that we are short of um and possibly um and possibly this is one for the developer but um when it comes to the hybrid system will there be some i don't know some flexibility there about changing the number of the housing mix that's one question um my next question is um again um the buildings that that's already there apparently there is a go-kart track an indoor adventure sports center uh and there is has been a church a place of worship which apparently is going to move so again sort of looking at how we supposed to think ahead you know about the community use and everything is that what is going to happen to that go track um um can't track as and have they been sort of consulted about this um my third question is regarding herrington road um and i think i've read i have read i'm sure that the footpaths might have to be um widened and there's going to be a cycle lane and i was just wondering you know about that road what provisions are going to be made sort of whether it reads resurfacing uh with width and whether we are going to have a cycle lane and increased sizes of footpaths uh am i allowed to ask a fourth question no okay that's my three right we'll come back to that but apologies can't agreement what was your second question again sorry i missed i missed yeah the second question was apparently the building that's coming down it contains at the moment and it's it's obviously still active because i've checked back there's a go-kart track and i don't know how large that is and an indoor adventure sports center and there is a church a place of worship but apparently that is quite they're quite happy to move but i was just wondering about the go-kart track and about the indoor adventure sports center again whereas we as a a council you know where do we sort of what responsibility do we have to to make sure that they are sort of included in any i don't know in any new so the laser tag and the go-kart track yes yeah are on are on a on a limited lease so they were served no they were served notice some time ago but because of delays they were they've been given short-term extensions and so so they are they are aware of the proposals and they've entered into recent agreements for for a shorter term extension okay so i think i answered that for you you did but we're going to lose aren't we we're going to lose some of the um community sort of aspect there um but can you so my other questions were can you remember i don't know yeah okay thank you thanks council greenwell so just taking your first question and regarding the affordable space and i think this is also might have been what was raised by um council bow and i might have got the uh answer incorrect oh sorry i might not be clear in coming back with my response um is that currently yes it is um uh slightly i wouldn't say skewed but it's it's 65 35 towards social rent at the present instead of being 70 30 as we typically would um but we do have a um sorry i'm just we do have a higher provision within the um affordable as larger three bedroom units already sorry so how many can i just so is it three beds in the detailed is that 25 just be with me one moment i'm just 23 i think so what you're saying is that when it comes to the hybrid uh could there be some flexibility there or should i ask the developer no so so in terms of when they come up for reserve matters we are going to be reassessing their viability again we've agreed with them regarding obligations or uh that our preference is an increase of the social rent component of the uh the affordable housing offer sorry i haven't been clear in that and coming back on that response but that is our preference because obviously we are aware it's a slight skew but um we would want um the wider scheme to um to address that any to address that your question was regarding the foot footways yes yeah so so those yeah sorry i'm sorry for speaking over um the uh footways on herringham road yes they'll be part of it they will be redeveloped along along in front of the in front of the site obviously some of the works associated with the east west link and other infrastructure improvements are incorporated into what into the infrastructure charge infrastructure levy that we are seeking to obtain from developers within Charlton so some of that work beyond the application site will be um will be delivered by by that by that levy that we're securing from the applicant which is according to 1.5 on on this the scheme just just on that last point as well if you look at page 222 and page 223 it shows you the mix both by detailed and outline and for the private and the affordable so that sets out so in terms of the um outline there is there they are set within ranges so depending on how the scheme is devised that will settle the mix at that point but there are parameters captured in the permission holo yes thank you chair um i want to take you to page 52 on this so i don't know what page is it there is there about affordable housing and i'm going to read it out here because i put 35 25 17 27 which is which so the you said this screen screen pro so proposes 35 percent affordable housing by habitable room with 25 percent of the total unit allocated as affordable housing the the current phase provide approximately 27 percent affordable housing by unit i'm not clear now so what is the affordable thank you uh so so so the affordable housing offer is a minimum of 25 percent across the across the entirety of the scheme both the outline and the detailed component within the detailed component it is 35 percent by habitable room so so the one so the one where we got all the details today is 35 but across the across the entire scheme it's um sorry 25 as a minimum across across the entirety of the scheme so i think it's 25 but because some of those buildings proposed are larger buildings if you do it by habitable room because they're three beds not one beds it equates to 35 by habitable room but only 25 25 when it comes down to individual dwellings yep got that david thank you and jonathan can i thank you for all the work you've done on this over a few years um so um i wanted to ask about the proximity to the tarmac aggregates site which is next door uh to the west as you know in my ward um we have significant problems with the proximity of the uh gmv east the pear tree way development to the aragut's quarter uh which is a separate from this uh particular site to the tarmac site next door but the tarmac site next door also has the the pier and ships come in and they unload and so forth and that's all very noisy and lots of diesel fumes and then all the dust comes out and so forth you're going to get similar there's a danger of having similar issues so i wondered what the um in terms of dust noise so forth oh and it's 24 hours a day obviously what the mitigation is in terms of the the depth of the buffering and the green zone between the western block and the tarmac aggregates area um because i can't quite there seems to be some green with a little little awful lot of hard landscaping there uh and then there's i don't know there's a i don't know why quite what is against the tarmac boundary there um so maybe you could just um talk about that it looks like a building i wouldn't put a building right next to tarmac that would be i could just tell you from my experience it will be disastrous people might move there but you know you get no end of complaints the environment agency called in all the time our noise and pollution our pollution control people called in all the time um and it will be nightmare to live there um so i just wondered why you're putting a building right next to there there needs to be some sort of green or why the applicant is there needed to be some sort of green buffer zone i just speak from bitter experience here um and and wondered if this is the best is this the outline or the detailed is there scope to change the layout um there i mean i've got no generally i'm very impressed by many much of this but i am worried about this aspect and people will you know get lots of promises they'll move in um but they'll soon they'll be moving out again if they can and my my fear is will this block be where all the social housing goes as well um the affordable housing so i'm really concerned about that particular block and what the level of mitigation is what discussions there have been with tarmac because it is important we have an agriculture industry on the on the riverside and and this is a strategic industrial uh zone chart and riverside um so i wondered if you could address that first and then i've got a point a question on transport as well so uh what you are correct plot e here is is adjacent to the riverside wharf it goes right along the boundary and as you can appreciate it it is a 2018 application so there's been quite a lot of discussions between the safeguarded wharf operators uh the environment agency the port of london authority to safeguard those uses and their uh longevity on the site um the safeguarded wharf operators being the tarmac site um they originally raised significant objections scheme they were concerned about noise issues obviously and and air quality like you raised as well um but a lot of engagement between the parties has uh addressed many of those issues and i'm sure the applicant can speak to those there is quite a significant detailed set of planning conditions uh to uh not only um achieve a certain level of we're talking about noise acoustically inside but also to demonstrate that at you know pride occupation that that's what it's achieving internally um based on those conditions and that we've that we've that we've had withdrawn objections from the pla uh the ea and uh the safeguarded wharf operators on on grounds relating to noise and air quality and they were particularly coming from the perspective of age and a change you know they didn't want uh res introduces to undermine their ongoing operation so they're even more concerned about complaints and things like that as well um they have which on the which on the objections obviously in terms of a number of the facades uh enhanced glazing and and um a myriad of other features have been agreed which are all detailed in our development specification documents which outlines all um uh the agreed uh suite of requirements between the parties but i think one of the key features of this development block e and what you uh what i understand from uh the air quality and noise assessments is that once oh sorry that plot e will act as the buffer for the rest of the site so it'll mitigate in terms of the noise coming across from the adjacent sites um so it will it will defend the site from from noise and um and air quality issues as part of the other suite of mitigation measures that are that have been agreed but if i just might pursue that um you know i don't know whether you know the issues about glazing and so forth having the special glazing they have to have on on on on that wall along uh the backs on the aggregates quarter um and um and and and and and um the the the issues they've had over the years um my um so i i i just don't know you i need there needs to be more i know this is only the outline bit but it's a scope to change that because i i do fear this has not really been fully thought through and my other question you didn't answer is can we guarantee that in this block e is not as it is on the pear tree way blocks where all the affordable housing will be put in other words all the the social cleansing but so social apartheid really that the all the affordable housing is um the the bit that overlooks the aggregate's um site and the affordable the for sale stuff is the the nice bits overlooking the the river and the greenery and so forth so specifically in terms of some of the acoustic mitigation measures that we've agreed so on plot e habitable rooms are prohibited from facing to the to the wall so there won't be any you won't have units lining down that side with all that you know um facing onto the wall so that is in our development specifications that we've agreed with uh the safeguarded wolves and the applicant uh that there won't be any um as i just said sorry hamdler rooms facing facing that direction towards towards the wharf they'll be either facing north uh south north or or or obviously towards block d uh plot t plot d internally um as as well as so that will assist in helping us uh or ensuring that the units themselves will achieve um their required noise and acoustic criteria uh just on in terms of um the arrangement of units or location of the affordable uh housing units that that isn't captured within our um as far as i can recall captured within our development specifications and that may be something the applicant might want to speak to but um there isn't a requirement on on the location of market or well market or uh residential community it's just sorry uh affordable housing is just the location of where uh c3 housing would be yeah well sorry um to pursue that but to come to the transport question um which is good to see the contribution um my sort of short-term solution here which was originally for the charlton riverside development of sainsbury's and mns is to extend the 202 from blackheath standard through down to westmore street um to service this um development um and i just don't know what that would mean um upgrading westmore street which is really nasty at the moment um and a turnaround point for a bus as well but has that been i mean i can give the great advantages in terms of modal shift and so forth and um uh you know for people in blackheath and so forth getting to sainsbury's but there will be something like that will be huge for um the people moving into this development as well uh but has something like has that level of granularity being thought through so i know that there has been some discussions with tfl in terms of well not with the applicant itself but i'm aware of discussions generally about about route provisions but uh i would imagine that the delivery of of some of our development sites down there hasn't been as prompt in terms of being able to deliver some of these uh extensions to existing routes as i as i recall uh the hyde scheme herringham corner scheme also included a temporary uh bus provision route that came from willich road up uh westmore street along along herringham and looped back um but i i know these are under active um consideration by tfl in terms of what the what the provision is in terms of um their actual infrastructure whether it's temporary and until such time that other schemes come forward or until such time uh the infrastructure such as the east west link and riverside routes are actually delivered as well but i understand that temporary provision is is something that is that has been considered back sorry um can i just ask you um one to 41 derrick gardens and one to 30 atlas gardens how are they going to be affected by um this development that's one question and my other question is regarding it's following on from what my colleague is saying about the um mitigation measures for noise and dust and everything i don't quite understand i'll be asking the applicant uh about sort of those you know keeping windows closed and and what's good how you're going to keep cool and that kind of thing but also there are balconies um on these developments but how is it suitable for balconies if because of the noise and air quality so it's the balconies and really as well looking at the existing derrick gardens and atlas gardens and how they are going to be affected please thank you for your question regarding derrick gardens and atlas gardens uh in terms of my the details that i provide on this in in the presentation here um derrick gardens and atlas gardens are a considerable distance away from the site so they have been scoped out of residential many impacts although they're the closest ones uh to the site itself um your question regarding balconies is a is a relevant one it's been a discussion that we've been having with the applicant uh acoustic consultants safeguarded wharf operators um and yes uh the plots will have balconies but um they you they won't be able to be um if i can there are there are occupation restrictions on some of the units on on so i'm just trying to figure out a way to explain it sorry um so if i might i'll just stand up it might be easier if i um demonstrate against um i'll have it so in terms of um the planning obligations within the one within our um within the planning board report that the there are balconies across all these facades but for example you won't be able to occupy or you occupy any of the units would face which have balconies and block c that face this way until such time that block d is actually constructed because block d operates as mitigation barrier both acoustically and air quality uh for the development so so what i'm just trying to say is that you can't occupy any of the units that have balconies and block c until block d is developed and built out yeah i'm sorry it took me a while to get there so jonathan while you were up there um those of us that have been on the panel for some time will remember that hyde um had a number of issues with the toxic flu that is in the middle of that site which is used for the manufacturing of tarmac um has that issue been resolved because my understanding was the proposal from hyde in conjunction with block e enclosed that funnel which then became a concern for the gla i will have to um check correspondence about that particular issue but all i can confirm is that um none of my consultees that have come back have raised any concerns on on that particular point whether it's the gla or um the safeguarded war vibrators themselves nobody's right as i'm recalling now nobody's raised that as concerned the applicant may recall any particular discussions on that point um and they may have been resolved or or you know discussed already but um that that isn't an an outstanding concern that has been raised to me then i'll save my next question for the applicant as well then okay any further questions sorry callum yeah no worries chair thank you um and just to be clear following on from the points raised by councillor gardner um units c d and e are in the outline rather than detailed component and so further details will be forthcoming on those so there's sort of a second bite of a cherry on some of the issues particularly with respect to block e that councillor gardner has raised and i guess on the first question about is this where the social housing will all be concentrated given that there's going to be a high proportion of social housing across the development in the detail component units which are the furthest away from e correct um i suppose that may mitigate some of those some of those concerns which i think is is most welcome so i just wanted to double check that i have that right i can confirm that you have that right regarding the affordable um the affordable housing uh component of on the scheme cool no further questions jonathan thank you very much where are we number five i now we have no we have no public speakers so i now wish to call on tom lawson mike stowell and oleg sevilukoff uh you need to push the red button yeah sorry i was going to do a bit of a speech but perhaps it's best use of time if i directly answer some of the questions which have come up if that's okay for everyone okay so i'm just going to rattle them off in the order that i've written them down if i've missed anything please do jump up so um something nice and easy one the thames path obviously jonathan presented our proposed design up on the screen which you all had a chance to look at if you avoidance of doubts you know on behalf of the the applicant we're committed to delivering something which is the continuation of not only the high development which is our immediate neighbor but tfl ea's pa's proposals for the continuation all the way up to um greenwich peninsula and also from our other neighborhood which is the thames barrier itself we have a rather tricky kind of interface with them where we are delivering the upgrades that we can do up until their barrier but obviously they have critical national infrastructure so they have their own requirements we kind of deal with that interface there from a material perspective you would have seen the grays and the greens they are obviously just the landscape and proposals in outline they are flexible they're dealt with by planning conditions section one of six clauses because i completely agree there's nothing worse than hodgepodge materials as you continue down developments so hopefully that answers that um jumping around a little bit appreciate that number three bed units i think they've got clarified in the committee report but obviously if the avoidance of doubt it is in um the tables i think victoria stated the outline area is secured by development specification with a range and um i'll come on to how that range gets delivered shortly um the existing tenants and the community aspect you correctly point out that there is obviously the go-kart track and um the the laser quest for lack of a better description they're also the church and there's a waste aggregates provider on site they are all on meanwhile temporary planning consents and they have long known from the start of the project that this is always has aspirations to be redeveloped we have worked where possible with them to try and re-deliver them on site we did actually have at one point a design for a go-kart under the scheme it didn't work but um we we have tried to work with them and they have been aware i would say for the past five or so years that they need to have alternative sites um and we will continue to work with them as the proposal goes forward wide end of herodham road obviously that got covered by jonathan um but to reiterate we have a one and a half million pound contribution to the charter and riverside infrastructure fund we have a just under one and a half million pound contribution to tfl buses we have from a non-financial perspective a commitment to delivering what is required of us on our herring road frontage i facilitating street trees street furniture the location to which a bus could theoretically stop should tfl wish it to stop there in the future as well as a contribution to work with our immediate neighbors to make sure that westmore street and eastmore street also receive the um perhaps love that they require so it's a nice way to put it um the wharves yes um it is a bit of a complex issue i think it's it's best described by the fact that the scheme barriers itself in to the hard edge we have block e as shown up on the plan you can probably just about tell from that plan you'll notice it's narrower than the rest of the blocks because it's because it's a single-sided building not a double-sided building like the rest it has only uh communal court uh not courtyards um communal corridors non-habitable units no residential facing either tarmac the the riverside wharf um it has been robustly tested from an acoustic perspective and agreed very with the very stringent requirements of the safeguarded wharf operators at angustine and murphy's wharf who still despite the distance are a key consideration here um it as jonathan stated it's secured very numerous different planning consents and it is built on a proven strategy which we know works which is kind of similar to the gmv scheme but actually it's a it's a scheme called good luck hope in the london borough of tower hamlets which does a very hard barrier as well and it is in it's occupied they get no complaints and we have followed a similar principle to that um so just to clarify the affordable housing percentage because i do want to make sure we get this right so obviously there's the detailed and the outline areas the detailed area is what you see in front of you today is 35 by habitable room but 27 and a half percent by unit i believe i think it was mentioned that it's 25 that's that's not credit it's 27 and a half percent by unit the 25 is a commitment which the applicant is providing to ensure the whole development when considered the detail and the outline areas together meets a minimum of the exact percentage of which will be dealt with by a mid-stage review which will be submitted upon um well which will be issued to the council in form of viability assessment upon submission of the reserve matters applications reserve matters applications i believe are represented to this committee um your your colleagues will be able to confirm that so they will be for determination here at a later date and the reserve that mid-stage review will determine the amount of affordable housing in the outline phase with the proviso that it shall not be anything less than 25 across the entire site sorry sorry for butting in there but this is a i think it's an appropriate time for me to ask a question um the 25 includes um shared ownership according to the documents um looking at the economic climate and and the way mortgages are at the moment and a dislike for shared ownership now in the market i'm just wondering if the applicant would consider um providing those as affordable rent um to make the 25 percent which again is already um leaves a sour taste in our mouths but making that more attractive as an affordable rent product rather than divvying it up into shared ownership which is of no value to the council thanks sure so from a detailed area perspective shared ownership has been chosen because i do i do take your point in the economic circumstances has been also concerns about shared ownership but at a price point here it is determined to work the discounts are received are still affordable from a mortgage perspective and it's been chosen because it helps improve the viability of the first phase um you would have seen from the officers report that the scheme is in significant deficit in coming forward and we are providing more affordable housing than it can maximally afford however we do appreciate the need to try and deliver social rent so for the detailed area i think that's going to be a challenge for the outline area we'll be happy to work with officers to come up with a section 106 um requirement which supplements our shared ownership and would replace it with the equivalent intermediate rental product um you mentioned you mentioned affordable rent i believe london so obviously from a stop ahead from a london living brain to another intermediate product yes we would definitely consider that and we're happy to work with officers to come up with with an appropriate section 106 wording that captures that and then it would be represented back to members at reserve matters stage thanks um questions lardy david lardy can you turn your mic on thank you thank you chair um two questions one is around the number of listed buildings that is within 500 meters of the site it's quite a lot um have you done i am supposing to have done an environmental impact assessment could you tell us a little bit about that the second bit is around transportation i know that you said you uh are contributing section 106 towards transportation but i note the report of the officers here saying that they are recommending that the developers would um i can't remember the pages gosh it's a lot somewhere up there in the recommendation where it says that um um a conversation with tfl around extending the bus routes um because i know i know i'm very familiar with herring am very well it's quite a long stretch all the way down so um those are my two questions thank you sure um from an eia perspective first i think um jonathan's presentation had a heritage map if i recall it looked like one which it showed which obviously shows the location of the designated and non-designated heritage assets um i don't off the top of my head know exactly how many listed buildings within exactly 500 meters but obviously just to reaffirm that there has been an environmental impact assessment submitted of the scheme and a heritage and townscape visual impact assessment forming part of that which assesses the impact of the development against those designated heritage assets and that's been agreed um with the council's independent assessor who's agreed with the conclusions of that um for avoidance of doubt the scheme is height it's mass in its appearance it's bold uh comply with the uh charlton master plan spd in terms of height massing and broadly actually the the kind of the linear finger block approach as well so it's not only if we obviously we assessed it and consider it to be acceptable it broadly aligns with what the council's own master plan is considered appropriate on that site when factoring in the heritage assets as well so from a transport oh sorry from a transport perspective um i understand i think jonathan touched on it slightly earlier i understand that tfr are in discussions about the delivery of a bus route we as i said and you've mentioned we are contributing to the delivery of said bus route it is in our interest to make sure that comes forward as much as possible therefore we are at our own gift providing space for the bus to stop eating into our development parcel we've also committed to providing convenience facilities to enable a bus to you know it's one of the key drivers for tfl they need people you know to just have that 10 minute layover so we've committed to if tfl request that we will provide that within our scheme as well we want to see it come forward and i know some of the other joining landowners such as hyde who i believe have been to this planning committee not too long ago are also pushing for that to be delivered sorry to keep you so late um i i always um look up about the applicant in this case sata but i can find nothing on company's house and um and then you know there's a there's a flint glass wharf in in manchester but um i i don't know whether they're related or not so it'd be useful to know a bit more about the applicant and particularly because we have a real problem it's not just in this borough i think it's across london certainly where we grant uh many uh applicants planning approvals um but then um they're just sat upon for years and and applicants are of want of a better word they're waiting for the market to pick up or they're waiting for a buyer to come along and then they bagged on the basis they've now bagged that planning application and the new applicant can come back and ask for a bit more um so i wondered if you could just tell us a bit more about your client uh the applicant and um and and their ability to deliver on this should we give approval this evening because we've had some very bad experiences of course yeah um the applicant is mr satar so that's his surname he um works for the komoto group who are the applicant that have submitted the planning application he is sat a couple of seats behind me so he's here and present um he and his company have developed a couple of other major sites with in london it's his first in greenwich um i have this one in tower hamlets of a actually slightly larger scale but similar proportions in terms of his ambitions for the site um he would be working with a recognized housing developer to try and deliver it not for consideration here granted but as an anecdote there were two nationally recognized housing developers who interested in acquiring the site and should planning be granted today they the discussions with those will continue and it will be um developed to go forward um there is from our perspective and from his no no interest in land banking um in an area such as this it it creates its own value the schemes coming forward in charleston riverside are the most important things for creating the value here because they establish it that new context so the first phase for us is really important to get that going just a very quick um second question the uh a brilliant um biodiversity net gain of some huge percentage but the urban greening factor is below the london plan minimum levels of 0.4 how can you um you know put in some green walls or living walls or something to to get that up to 0.4 i'm sure we can explore it it's probably um there's definitely be some scope for it to be dealt with via roof spaces we've probably been slightly conservative in our assessments at this stage um which is is natural as you would have seen some some of the early pictures a lot of the scheme especially the thames path area is hard standing that is an expectation and the requirement so it does limit the ability for us to deliver it at the ground level for lack of a better description so anywhere else we'll try and we can deal with that upper stages um i can't remember off the top of my head but i'm sure it is but urban greening factor will obviously be a key consideration of the outline phase coming forward so we'll seek to betterment to seek to better that should we represent you in the future thank you very much for your presentation um can i just ask you i'm going back to a question that i asked jonathan the planning officer and it's it's regarding sort of a bit concerned about the noise and and the fumes um and how you're going to cope with that and apparent and with regarding the balconies just a little bit more sort of clarity and also you say that um it it's to do with the actual um mitigation measures for some uh windows that aren't going to be able to be opened which actually that makes me feel quite we i mean i know obviously this has happened before but i just wondered what sort of measures how you control that um overheating um in rooms where windows can't be opened and yes and that coupled with the balconies how they're going to be and also the gardens and the play areas i mean how you know how do we know that they're not going to be affected by all the fumes um and everything thank you sure yes of course um i'll come at it from a technical perspective point and then i look from farrells we have to talk to you to the overall kind of design code and strategy for how we secure this going forward and make sure that happens so um i probably skipped over it slightly so i apologize for that obviously i mentioned earlier that we we only have communal corridors facing on to the wharf which means all of the balconies essentially face inwards within the development every single balcony within the development has been tested by us the council and by the key stakeholders such as surfboarded wharf operators and they are deliberately located in places where they're away from acoustic um or air quality issue air quality including odor i think someone referred earlier to the the flu at tarmac um from an openable windows perspective if you want to doubt there is no unit which has all of its windows sealed some of the windows on its elevation may be sealed however that's that would be a dual aspect unit which has outlook elsewhere where it can continue to open its windows that said the the new part o and part l requirements with regard to overheating are very specific and we cannot assume due to just the prevailing noise character of the area that everyone should be able to open their window um to call down their apartment so from an overheating perspective a select number of apartments um this is completely tender blind have uh the ability to comfort call their room should it be so loud outside that they feel that they can't open their windows they can therefore turn their comfort calling on and get to what the industry considers to be appropriate heating levels what you're saying is that they will all have a window that will open all units have a window which can open yeah and also some units where deemed necessary body overheating calculation have supplementary comfort calling as well um oh do you just want to do a bit on yeah just add a bit to that one as well and we have delivered previously on sites that are in very close proximity to network rail tracks tfl uh next to the dlr etc and it's quite common that you specify a very very high acoustic rated glazing and you do provide mvhrs you do provide comfort cooling all the balconies and so if you look at the site itself the way it's designed the way the layout is designed there are two blocks which is block a which is part of the detailed components and block e which is part of the outline component above sorry they both had act as screens to the whole development so both acoustically both from the fumes from any noise from anything drifting away that for lack of a better term the two walls that enclose the whole thing so all the parks and all the spaces and all the gardens and the balconies are facing inwards and are facing towards the thames so there's no aspects on there to the to the uh walls what are those when you say walls what are they made of are they i mean is there any like sort of my fellow counselor is um just that any greening of them because that would help wouldn't it are they green walls or in terms of acoustically not not not really green at the moment but that's that part is an outline if you look at what we have this printing in the onto the thames barrier there is a visual in that presentation where essentially it is a solid gabion wall so this should be a view in this one i think well you can see block block a to the left there of the site so in that case it is literally a feature wall like almost an artwork made it's a gabion wall with no aspect on it whatsoever okay the violence of doubt is not those colors oh no no no no no no no just to be clear it's okay it's just a visual representation of the different types of rocks in it all right okay they're grays all right they're grays and they're based on the on the slice of the river thames in that area thank you thank you chair um so coming coming back to the noise and um pollution modeling um i live halfway up charlton lane and i can hear that wolf when that wolf is an operation i can hear that wolf all hours of the day sometimes two three o'clock in the morning has your modeling taken into consideration the development from hide which encloses that wolf and provides a drum-like situation so the main noise source uh believe it or not for our development is actually angustina murphy's which are half a mile to a mile away it is the city of westminster and city of london boats i believe please don't quote me on those names um which are the main driver for noise sources in the dominance and they as you very well say they have a low hum very low hertz vibration um we have assessed that noise source robustly a very confident that through quite bespoke mitigation that it will not be perceptible beyond the standards required of the development and that has been very robustly interrogated by your wolf operators themselves and they are in agreement in terms of the riverside wharf the tarmac wharf which as you correctly say is is kind of in between us and the high development we have assessed it in isolation and assessed it from a cumulative perspective as well to make sure that there is no change in the noise profiles and again it sounds slightly unusual but it it isn't quite as loud as the angustina murphy's wharfs so it falls within that wider scope as well um we are very confident that we have robustly interrogated all noise sources here uh we've had the the level of monitoring that's been done on site has been substantial over the last almost 10 years that we've prepared been preparing this application and it's been under determination so and i i think that shows through the i won't say level support because that's not fair but the lack of objection from some of these key stakeholders is there not a worry that i mean at the moment angustine is not built up you've got pear tree way which which acts as a barrier but on the other side it's quite flat and open right to the thames barrier so as more and more developments come up and they're quite substantial in height will that not increase the the noise levels so we've assessed cumulatively for known but also for an indicative master plan the master plan has indicative massing so we've also used that as a potential cumulative within the eia so we have we have a broad understanding of what the long-term future impact is in reality the more schemes that come forward from an angustina murphy's perspective the better for us they will inevitably create barriers and sound typically travels on a you know a straight line viewpoint perspective so that should long-term benefit us but for the purposes plan application as you have in front of you it is assessed on what we consider to be the worst case scenario and then coming back to the question i sort of asked earlier um the flu that is in the middle of the wharf is going to have high buildings from hide on one side and on the end um that could possibly mean that with the wind circulation the pollution is going to head your way because you're at a lower level yes unfortunately uh we are in the direction of the well to an extent part of our schemes within the direction of the prevailing wind so that has been a very much a key consideration and i know we spoke a lot about mitigation from an acoustic perspective but a lot of our mitigation also works from an air quality perspective we have filtered air vents mvhr which oleg commented on we have a series of commitments within the scheme to make sure that the air quality uh impacts of adjacent uses uh do not detrimentally impact our residents and at the same time under the agent of change principle we do not put the use of the riverside wharf at jeopardy from future use for the introduction of vulnerable users so with the filtration systems you're talking about will they be in all of the all of the residential units they're not in all of them they are in the units which the assessments have deemed them to be required if that makes sense so in the same way we've done an acoustic report not all of the units need the highest level of acoustic mitigation from an air quality perspective not all of the units need the highest level of air quality mitigation oleg mentioned it we have the bookend approach block e does a lot of the work for the wider scheme and that's why it's a specific heights that's why they have liner sites deliberately on that point to help protect the people in there but am i right in thinking that the flu is higher than your building that your your proposal i don't think i mean with the problems that hide are having i don't think they'd agree to having your building on the other side higher than the top of the flu and i think that's been the stumbling block for height what i'm asking is if your buildings are lower than the top of the flu any any outflow from the flu is going to go across your entire site yeah i i must admit i'm not completely up to date on what hides issues are so i can only talk from my perspective but from our senses we we have been aware of that noise and air quality source since the start of the application it's been robustly monitored it's had attended surveys both from our consultant team and witnessed by riverside so tarmac's own operators and consultant team to make sure that they agree with the methodology that methodology is transferred into mitigation in the form of whatever is required throughout all of the blocks that has been robustly interrogated by the council's own assessors the by uh luc sorry completely forgot the name for a second the the council's eia assessors um the safeguarded war operators and their own consultants the pla and the ea and they've all come to the conclusion that it's acceptable so hopefully that will be the case notwithstanding that there are a series of detailed planning conditions that make sure that the minutia of this is picked up in the future and the council have the the opportunity to robustly interrogate it thanks mike um any further questions no mike oleg thank you very much members no further speakers open for deliberation david um thank you chair um i i think this is this like many applications is is very difficult um but um there are many issues some of which i have raised and other colleagues have raised in terms of the uh substandard um mix on affordability the substandard mix in terms of the range of um sizes of units uh the big issues in terms of um the proximity to the um tarmac site uh aggregate sites and the noise that generates um and i wasn't not entirely satisfied with the answers but on the other hand chair i am minded that we do this this this is this is like putting it it it it it's sort of making a start it's putting a stake in the ground in terms of charton riverside and while there is a small development next to willis road uh that's gone up there is not much else that's gone up some things have approval but this actually i think could be a catalyst for further development um that we want to see hopefully with more affordable housing and uh and more family housing as well hopefully some houses as well as flats um so i i i on balance chair i think that you know the the benefits in terms of active travel and improving the thames path benefits in terms of contribution to improving public transport uh benefits for the greening and the huge biodiversity net gain there are significant issues which some of which i hope can be addressed but i do think as this is so um symbolic strategically symbolic for the uh charton riverside opportunity area and for charton as a whole uh that we should approve it tonight thanks david callum uh thank you chair i think on the whole i agree with councillor gardner's conclusions there i think it's a much more sympathetic design than we often see um and i think we'll bring about some positive enhancements particularly along the thames path in terms of connections up to this bit of charlton um i would just like to suggest that we um strengthen the condition on the provision of cycle storage particularly for articulated and cargo um bikes because i think the poor petal rating means additional active travel as the intermediate between um here shopping centers and public transport um would be welcome and so i i think we should seek to increase the provision at the minute from the 48 i think included within this part of the plan um and sorry i should have asked one question previously as well uh but uh i am assuming that there will be a clear plan to maintain thames path access through construction um and it's kind of more for jonathan if that's something we would need to condition or if that's just part of the construction management plan to make sure that there is clearly signposted continuous access while the work is ongoing no thank you um in terms of in terms of teams path access that's that will be secured and maintained and was was an issue raised by our transport and tfl as well so yeah it's just chair to suggest that we seek to condition an increase in the um cycle in particular larger cycle storage units from the 48 uh jonathan yes uh um we would be able to uh increment amend the planning condition to do a cycle storage to uh provide for um an increase in and were you saying the cargo storage bikes and and yeah so i think across all types but in particular for some of the larger cycles and you know i i'm not suggesting we put a singular number on that i think that there can be reasonable discussion between yourselves and the applicants on what would work but i do think that at the minute there is quite an undersupply in terms of the potential um demand that there may be particularly in time when we have cycleway 4's connection right the way through from um from woolwich all the way up to the to the center of london as well thanks karen pat thank you chair i agree with everything that my colleagues have said i my main cons well i am cons we do need desperately obviously need houses um my one concern is about the the you know sort of the the one that you have come across mentioned about the noise and the pollution and i would like to see i don't know whether sort of in future with the other buildings that they can all have some kind of of mitigation measures against um you know sort of noise and so that people can keep the windows closed that's my main concern and i i don't know whether in the in future the other uh that can sort of be looked at in detail with the other sort of three you uh blocks that uh i will be supporting this but that is my own concern so to provide you with some comfort all the mitigation measures that were discussed by the applicant myself will be secured for the outline component and and those plots c d and e and even more comfort they will require uh consultation at the time with the safeguarded wharf operators ourselves obviously as as local authority but also the environment agency and the pla to ensure that all those acoustic requirements and those noise requirements that that have been mentioned and secured are carried forward in in the detailed design of the scheme um thank you thank you chair um i would just like to echo what the chair said earlier about the need or not the need the possibility and if it's possible to explore um expanding or x is not exchange replacing the shared ownership number for the affordable rent we definitely need to reduce the number of the 26 000 people we have on our waiting list i'm quite happy to see that we have three beds will be great if it is possible to increase the number because we definitely need more family accommodation in the borough we do um i'm quite glad to see um the play areas for children and i'm really glad particularly glad to see that there's going to be a specific area for girls for teenage girls i don't know what that is but i'm very delighted to see that i'm going to be supporting this application um just um if we could have those two little tiny bits explored thank you thanks any further comments from members no okay um on page 223 um affordable housing outline um i would just like to suggest that we swap out shared ownership to a discount market rental intermediate product um a discount market rental um a discount market rental intermediate product yeah if you can three points of doubt would be happy for the outline area only would be happy to work with you to secure the wording on that okay so if we can we can slot that in get that in writing yep okay so when i when i go to the vote i'm going to go to the vote subject to that condition okay everyone aware so with yeah it's it'll be kept it be captured under the section 106 clause yeah and also the cycles and an amendment uh that yeah this condition is 47 the cycle storage condition to um provide for light an increased provision of larger cycles okay so i'm going to put it to the vote with those two additions all those in favor please raise your hand item five item five is approved we now move on to item six and item seven which is kidbrook village phase five buildings a and b and south kater park kibbrook london se three nine y g reference two three three nine seven six f where's my other bit of paper and the rope yard royal london riverside plots d and k land between the duke of wellington avenue and beverson street london se 18 6 np reference 24 0 8 4 8 r and i must remind people we are only here to discuss the change in the materials we will not be discussing anything else regarding to that site apart from the change of materials thanks thank you chair so yeah this is item six and seven which are presented together and relate to kidbrook village phase five blocks a and b and the rope yard royal arsenal riverside plots d and k just a reminder of the two schemes as they were previously as they've previously been presented and approved at planning board kidbrook phase five blocks a and b is a scheme for 526 homes 41 of which are affordable the site is west of cantor park and east of kid park road it forms part of the kidbrook village redevelopment and comprises five buildings ranging from 10 to 14 stories here is an image of the scheme as presented to planning board in may 2024 as you can see all five buildings have a classic brick appearance the rope yards forms part of the final phase of the waterfront master plan at the royal arsenal they consist of the d and k blocks which form seven buildings ranging from 9 to 18 stories and comprise 663 homes 300 and 306 which of which are affordable both schemes have achieved a resolution resolution to grant from planning board kidbrook in may 2024 and the rope yards in 20 december 2024 since this time officers have been working with the developer to complete the legal agreement and issue the the permissions over the last 12 months the developer has been reconsidered the predominant facing material that would be used on the buildings condition 13 at kidbrook and 16 at the rope yard specified that it had to be full brick and not a brick slip system because the condition was very specific in this regard it has been determined that amending the condition to allow the use of a brick facing system goes beyond the delegated powers afforded to the assistant director to allow minor changes to the wording of the condition before issuing the permission as such these items are reported back to the planning board for consideration to be clear nothing else about either scheme has is being changed and the focus of this presentation is just around the amended wording of the condition i would highlight however there have been seven objections raised over the weekend which are primarily related to item seven at the rope yard these relate to concerns about a potential impact upon wellington park and the potential for air source heat pumps to be located within the park to be clear this proposal does not include any air source heat pumps within wellington park this is outside of the planning application redline boundary and separate from the planning considerations for members tonight the developer is now seeking to amend the condition to allow the possibility of using a product called sustainer brick sustainer brick is a lightweight product which is an alternative to a traditional brick facade system it's a brick panelized system which integrates a strong mesh webbing which holds a panel of 12 bricks together so they can be installed together they do not have to be laid on top of on top of one another individually like traditional brick and mortar approach the bricks themselves are generally composed of modern materials rather than traditional materials and do not undergo the same traditional kiln firing or oven process for those members who undertook the site visit on friday these images will be familiar these are the sample panels of the sustainer brick product which the developer has constructed at their plumstead site as can be seen here the appearance is almost identical to full bricks they can be manufactured in any color or tone and the mortar between the joints can also be adjusted as required as set out in the planning board report addendums there are a number of advantages for the sustainer brick product over traditional bricks and these are mainly related to its environmental benefits these includes requiring less hgvs to bring the materials to site and reduce carbon emissions in the manufacturing process given the above environmental benefits the fact the product is very similar in appearance in terms to traditional brick and it will speed up the delivery of homes within the borough it is considered acceptable to amend the conditions to allow for this alternative to be used in the facing materials of these buildings as such it's recommended the changes to condition 13 of 23 39 76 slash f and condition 16 of 2 4 0 8 4 8 slash r are approved thank you thanks tim any questions for the officer callum uh thank you very much chair and sorry i'm aware of the time i will be very quick um i apologize for not being able to make the site visit on friday work commitments meant i couldn't um i mean look none of us here are technical experts on some of us on this um and there's very little information one can find about sustain a brick online other than sales materials um so kind of asking for your kind of professional judgment is yes this is in line with building safety regulations but is there anything we should be concerned about here with this material um and you know not having been on the committee at the time that this was approved i don't know other informatives that you know other discussions that led to this being required as a condition so i'll have to defer to members who were on that but um i don't i just i feel additional any extra info you can provide and it's maybe more for the applicants to provide additional reassurance about the materials um yeah sorry i'm i'm giving away a bit of uncertainty just about this and a slight unease with with that as a result given that some of the building safety history in this country so so from the information we've received as offices we're satisfied that it does meet the quality that we would expect to come forward um as you can expect the applicant has tested it to death before they've got to this stage but i'm sure they'll have any uh they'll be able to answer any detailed questions for you david and dave thank you very much been obviously um enjoyed the um the visit seeing the products and so forth and hearing the arguments and looking at some case studies um but like councillor bern mulligan i can't see anything uh about the product sustain a brick that's independent and i wondered obviously we'll have the applicant will uh come along and and we've heard their their view of how brilliant it all is and so forth and all the great advantages but what uh due diligence independent due diligence have officers sought to do about this product other than talking to the applicant well yeah obviously officers have discussed the scheme with the applicant and considered the alternatives i think the one thing that's before members today is obviously the amendment to the condition doesn't specify they will use sustainer brick it's obviously their intention to but it doesn't necessarily mean it will it just removes the requirement of the condition that says they cannot consider a brick such as this or a material such as this so obviously from an officer's point of view having seen the materials and their their likeness to brick and their appearance as such and obviously gone on site and seen it overall officers have considered that in line with the policies and the schemes have been approved accordingly already and given resolution the difference would be minimal um tim considering considering considering the amount of um investigations and um testing that goes into external finishing on buildings these days wouldn't wouldn't the material have to pass certain accessible acceptable trade standards before it can be considered to put onto the building i mean we've those of us that went um to the site visit saw the multiple layers of different materials that are part of this system it's just not it's not a one layer system it's a multiple system with different polymers that are already used in the rendering process already so it's like a cement polymer render um which is used as an adhesive then there's a top coat with a reinforced mesh that goes through it and then the the brick tiles are also fixed to a mesh which also bonds to the layers when it all goes off and then there's another one that comes in to do the pointing um none of it is of a flammable material so you've got different multiple layers of strength and waterproofing um whereas you know bricklaying is just a brick and there's possible cavity walls and everything else beyond it so anything else to add to that tim sorry i think that's probably a question directed best to the applicant okay members do we need do you have questions for the applicant while they're here yeah just a quick one is it cheaper yes okay will that compromise the safety the well-being of future duration of the property i think it might be easier to come up and uh thank you chair members um trying to allay the uncertainty uh around this product um it is a system that we have been exploring um with uh industry leading manufacturers uh and suppliers um it's a product um manufactured in wales we've been looking at this for three and a half years um we have robustly uh undertaken research and development this um with the british research establishment with the fire uh testing facilities at warrington um we're obviously looking at our own reputation at the borough's reputation maintaining high quality of finish and appearance which i hope members that um visited site the other day appreciated fundamentally as your chair set out it is um a non-flammable um form of construction which is important after grenfell clearly um and it meets all the functional requirements of of the building regulations the updated building regulations so it is something that we have been exploring um there is as you rightly say little background sort of evidence online to this but that's partly because we've tried to keep this relatively tight and quiet at the moment but um if it gives members confidence other london boroughs have have been delivering um this system uh southwark merton um wandsworth um they've got something going up in tower hamlets and city of london and indeed elsewhere in slough and birmingham so um there are precedents um and uh we are there com we are comfortable that this this is um a way forward to maintain the viability of schemes um we did answer some questions the other day around you know um uh the cost effectiveness is this there there are cost savings but those savings sort of um are are there to try and match um uh a 35 increase in bill costs over the part of the lifetime of this application because we've been looking at this scheme for since 2022 um with the increasing closure of brickworks uh and energy costs um to those brick works um and and just by way of example we've seen a hundred pounds per thousand bricks cost increase over the past 11 months now those brickworks so it's about maintaining the viability giving us the confidence to be able to continue to deliver not look at any other metrics in the scheme and particularly not looking to to to reduce affordable housing delivery so we're very comfortable it's it's a marketable and a mortgageable product that we wouldn't be advocating um if if we weren't very very satisfied with it so just to confirm you have completed units that people are currently living in made with this material or you have other developments that are either currently or proposing to use this material in the construction phase so um we haven't yet um our first ones will be on these schemes but um those other boroughs that i mentioned have um either built examples the most recent one is in slough um and we've illustrated these um and set these details out to to members um and i think merton has one and southwark and the others are developing them and we will equally uh are having similar conversations with um tower hamlets and harringay any further questions no paul thank you very much thank you chair members do we need deliberate i don't think so just one thing is to be clear from member from colleagues who were members of the committee at the time that this was approved what was the intention behind the condition that it should all be built with brick because i just want to make sure we're not undermining the intention that members had when that condition was attached to this uh to this application at the time of both the original resolutions the schemes were presented as brick schemes um and so we put the condition on that said it shall be brick and nothing else and i don't from recollection i don't believe there was any specific conversations around the brick material okay so it wasn't a condition that sort of came about as we must have this on this was something agreed effectively between officers the developer while drawing up okay that's fine sorry i just wanted to be really clear that this was not something that was added for any specific reason or any other concern about the wider application okay on item six which is the kid brook village phase five buildings a and b all those in favor of the officer's recommendation unanimous item seven the rope yard royal london plots d and k all those in favor of the officer's recommendation the question unanimous thanks for staying with us um thanks everyone for coming this meeting is now closed