Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee held on 3 September 2020 be confirmed as a correct record.

No interest was declared at the meeting.

RESOLVED:

Unanimously

To GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, and the addendum to it, in order to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development for:

·                     the construction of a below ground decentralised heating network pipeline (main route via Folkstone Gardens and Blackhorse Road) between SELCHP, Landman Way SE14 and Convoys Wharf, SE8.

AND

To GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, and the addendum to it, in order to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development for:

·                     the construction of a below ground decentralised heating network pipeline (alternative route via Grinstead Road) between SELCHP, Landman Way SE14 and Convoys Wharf, SE8.

The Principal Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation of the report, recommending that the Committee should approve the recommendation therein.  The Committee was advised that the addendum to the report consisted of amendments to conditions 5 and 6 in light of subsequent negotiations undertaken with the applicant after the main agenda was published.

The Committee noted the report and the addendum to it.  It was recognised that the recommendation comprised of two proposals.  The first was that it should consider a request for planning permission to construct a below ground decentralised heating network pipeline (main route via Folkstone Gardens and Blackhorse Road) between SELCHP, Landman Way SE14 and Convoys Wharf, SE8.  The second request was for the construction of a below ground decentralised heating network pipeline (alternative route via Grinstead Road) between SELCHP, Landman Way SE14 and Convoys Wharf, SE8. 

The Committee received clarification from the Officer that irrespective of the differences, each proposal would provide an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions and improve energy self-sufficiency in the north of the borough, with capacity to extend heating provision to other local homes and businesses.  However, only one of the proposals would be implemented because the applicant had indicated that it would not be financially viable to pursue both.   It was also clarified that the reason why the applicant decided to submit the alternative proposal as a necessary option was to prevent delays in applying for another planning permission to correct deviation from the proposed development plan in the event of potential problems during construction work on the main route.

In response to questions raised, the Officer advised the Committee that statements in the report were clear about conditions to mitigate against the impact of the proposed development on residents and the environment, irrespective of which route the applicant decided to implement.  Thus, although development on the highway via the main route would result in single lane closures, pedestrian access would be maintained throughout the proposed works.  It was confirmed that the same measures would be applied for the alternative option, except that a full street closure for vehicular access would be required at weekends when undertaking works under the railway bridge through the route map.  In his closing statement of the issues, the Officer gave an assurance to the Committee that the activities would form part of detailed mitigation measures in a Construction Management Plan (CPN) and a Traffic Management Plan (TPN) to be agreed prior to construction of the proposed site.

Specific to an enquiry on ecology, the Officer advised the Committee that assessments undertaken by the Council’s Ecological Officers confirmed that statements in the ecological report and conditions imposed therein were adequate for the type of application.

The Committee also received clarification from the Officer that the consultation exercise undertaken in relation to the proposed development was considered adequate.  It was stated that in addition to site notices, letters were sent via the post to businesses and residents in the local area.  The Committee noted that only one  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.