Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest.

Members approved minutes for Committee B held on 19^th July.

Prior to presentation of the 3^rd item, the Chair announced that the 4^th Item on the agenda, 34 St Margaret’s Passage, had been pulled from the agenda by officers due to some late information being received by herself during that day, which officers did not have time to consider prior to the meeting.

The presenting Planning Officer Suzanne White (SW) explained the details of the application by Lewisham Homes for the demolition of 8 garages, surface car park and ‘drying area’ at Knapdale Close, to allow the construction of 17 self-contained flats of 100% socially rented tenure.

27 letters of objection were received, and 1 in support. A local meeting was held on 4^th June 2018, where issues including existing management of the estate, sunlight/daylight/overlooking concerns, and highways concerns were raised.

The proposal is considered by officers to be acceptable, and the scheme therefore recommended for approval. Questions from Councillors to the presenting officer followed.

Councillor Muldoon (CM) raised concern that the parking would not be allocated and SW clarified that Condition 16 was for submission of details of a Parking Management Plan to control this issue.

Councillor Kelleher (CK) stated that she lives on an estate, and that non-residents parking there is an issue, and stated that the management plan should ensure only residents can use the spaces.

Councillor Johnston-Franklin (CJF) raised concern that the lack of provision of wheelchair units was not policy compliant. SW explained that due to level changes on-site, it was not practical to deliver wheelchair units in this location, and where there are practical difficulties, the policy allows for less provision of wheelchair units. It was explained that any wheelchair user in this location would be required to have a car to access the site, and this would be an unreasonable expectation.

CJF reiterated her concern, and asked why it would not be possible to deliver at least one wheelchair unit in one of the end units. SW explained that any wheelchair user would not be able to get up Eliot Bank without a vehicle.

Chair Councillor Clarke (CC) noted that some of the trees to be removed were Ash Trees, and that Ash trees were becoming rare, and questioned whether any Ash trees would be replanted. SW clarified that there is no policy directly pertaining to protection of Ash trees, but that the replanted trees would all be native species.

CC stated that Ash trees should be replaced, and moved on to ask for a comparison of the height of the proposed buildings and the existing blocks of flats on the site. SW showed the elevation drawings again on the screen, and stated that a comparison had been made in the officers report, on page 30 of the agenda. SW stated that the heights were very similar to the existing blocks.

Councillor Rathbone (CR), following up from CC’s question, wanted to know how much of the height was due to the pitched roof. Approximately 2.5m above the top of the top windows clarified SW, and she stated that this was angled away from neighbouring windows, which reduces the bulk and impact on neighbouring occupiers’ amenity.

20:05 Councillor Bourne arrived and took a seat.

The Chair invited the applicant to approach the table and speak in support of the proposal. Neil Campbell (NC) of BPTW explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Pulled from agenda.

SW outlined the proposal for permission to install multiple marine works within Deptford Creek to facilitate barge movements associated with the construction of the Thames Tideway sewage pipeline. The public benefit of the work includes the fact there would be just 2 barge movements per day compared with hundreds of HGV movements. There is no long term ecological or heritage asset damage predicted. It was noted that Greenwich Council had already given consent to the works on their side of the creek.

CK noted that she was aware of 7 residential barges on the creek, and questioned the impact upon them. SW stated that this had been raised by an objector, and the proposal would have no impact on these barges, and navigational rights would not be affected.

CK raised further concern with regard to the residential barges, and asked whether there was a danger they could be capsized by the works, and whether any conditions could protect them.

CM stated he was concerned with the ecological impacts and raised specific concern regarding the impact on birds such as kingfishers. SW replied that she couldn’t answer specifics regarding the ecological impacts, but that the Environment Agency and the Council’s Ecological Regeneration manager had been consulted and were happy with the proposed mitigation measures.

CC asked why there was a need to re-silt the river bed after the works had been completed. SW replied that this was to reinstate the river bed back to its natural condition and to reinstate the ecology that would be lost due to dredging.

CFJ sought confirmation that the creek would be restored, and that no spoil would be left as a result when works have been completed. SW clarified that it would be highly unlikely to be left in a poor condition, considering the amount of statutory bodies involved in regulating the works.

The applicant, a representative of CVB who would carry out the works, and a representative of Thames Tideway took to the table to make their case in support of the proposal.

Firstly they stated that no one lives on the barges stored closest to the application site, and claimed they have been empty since 2007. Tideway have engaged with the owners of the vessels and they have been re-located. The closest barges being lived on are 100m from the dredging site.

They also clarified that kingfishers will not be affected, as the dredging would be over a short time-frame, and only the silt would be impacted. There is also a Construction Ecology Management Plan as a part of the wider Tideway works.

They also stated that as part of the works a lot of refuse had already been cleared from the creek, and other regulatory bodies are very strict about leaving things behind.

CK stated that the site is in her ward, and asked whether the tow-path on Lewisham’s side would be retained or reinstated, as access has recently been lost. The applicant replied that there would be no impact on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.