258-home mixed-use redevelopment at Plots 501-503, Incl, Adopted Highway Land to the South, Part of Dryden Rd (adj Plots 402+405) & Part of Trathen Square

The site and surroundings

The site covered Plots 501-503 and adjoining land within Greenwich Millennium Village, beside Bugsby’s Way, Peartree Way and Trathen Square.

“The application site is situated to the north of Bugsby’s Way and to the west of Pear Tree Way. The application site forms Plots 501, 502 and 503 as well as land to the south of plots 302-304 and land which is adjacent to Plots 402 and 405 Greenwich Millennium Village (GMV345) development and comprises an area of approximately 0.9 hectares.”

“The majority of the application site is within plots 501, 502 and 503 of the GMV masterplan. Under this masterplan reserved matters was approved for the plots for 4,887 sqm of commercial floorspace within a 5 storey building within plot 503 and landscaping situated within plots 501 and 502. However, the existing site comprises a site office and car park associated with the construction of GMV.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier permissions established a wider masterplan, including residential development, commercial floorspace, landscaping and reserved matters for Plots 501-503.

“19/1545/MA - An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 was granted on the 14 th November 2019 for a minor material amendment in connection with the planning permission 14/1633/MA (dated 23/12/2014) for mixed use development comprising: up to a total of 1,746 Class C3 residential units; up to a total of 1,190 sq.m (GEA) Flexible Class A1 (shops) and/or A2 (financial and professional services) and/or A3 (restaurants and cafes) and/or…”

“19/4058/R - Reserved matters for plots 501-503 was granted on the 5.02.2021 for an application seeking approval of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping, for Plot 501, 502 and 503 (Parcel 5) of Greenwich Millennium Village Phases 3, 4 & 5 development (GMV 345) pursuant to Condition 2 of outline planning permission reference 19/1545/MA dated: 14/11/2019, involving the provision of 4,887 sqm of commercial floorspace (comprising 4,462sqm of Use Class B1 floorspace and…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because they considered the housing, affordable housing, public benefits and mitigation to outweigh heritage, daylight, sunlight and other impacts.

“From a strategic perspective the proposals would also bring housing to the Borough’s housing target and a policy compliant affordable housing provision. The provision of social rent family bed units at 38.7% of affordable housing units is considered a positive of the scheme. The residential units’ quality subject to being carried out in the sizes indicated on the floorplans would comply with the internal space standards.”

“The daylight/sunlight impacts to neighbouring properties would see some impacts to existing and future neighbouring properties. The largest impacts would be when assessed with daylight against vertical sky component (VSC). However, whilst this is acknowledged, it is also acknowledged that the site sits within a masterplan within an urban environment.”

Officer report

Who addressed the board

Representatives of the applicant addressed the Planning Board and answered Members’ questions.

What members debated

Members recognised the need for homes but remained concerned that the proposal was too tall and dense, with impacts on daylight, enclosure, townscape and protected views.

“Members moved to deliberate both the GMV applications before them with Members noting that the site had been designated as land for residential use as part of the 2012 Masterplan consent. However, a number of Members recognised the need for new homes but held a strong concern that the proposal was too tall, too dense, and they considered it a clear departure from the 2019 masterplan.”

“Members accepted the constraints of the site but also noted that the proposal had attracted 500 objections raising numerous concerns. Members appreciated the presentations from both sides, but remained concerned at the impact on of the proposal and considered that Members may benefit form a site visit and that the applicant should be given the opportunity to further consider the concerns raised by residents and the Members and explore the potential to improve green space,…”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted unanimously in favour of a site visit before deciding the application.

“The Chair put the proposal for a site visit to the vote with – 5 Members in favour 0 Members against 0 Members abstaining…”

Minutes

Why the decision was deferred

The application was deferred for a site visit and further responses on green space, the 20-storey block, light loss and protected World Heritage views.

“That the matter be deferred in order that Members could undertake a site visit and to allow the applicant to consider and respond to concerns raised in respect of loss of consented green space and available green public space; height and massing of the 20 story block including its impact on light loss to adjacent properties and cumulative impact on protected world heritage views.”

Minutes