Planning Application Comments Archive

AS12/0810/F
58 Hyde Vale, SE10 8HP
Alteration to access arrangements including enlargement of front and rear light wells.

No objection.

AS12/0808/F & 12/0809/L
58 Hyde Vale, SE10 8HP
Third storey rear extension.

We do not have any objection to these applications, subject to neighbour’s views.

12/0765/F
62 Straightsmouth SE10 9LD
Replacement rear windows and roof covering and installation of rooflight, relocation of rear door, railings to rear light well and rendering of rear elevation

Not happy about carrying up the rendering: this is a Local Listed building part of a group Nos. 50-76 Straightsmouth. No information about the adjacent materials is given. It is clear from the elevations that there are to be substantial internal alterations, which are not covered in the application drawings. Windows are stated as ‘to match existing’ and elsewhere as ‘modern thermally efficient’. We assume this means new timber sash windows with draft stripping and double glazing?

AS12/1051/A & 12/1087/F
Frankie and Benny's restaurant, Greenwich Promenade
One externally illuminated fascia sign, two externally illuminated logo signs, illuminated menu box and various window lettering. Also the external seating area

We consider that there is far too much repetition of signs. This is a precious environment and the many superfluous signs will lead to clutter and information overload. We urge that the proliferation of decals on the windows and logos on the canvas screens should be rejected.

AS12/1124/A
Dreadnought building and Stephen Lawrence building, King William Walk
Non-illuminated banners and signs across the site.

We object to the triple banner BT1 at the corner of King William Walk. This appears to be unnecessary and adds to the clutter. There is already a ‘Royal Greenwich’ banner on the adjacent lamp post.

SM12/0590/O
Land to SW of the O2 (Plot no.NO506 and land at Peninsula Wharf SE10
Outline planning permission for revised plot planning parameters and land use etc.

Amendments seem fine and to be supported.

AS12/0894/F & 12/0895/L
18 King George St
Formation of shower room in first floor rear bedroom and construction of a timber shed in the rear garden.

No objection.

VW 12/0971/A
Site rear of Greenwich Railway Station facing Straightsmouth SE10 8JA
5M x 5M vinyl wall sign for a temporary period.

No objection.

KE 12/1001/A
261-267 Greenwich High Rd SE10 8NE
Internally illuminated fascia and projecting signs

This may be a sophisticated and elegant design – but, internally illuminated signs are not permitted in Greenwich Town Centre.

RD 12/1029/L
49 Maze Hill SE10 8XQ
Internal alterations

No objection.

AS 12/1081/
Ibis Hotel, 30 Stockwell StOne externally illuminated fascia sign and non- illuminated banner and entrance signs

No objection.

KE 12/0907/F & 12/0908/L
Land adj. To Dreadnought Library. ORNC. King William
Walk Stand by generator

No objection, but would be better if the walls of the existing skip enclosure could be raised slightly to mask to top of the generator.

VW 12/1073/F
1 & 2 Lovell’s Villars, Banning Street, Greenwich, SE10 0NJ
Construction of a new third storey forming a 3-bed self-contained flat with access steps on side elevation.

We consider that the new third floor appears out of scale and character with the existing building.

KE 12/0766/F
11 Hadrian St SE10 9AQ Including the group of applications for 11 – 14 Hadrian Street
Part 1, part 2 storey extension.

We do not have any objection to these applications.

KE 12/1289/F
74 Hyde Vale SE10 8HP
Replacement timber windows

No comment

AS 12/0828/A
BP Trafalgar Rd. Garage
14 non- illuminated 2012 sponsorship signage

No comment.

VW 12/1006/L
213 Greenwich High Rd
2 replacement rear timber windows

No comment

12/0303/F & 12/0304/L
Dwarf Orchard, Park Vista, Greenwich SE10
Installation of metal Gates and grill, re-pointing, landscaping & reinstatement of covered well and gateway.

We were pleased with these proposals, and commended the design and landscaping.

12/0781/A
The Auctioneer, 217-219 Greenwich High Rd
Externally illuminated fascia and hanging sign. Internally illuminated poster signs.

We note that the proposals have already been erected, and that therefore this must be considered as an application for retrospective planning permission. We have no objecting to the fascia sign, or to the internally illuminated poster signs, which in this instance might be considered as overhead lighting in a glass frame. However, we are concerned about the number of globe lights fitted, numbering 10 in all, four of which just light the continuous fascia board where there in no actual sign to illuminate. The effect walking up Greenwich High Road and seeing the lights on acute angle, gives an altogether overpowering effect out of character with the area.

12/0523/F
13 Hadrian St SE10 9AQ
Rear Extension – part 1 part 2 floors

Noted that this is a Local List building, part of a Group, 1-19 (consec). The Design & Access Statement says, “An area of the south facing roof has been allocated for photovoltaic panels that will contribute electricity to the development in the future”; however, the drawings do not show the panels which, we gather would be on the flat roof of the extension? The Greenwich Society, though would have not have any objection to this application.

The Greenwich Society has no objection to the following applications in the West Greenwich Area sent to us for comment. 12/0605/A, 12/0707/F, 12/0837/TC, 12/0642/F, 12/0474/A, 12/0748/L, 12/0881/F, 12/0520/F,12/0675/F, 12/0097/L, 12/0901/F, 12/0922/TC.

12/0590/O
Land to south-west of the O2 (Plot NO506) and land at Peninsula Quays, Greenwich Peninsula, SE10
Outline planning Permission for the revised plot parameters and land use in relation to Plot NO506 (23,947 sq m of student accommodation etc; and Full Planning Permission for infrastructure and public realm works, etc.

We much regret that there has been no pre-application consultation on this important development, and feel that the Society’s concern should be brought to the attention of the applicant.

Outline Planning Permission for the revised plot parameters and land use in relation to Plot NO506:

The Greenwich Society has no objection to this application. However, we note that the provision for 850 students here, plus the provision for 264 students for the Ravensbourne College well exceeds the provision in the approved Masterplan for 120 students: the application does not appear to address the justification for this increase, and we continue to have concerns on grounds of sustainability regarding the apparent ever increasing numbers of people being accommodated on the Peninsula.  We support the proposed change in land use from offices plus car parking for 899 cars to meeting student accommodation needs, as this seems a good area for it – and we support the reduced provision of just 15 car parking spaces plus bicycles for the 850 students proposed ea – and not having such a car generation at this point so close to the bus terminal and other traffic generating uses, we feel is a good thing. However, we note that the 899 space car park, which allocated for the O2, is to be provided elsewhere on the Peninsula on a site still to be determined, and are somewhat concerned as to where this is going to be, and what it will, in turn, displace.  In supporting the general massing of the block proposed, the section illustrating this (p.28 of the Design & Access Statement) raises a question at to how the lower student block is to connect to the student Reception and Back of House area under the taller block – but no doubt this will be made clear at the Full Planning Permission application stage; as, it is hoped details of student recreation and social facilities which would be needed for a student complex of this size. 

Full Planning Permission for infrastructure and public realm works etc:

The Greenwich Society commends this application for its excellent presentation, very thorough detailing and imaginative treatment of the soft and hard landscaping elements – and has no objection to the proposals.

12/0157/F
The Mitre, 291 Greenwich High Rd SE10 8NA
300 mm diameter telecom dish (resubmission)

The Greenwich Society notes that the dish has been reduced in size, but that it still in a prominent position on the front of the chimney stack against UDP/Core Strategy policy for satellite dishes.  If it can’t be positioned where it will not be seen from Greenwich High Road, we think it would be better moved back to a third of the way along the stack. Otherwise, no objection.

12/0112/A
12A Turnpin Lane SE10 9JA
Non illuminated fascia and hanging signs.

The Greenwich Society considers that the proportions of the sign board should be improved to fit better with the scale of the street, by being smaller, contained within the width of the window below and allowing the head of the window to show.

12/O464/F & 12/0465/C
24-28 Greenwich High Road, Greenwich SE10
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 4 x 4 terraced houses with basements etc .

The Greenwich Society strongly objects to the application on the grounds of over development, further loss of the existing heritage of oldGreenwich, and unsatisfactory design. Concerning over development, we note that the density of 571 hrh does not conform with the UDP density policy H9 iii  and the London Plan range of 200-450 hrh for developments in such areas as this. We consider that the three existing houses should be retained in support of the Council’s policy   seeking to preserve a mix of modern and historic properties, especially for surviving pre-1914 buildings to be conserved.  There is a developing pattern of building overriding the conservation policies in the Ashburnham Triangle CA and we consider further loss of the areas historic heritage should only be as a last resort, which we do not consider to be the case here.  That so much other new building development has been allowed along this road should be not a case for allowing this development; rather the contrary: it becomes more than ever to keep what remains of the historic heritage here. We also oppose this application on the grounds of unsatisfactory design in as much as the setting back of the ground floor on the street, elevation and the overlarge windows on the rear elevation, are totally wrong in proportion and character to the style of architecture chosen for this particular development.

12/0329/F & 12/0330/L
9 Maidenstone Hill SE10 8SY
First floor rear extension, rear infill conservatory and internal alterations

The Greenwich Society has no objections to this application

12/0485/A
Rose and Crown, Crooms Hill, SE10 8ER
Installation of externally illuminated fascias and hanging sign, externally illuminated menu boxes and two replacement lanterns.

The Greenwich Society has no objection in principle to this application – but we do strongly object to the fact that the signs have already been erected.  We note, however, that aluminium framing is proposed, rather than the traditional wood framing which properly should be used here – and that the glass covering of the fascia signs reflect light in a way rather alien to the style of lettering and character of the building.

12/0442/F
44-46 Greenwich Church Street, Greenwich, SE10
Change of use from A1/A2 to coffee shop (mixed A1/A3 use).

The Greenwich Society objects to this application on grounds of further loss of retail A1 use accommodation within Greenwich Town Centre, contrary to the Council’s UDP policies TC10 and TC18 and draft Core Strategy TC(a) and TC(b) which seek to retain a minimum of 70%  of core frontage in A1 Use and says non-retail use will not be permitted if it results in a break between occupied A1 premises exceeding two units in a core frontage. We consider that 44 – 46 Greenwich Church Street should be considered as two shops for the purposes of the Town Centre shopping polices, and that plans clearly show a major A3 use being proposed here.

12/0453/F
76, Hyde Vale Greenwich, SE10
Excavation of basement, formation of light wells, extension of first floor side terrace to rear of property and new boundary treatments (Resubmission).

The Greenwich Society admires the care and ingenuity put into this design and the presentation of this application – and is pleased that the frontage of this Locally Listed building is to remain unchanged.  However we consider that the basement windows on this frontage are rather out of character with the building and feel they should be constructed to the same width as the windows above.  We note the higher terrace at the back and question whether there might be an overlooking

12/0486/F
87 Royal Hill SE10 8SE
Single storey rear extension

The Greenwich Society notes that this is a Locally Listed building, part of a Group, Nos. 65-87 (odd) Royal Hill, and is concerned over the scale of this extension, and that it extends a further 1m beyond the existing rear building line and 1.5m beyond the single-storey extension of No. 85 adjoining. We feel that the new extension should not stretch beyond the outer face of the existing kitchen.  We are also concerned at the inadequacy of the ‘natural’ light proposed and artificial ventilation needed for the basement study room, and the paucity of natural light for the dining room – and we also consider the use of Eternit slates unfortunate in a Conservation Area even though this is proposed ‘to match the extension at 85 Royal Hill’ adjoining: we feel that natural slates should be used here.

12/0530/A
Cutty Sark Café and Restaurant, 38 Greenwich Church St.
Installation of externally illuminated fascia, hanging sign and canopy.

The Greenwich Society has no objection to this application.

12/0378/F & 12/0379/L
211 Greenwich High Road Greenwich, SE10
Construction of a first floor side extension, installation of windows on flank wall  and glazed doors and windows  at rear basement

The Greenwich Society has no objection to this application

12/0444/F & 12/0443/L
Land r/o 28 & 30 King George Street, Greenwich, SE10
Change of use from Light Industrial to Residential including repositioning of gates, reconstruction of part front boundary wall and installation of garden shed.

The Greenwich Society has no objection to this application.

12/0494/F
Plot MO120, John Harrison Way, Greenwich Peninsula, SE10
Two nine storey blocks plus connected ground floor for student accommodation comprising 264 units, communal student service areas, cycle store, communal amenity space, main reception and staff areas, disabled car parking, servicing, plant access and landscaping.

The Greenwich Society welcomes the submission of a design of such general overall quality, and applauds the quality of presentation – and the pre-application consultation carried out (though this came at rather too a late stage, seemingly, for our comments to considered).  The Society notes, however, another planning application for student accommodation (12/0590/F, for 850 student units on Plot NO506 in the business Peninsula Central area) and wonders whether the two application should be considered together, and whether it might not be better for there to be just one, enlarged, student campus on the Peninsula.

With regard to this application, the Society would like to comment regarding certain, in our mind salient, points – the main ones (Items 1-3 below), were made to the architects at the pre-application consultation:

1,       The corner of East Parkside and John Harrison Way:  We regret that the opportunity has not been taken here to make a ‘statement’ on this important corner. The Greenwich Peninsula Masterplan indicated such in its massing and profile.  We consider it would have been better if the seven-storey block on the corner of East Parkside and John Harrison Way could have been brought forward to the edge of the red line fronting East Parkside as shown on the applicant’s Plan P001. This would have served to provide both a ‘frame’ to the Central Park and to the Millennium Village Oval Square on the other side of John Harrison Way, and help link the two areas together.  If it is wished to keep to the  arrangements here for a straight through foot-way link to the Greenwich Millennium Village Oval Square across John Harrison Way, there is no reason why the upper levels of the building should not ‘over-sail’ to achieve the desirable ‘framing’ effect.

2,       We feel that the elevation of the blocks facing Chandlers Avenue would be greatly improved by the central atrium having projecting balconies on alternating floor as is being provided on the opposite side facing East Parkside.  This would provide more modelling, that we feel called for here.

3,       Whilst the clean lines and floor to ceiling glazing is very much liked, this might present problems of appearance at the corner units when the furniture is installed.  Looking at the plans showing position of desks/cupboards etc in comparison with the elevations, it would appear that the purity of the simple fenestration would be compromised by the view of the backs of the furniture in these corner units.  This is a small matter which could easily be overcome – but how needs to be shown.

4)       There is a dichotomy regarding the ground floor plan of the blocks and the elevations here.  The elevation to East Parkside shows window glazing to a bicycle store and a substation exactly the same as for the Communal Space on the other side of the main entrance. This surely cannot be right.  Similarly, on the Chandlers Avenue side of the building, there is a large Refuse room, which has been given the same elevational treatment (large window) as for the Multi-functional Room on the opposite corner of the building. If this is the elevational treatment required, then the planning arrangements on the ground floor (Drg. No. P100) should be changed to reflect this, with more communal space being provided and with the service element (part) provided in a basement.

12/0256/A
Restaurant D, Greenwich Promenade, King William Walk, Greenwich, SE10
Retention of one internally illuminated fascia sign and 3 internally illuminated window signs.

 

The Greenwich Society strongly objects to this application on grounds of size, design and lighting of the proposed advertisements, which we consider inappropriate for this important site facing the Grade II Listed Pepys Building.  We object to the size of the fascia sign and the three window signs - and to the proposal for these signs to be internally illuminated which we consider inappropriate for this historic area, and which is contrary to the Council's policy regarding advertising signs in Greenwich Town Centre.  The material of the main fascia sign spelling 'Frankie & Benny's', "powder coated aluminium with red moulded acrylic push through lettering", we think is cheap and entirely unsuitable for such a historic setting within a World Heritage Site.  We consider that a more tasteful and higher standard of design should be employed here. We are most concerned that these signs have already been erected by the developer in advance of any consent being granted, and urge that planning consent be refused and action taken to remove the signs. 


12/0307/A
Zizzi, W2 West Pavilion, Greenwich Promenade, Greenwich, SE10
Installation of one externally illuminated lettering, one internally illuminated lettering, two internally illuminated window signs and one non-illuminated window logo

The Greenwich Society strongly objects to this application on grounds of certain aspects of design, e.g. size and colours of the fascia sign at the entrance and the rondals proposed; materials of the sign on the northern/riverside elevation, and internal illumination of the signs. We object to the design of the sign on the northern/riverside elevation of the building, considering the colours, and the material for the wording, "pushed through cream acrylic with the 'ristorante' text in red acrylic", cheap and unsuitable for a building at such an important entry point to Greenwich and the World Heritage Site.  As for application 12/0256/A, we consider that a more tasteful and higher standard of design should be employed here.

12/0256/A
Restaurant D, Greenwich Promenade, King William Walk, Greenwich, SE10
Retention of one internally illuminated fascia sign and 3 internally illuminated window signs.

 

The Greenwich Society strongly objects to this application on grounds of size, design and lighting of the proposed advertisements, which we consider inappropriate for this important site facing the Grade II Listed Pepys Building.  We object to the size of the fascia sign and the three window signs - and to the proposal for these signs to be internally illuminated which we consider inappropriate for this historic area, and which is contrary to the Council's policy regarding advertising signs in Greenwich Town Centre.  The material of the main fascia sign spelling 'Frankie & Benny's', "powder coated aluminium with red moulded acrylic push through lettering", we think is cheap and entirely unsuitable for such a historic setting within a World Heritage Site.  We consider that a more tasteful and higher standard of design should be employed here. We are most concerned that these signs have already been erected by the developer in advance of any consent being granted, and urge that planning consent be refused and action taken to remove the signs. 


12/0307/A
Zizzi, W2 West Pavilion, Greenwich Promenade, Greenwich, SE10
Installation of one externally illuminated lettering, one internally illuminated lettering, two internally illuminated window signs and one non-illuminated window logo

The Greenwich Society strongly objects to this application on grounds of certain aspects of design, e.g. size and colours of the fascia sign at the entrance and the rondals proposed; materials of the sign on the northern/riverside elevation, and internal illumination of the signs. We object to the design of the sign on the northern/riverside elevation of the building, considering the colours, and the material for the wording, "pushed through cream acrylic with the 'ristorante' text in red acrylic", cheap and unsuitable for a building at such an important entry point to Greenwich and the World Heritage Site.  As for application 12/0256/A, we consider that a more tasteful and higher standard of design should be employed here.