Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
11-01-19 3-in-1 Greenwich Market

11-01-19 3-in-1 Greenwich Market

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,352 |Likes:
Published by greenwichcouk

More info:

Published by: greenwichcouk on Jan 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/01/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Julian Pitt, Planning Central CaseworkDepartment for Communities and Local Government1/H1, Eland HouseBressenden PlaceLondon SW1E 5DU
 
Tel 03034441630Email: julian.pitt@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Neil LucasDrivers Jonas DeloitteAthene Place66 Shoe LaneLondonEC4A 3BQOur Refs:APP/E5300/A/10/2123272APP/E5300/E/10/2123273APP/E5300/A/10/212327419 January 2011Dear Mr Lucas
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78.PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990 –SECTIONS 20 and 74.APPEALS BY GREENWICH HOSPITAL: LAND BOUNDED BY GREENWICHCHURCH STREET, COLLEGE APPROACH, KING WILLIAM WALK ANDNELSON ROAD, GREENWICH; AND THE MONUMENT GARDEN, OLD ROYALNAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been givento the report of the Inspector P J Asquith MA(Hons) MA MRTPI who held a publiclocal inquiry which opened on 7 September 2010 into your client’s appeals under:-A. Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal ofthe London Borough of Greenwich to grant planning permission for developmentfor hotel (C1), retail (A1-A5) and storage, ancillary office (B1), new market roof,operation of a market, new servicing areas and associated works, on landbounded by Greenwich Church Street, College Approach, King William Walk andNelson Road, Greenwich (Ref: 09/0829/F).B. Sections 20 and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and ConservationAreas) Act 1990 against the refusal of the same Council to grant ConservationArea Consent for demolition and works to unlisted buildings in Greenwich WestConservation Area, in association with proposals for the regeneration ofGreenwich Market, on land bounded by Greenwich Church Street, CollegeApproach, King William Walk (KWW) and Nelson Road, Greenwich (Ref:09/0830/C).C. Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal ofthe London Borough of Greenwich to grant planning permission for the erectionof a temporary structure to include retail (Use Classes A1 and A5) and storage,operation of a market, provision for pedestrian access, diversion of cycle routeand associated works, at The Monument Garden, Old Royal Naval College,Greenwich (Ref: 09/1338/C).
 
2. The appeals were recovered for the Secretary of State’s determination, inpursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of schedule 6 to, the Town andCountry Planning Act, because ‘the appeal involves proposals which would have anadverse impact on the outstanding universal value, integrity, authenticity andsignificance of a World Heritage Site (WHS).’3. The Inspector recommended that the appeals be allowed and planningpermission and conservation area consent be granted. For the reasons givenbelow, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. A copyof the Inspector's report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers,unless otherwise stated, are to that report.
Procedural Matters
4. The Secretary of State notes that an amended proposal was put forward by theappellant for consideration at the Inquiry, and that the Inspector was satisfied that itwas acceptable to consider this amended proposal (IR3-6). The Secretary of Stateagrees with the Inspector’s assessment of this matter and, like the Inspector, hasgone on to consider Appeal A on the basis of an “Application Scheme” and an“Amendment Scheme”. He does not consider that any prejudice has been causedto any party in doing so.5. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has taken into account theEnvironmental Statement (ES) and ES addendums which were submitted under theTown and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England andWales) Regulations 1999 (IR6, 8 and 309-310). Like the Inspector (IR310) theSecretary of State considers that the ES and ES addendums as a whole meet therequirements of these regulations and that sufficient information has been providedfor him to assess the environmental impact of the application.
Policy Considerations
6. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires thatproposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless materialconsiderations indicate otherwise. In this case, the development plan comprises theLondon Plan 2004 (consolidated 2008) and the saved policies of the Greenwich2006 (UDP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policiesmost relevant to the appeal are those set out by the Inspector at IR15-21. TheLondon Plan – Consultation Draft Replacement Plan (October 2009) is atconsultation stage and may be subject to change, and so is only afforded limitedweight.7. Other material considerations include the London View Management FrameworkSPG (July 2010); Greenwich Planning Obligations Supplementary PlanningDocument (SPD) (February 2008); West Greenwich Draft Conservation AreaAppraisal (September 2009); Maritime Greenwich – World Heritage SiteManagement Plan (December 2004); and Circular 07/2009 on the Protection ofWorld Heritage Sites in England (IR22).8. The Secretary of State has also taken into account as material considerationsPlanning Policy Statement (PPS) 1:
Delivering Sustainable Development 
, Planning
2
 
Policy Guidance (PPG) 2:
Green Belts,
PPS3:
Housing,
PPS4:
Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth,
 
PPS5:
Planning for the Historic Environment 
, PPG13:
Transport 
, Circular 11/95:
Use of Conditions in Planning Permission 
; Circular05/2005:
Planning Obligations 
, and the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.9. In deciding these appeals, the Secretary of State has paid special attention to thedesirability of preserving listed buildings and their setting or any features of specialarchitectural or historic interest they possess, as required under the provisions ofsections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act1990. As the site of the applications is situated within the West GreenwichConservation Area (WGCA), the Secretary of State has also had regard to thedesirability of preserving and enhancing the character or appearance of this area, asrequired by section 72 of the same Act.
Main Issues
10. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s general comments set out inIR309-311.Impact of the development works at Greenwich market on the WGCA, setting oflisted buildings and WHS11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusionson the impact of the proposal, as set out in IR313-346. He agrees that theApplication Scheme, by reason of the design of the three-arch KWW facade and theproposed market canopy, would be harmful to the character and appearance of theWGCA; would adversely impact on the outstanding universal value of the WHS;and, therefore, would be contrary to the relevant national policy aimed at protectingWHSs and contrary to relevant development plan policies (IR345). Conversely, theSecretary of State agrees that, subject to suitable conditions, the AmendmentScheme would conserve the appearance and character of the WGCA; protect theoutstanding universal value, integrity and authenticity of the WHS; preserve thesetting of nearby Grade II listed buildings; and, would not represent anoverdevelopment of the site and would not conflict with PPSs or development planpolicies aimed at securing development which serves to conserve importantheritage assets (IR356).Impact on the living conditions of adjoining residents12. For the reasons given in IR347-349, the Secretary of State agrees with theInspector that whilst the scheme would result in some degree of increased sense ofenclosure and loss of outlook for residents in KWW, these would not unacceptablydetract from their living conditions, or be of such magnitude as to conflict with thedevelopment plan (IR349).The effect on highway and pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic13. For the reasons given in IR350-362, the Secretary of State agrees with theInspector that there is no substantive evidence that the development, which is in alocation highly accessible by public transport, would be likely to lead to situations
3

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->