Agenda item
Caspian Wharf 39 - 75 Violet Road, London E3 3FW (PA/15/01846)
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned an application to install pedestrian and vehicular gates and relocate a pedestrian gate together with the relocation of refuse storage at the Voysey Square / Seven Seas Gardens development. The application had been presented at Committee on 20 June 2018 at which time the Committee deferred the application for investigation, negotiations and consideration of the proposed amendments presented at that meeting.
The Committee heard from the Planning Case Officer who set out the relevant issues. These were; improved access, permeability and antisocial behaviour (ASB). He noted that residents had objected to the removal of illegally erected gates at Seven Seas Gardens on grounds of ASB and contended that the relocation of the gates at the entrance to Ligurian Walk would address this concern.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee. Peter H and Mr P Pavey addressed the Committee highlighting the following matters:
· Residents’ objections related solely to the removal of the pedestrian gates at Ligurian Walk which had been installed to address residents’ safety concerns
· They were open during daylight hours and the benefits of their removal were unclear in regard to permeability since they gave access to an unlit canal-side wildlife area. Given the reason for their installation, the proposal to keep the gates open permanently or to remove them worked contrary to aim of designing-out crime but would promote predatory behaviour. This was evidenced in the types of serious crimes such as sexual assaults and stabbings which have been recorded.
· Crime Prevention Officers’ recommendations around safety had been ignored, nor had there been regard to the Council’s own policies or the Human Rights Act in proposing to remove them. Indeed it would make the area more vulnerable to crime and ASB.
· The Council’s approach was inconsistent as gated developments existed elsewhere in the borough and two additional had been proposed.
The Committee then heard from the agent Mr Palman who offered the following information.
· Gates had been installed by the developer at Caspian Wharf albeit without permission to address residents fear of crime and ASB.
· After considering a range of alternatives, a revised proposal had been submitted at the meeting on 20 June which proposed additional gates at Seven Seas Gardens.
· The developer sympathised with residents’ concerns and had therefore sought to provide a form of managed control.
· The compromise solution before the Committee was the result of engagement with residents over a number of years intended to rectify the authorised works undertaken and at the same time to mitigate residents’ security concerns.
Following this submission, the Committee heard from Councillor Hassell, the Ward Councillor. He highlighted the following matters:
· Residents felt that the security arrangements at the time of development did not offer an assurance of safety.
· The gates currently installed and those proposed at Voysey Square were necessary to deter crime and ASB.
· The open space within the development did not form part of any through-route to other locations therefore there was little reason to retain night time access to it.
In closing objectors asked the Committee to consider the wider picture to ensure that residents felt safe while preserving access.
The Committee then questioned each of the speakers in turn and in response, they provided the following information.
Mr Palman informed the Committee:
· The pedestrian gates had been installed in the best interests of residents.
The Objectors informed the Committee:
· There had been no discussions with Safer Neighbourhood Team Officers (SNT) around ASB. Councillor Hassell added that SNT was aware that this was an area of crime.
- Concerning the location of the crimes of assault and sexual crime reported by the objectors; an assault took place in this Caspian Wharf development and a stabbing (a gang-related matter resulting from a cycle theft) also took place outside Caspian Wharf. Additionally there was out-spill ASB from the Tesco store located opposite Ligurian Walk and there had been two arrests outside the pedestrian gates the past two weeks.
· The CCTV spoken of by Councillor Hassell was not operational
- If the application should be refused and the pedestrian gates removed, residents would seek to appeal the decision.
- In the past, the Council had permitted other gated developments and new had been built recently.
- There had been 61 objections to the application; this was a high response level relative to the type of development.
The Planning Case Officer provided the following information:
· The gates to be removed were; pedestrian gates (Ligurian Walk) located near the Limehouse Cut and gates at the entrance to the parking area.
· The relocated gates would control access to the amenity space. This was a compromise solution as it had been intended that there should be free access through out.
· Details on the cost of the gates were not available.
· There were no specific crime data for this area but Ward statistics indicated lower rates than the average for the borough.
Councillor Hassell provided the following additional information:
- The Estate Management Team managed the opening and closing of the pedestrian gates at Ligurian Walk; these should remain open between dawn and dusk. However, at times when incidents of antisocial behaviour had taken place, the gates had closed earlier.
- The cafe outlined in the on Caspian Wharf proposal was not implemented; later the commercial unit had been opened as a gym.
- Additional measures that would be present at night if the gates should be removed, were CCTV and a concierge albeit with a slightly restricted view. Councillor Hassell added that, in his view, the addition of lighting to the unlit canal-side wildlife area would have a detrimental effect on residents and on wildlife.
Having considered the arguments put forward, the Committee then discussed the issues of concern and their context in relation to the application before them.
The Chair observed that:
The matters relating to the pedestrian gates (Ligurian Walk) which had been installed without permission were an enforcement matter delegated to senior officers, and not within the gift of the committee to resolve. He invited the Development Manager to give advice and the Committee was informed that enforcement of breaches of planning control is a discretionary activity and the expediency and public interest of undertaking such action needs to be taken into account. Additionally enforcement was a matter delegated to Chief Officers who would act on the basis of the Council’s new Planning Compliance policy.
The original plan included free access through the development but subsequent to development the Developer, responding to residents’ safety concerns, had installed gates.
Councillor Hassell contended that, notwithstanding past decisions taken, it was never the less reasonable to give access to the amenity spaces and that these should remain open. The Planning Case Officer also argued that installation of gates led to the perception of a private area additionally gating was not a good response to antisocial behaviour issues. Cllr Hassell responded that the pedestrian gates had been closed at night in response to residents’ concerns around the serious crimes that had taken place.
Councillor Golds expressed concerns that officers’ intervention contradicted Police advice and observed the Police had made a recommendation in regard to measures against antisocial behaviour. He enquired what course the Council would take, should permission be refused. The Development Manager advised that should the application be refused, it was unlikely that enforcement take place immediately after because it was necessary to give time to assess the application and its impacts.
Councillor Golds also highlighted that it was practice to close public parks in the borough at night and this action did not breech an open access approach, in this context he observed that the decision must be balanced around the safety of the borough and the need to consider what is best for the residents.
The Chair further observed that since there was an S106 agreement condition around public access, there would be a benefit to the developer of gating and making the development private. He enquired whether mitigation of this benefit has been discussed with the developer. The Development Manager advised where there is a permission to develop, the developer decides how much of the permission to implement. If other mitigation could be achieved, it might be done through another application and included with other mechanisms such as deed of variation. He directed the Committee to consider what was the right outcome of the matter.
Having considered the matter, the Chair proposed that Members vote on the officer recommendation to approve the application. On a vote of 3 in favour and 2 against, the Committee
RESOLVED
That the application for the erection of a vehicular and pedestrian gate at Voysey Square, instalment of a gated link through Block A3, retention of a vehicular and pedestrian gate located at Seven Seas Gardens, relocation of pedestrian gates on Ligurian Walk and reconfiguration and location of cycle parking and refuse storage within Voysey Square BE GRANTED subject to conditions
Compliance conditions
1. Permission valid for 3 years;
2. Development in accordance with approved plans;
Prior to commencement conditions
3. Access Strategy, including hours each of the gates are open during daylight hours
Supporting documents: