Issue - meetings
Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824)
Meeting: 31/05/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 9)
9 Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824) PDF 1 MB
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 4 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendations to grant planning permission (PA/11/03824) at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns over:
- The safeguarding status of Orchard Wharf.
- The impact on the FAT walk.
- Impact from noise and general use on the biodiversity of the site and the East India Dock Basin.
- Impact of noise on neighbours.
- Transportation impacts.
- Design and Impact on Views
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) presented the application regarding Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
John Gordon spoke in objection to the proposal. He stated that he was a resident of Virginia Quay that looked over looked the site. He referred to the regeneration of the area as an urban site. The signs indicated that the site would follow this pattern of urban regeneration and this informed his move to the area. This proposal was never presented in any of the plans.
This scheme would hinder its regeneration as a residential area. It would also cause pollution, put at risk the nature reserve and birds as demonstrated by research. It would increase traffic. The Leamouth roundabout would be unduly affected. However, the traffic implications in the report were unclear. The application should be refused.
In reply to Members, Mr Gordon stated that he lived in Pilgrims Mews. The plant would visually dominate the landscape. It would generate lorry movements onto the A road and the roundabout adding to the noise levels in the surrounding that were already very substantial.
Julian Hilton spoke in objection. He owned a property in Orchard Place. He stated that 50 residents had objected to the scheme. He questioned whether this would add value to the community. It would harm the regeneration already underway. The site owner opposed the application. The concrete structure would spoil the area and harm the nature reserve. The application should be rejected.
Councillor Tim Archer spoke in objection. The site was located within close proximity to the residential properties, Virginia Quay and Orchard Wharf and a nature reserve - a point for the proposed FAT walk. Therefore the application was wholly inappropriate for the area especially in view of its potential use. Objections had been received from key groups such as the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority. The site owners opposed the scheme as set out in their letter. Therefore, he urged the Committee to oppose the scheme.
Ms Vilna Walsh spoke in support of the application. The site had been designed as a safeguarding wharf since the 1990s and the recent 2012 review recommended that it be retained as such. The scheme would bring the site back into use and restore it back to its historic use in accordance with national and local policy. This with a high quality sustainable form of development given the use of river transport that made best use of the site. The Applicant had undertaken extensive public consultation and pre application discussions with the Council and had sought to address the concerns. There were a host of measures to mitigate the impact on the East India Dock Basin and ecology. In relation to noise and dust, all activities would be enclosed to prevent any adverse impacts. The Highways assessment had been approved by Officers as having no impact. It would create employment with opportunities for local people. The plant would ... view the full minutes text for item 9