Issue - meetings
Capital Wharf, 50 Wapping High Street, London E1W
Meeting: 10/10/2012 - Development Committee (Item 7)
7 Capital Wharf, 50 Wapping High Street, London E1W (PA12/01850) PDF 597 KB
Decision:
Update Report tabled
On a vote of 3 for, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA12/01850) at Capital Wharf, 50 Wapping High Street, London E1W be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the report on Capital Wharf, 50 Wapping High Street, London E1W
The Chair therefore invited the two registered objectors to address the meeting.
Amanda Day speaking in objection reported that she was a Trustee of the Turks Head Charity and a local resident. She objected to loss of views from the iconic walkway and across the Thames. A site visit would demonstrate this. 40 objections had been received from the residents about this issue. She did not agree that the handrail would deter antisocial behaviour (ASB). In fact it could attract it. She considered that this was one step away from gating the community. She read out a statement from another objector saying that there had never been any problems with abs on the site. She referred to the efforts of a local group and their hard fought campaigns to keep the area open to the public. The wall there already provided a safe boundary. The hand rail would pose a trip hazard to local children.
Richard Mellor spoke in support of the application. He reported on the increased use of the wall for improper means such as seating. This in turn encouraged ASB and created health and safety issues. This caused problems for the residents. The rail would be 1.4 metres high and would help deter these problems. It complied with policy and Officers considered that it was acceptable. No objections had been received from any of the statutory Authorities. Mr Mellor noted the 40 objections. However did not feel that most of them were material planning issues.
In summary, it was a modest addition to the wall, would enhance the safety of the footpath and help address ASB. Therefore it should be granted.
Members questioned the evidence of ASB at the site and how this would stop this. In reply, Mr Mellow reported that he had seen photographs of people sitting on the wall supplied by the applicant. Furthermore there was Police evidence of incidences of ASB on site that Planning had. The rail would deter people from climbing the wall and sitting on it. He considered that a lot of the resistance was due to the cost. He disputed that the small handrail would have a material impact on views or on use of the foot path. These objections were unfounded. Moreover a lot of the residents were involved in managing the freehold of Capital Wharf and supported the scheme. Following consultation with Officers the applicant had agreed to change the rail colour to black to fit in with the area.
Elaine Bailey (Planning Officer) presented the application explaining the main issues.
40 letters of letters of objections had been received from occupiers concerning loss of views, public amenity and enjoyment of the river, unsightly proposal.
The rail measured 30cm in height above the existing wall. It was not therefore considered that this minor addition would in anyway hinder the public right of way to ... view the full minutes text for item 7