Agenda item
North and South Passage, Iron Mongers Place, E14
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the application which relates to a north/ south walkway which runs between Westferry Road and Sherwood Gardens in the Isle of Dogs.
Matthew Wong (Planning Services) informed the Committee that (i) the original application PA/13/01547 had granted permission for the installation of gates and barriers within the walkway and this permission was implemented. With condition 4 of the permission had required that these gates should remain unlocked at all times; and (ii) the current proposal now seeks to vary condition 4 of that planning permission, to allow the gates to be locked and pedestrian access along the walkway to be stopped.
Mr Wong stated that the application was being reported to the Development Committee because there have been than 20 individual representations in support of the development.
The Committee noted that is application has been considered against (a) the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (January 2020) as well as the London Plan (2016), the National Planning Policy Framework and all other material considerations; (b) the Draft London Plan (2019) as this carries substantial weight.
Mr Wong stated that:
· The proposal is considered to be unacceptable as it would (1) result in the loss of a safe, convenient and traffic free access way, and disadvantage those less able pedestrians, (2) provoke less sustainable transport choices; and (3) lead to the creation of underused spaces which may result in antisocial behaviour and a lack of social cohesion, contrary to policies D.DH2, S.DH1, D.DH8 and S.TR1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan (2020);
· In 2013, planning permission was granted for the construction of two gates and two sets of barriers within the walkways (ref PA/13/01547). This permission was duly implemented and two gates were installed, one at the northern end adjacent to Sherwood Gardens and another at the southern end adjacent to Spindrift Avenue. The gates are approximately 1750mm -1800mm high and comprise of brick piers at either end with fixed, metal infill panels containing vertical posts. Condition 4 of the consent required that the gates always remain unlocked.
· Two sets of physical barriers had also been constructed within the walkways, in locations immediately to the north and south of Ironmongers Place. The barriers did not close off access to the passages, rather they act as physical obstacles to ensure cyclists and those on vehicles must dismount before traversing through.
· The walkway is protected through a Section 106 Agreement which was entered into on 15/10/1986 between the owner of the site, the Council and the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC). The agreement provided specific reference to the passage and its formal adoption as a walkway, under Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980. Clause 4 of the agreement states that the Walkway (passage) must always remain open to the public unless with the written agreement with the Council. The Agreement also stated that the walkway must remain accessible by all and shall permit easy passage by wheelchairs; and
· A complaint had been received in 2018 that the gates to either end of the walkway had been locked. A Compliance Officer had attended the site and observed that Condition 4 of PA/17/01547 had been breached. Accordingly, a breach of condition notice had been served on 17 May 2019 and was on hold awaiting the outcome of this application.
Therefore, the officers considered that the proposal is recommend for refusal.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.
A resident of Ironmongers Place informed the Committee that he was addressing the meeting in support of the application to permanently lock the gates and access to the passageway. The resident concerns maybe summarised as follows:
· There are issues with criminal activity and anti-social behaviour within the passageway.
· The locking of the gates would help provide a secure and safe environment; and
· The locking of the gates would assist in reducing amenity concerns relating to litter and noise.
Rachael Dickson from the JTS Partnership addressed the meeting as the Applicants Representative and the following is a summary of the points raised:
· The walkways have become the focus for anti - social behaviour (ASB) and that residents are being subjected to undue noise and disturbance due to people ‘loitering’ within the walkways.
· Residents had also raised concerns regard the level of ASB in the area. The applicant therefore considered that locking of the gates would reduce occurrences of such ASB and associated crime within and around the passageway; and
· Applicant had submitted a ‘Crime Statistics’ Report which has indicated levels of crime in and around the site from the period of October 2016 to October 2019
However, the Committee was informed that:
· The data that had been included shows that there had also been changes in the overall level of crime in the area over three time periods – (i) from before the gates were locked between October ’16 and January ‘18, (ii) while the gates were (unlawfully) locked between Feb ’18 and May ’19 and (iii) after June ’19, when the gates were unlocked.
· The report concludes that level of ASB and crime had been greater before the gates had been unlawfully locked. It is also was noted that the results appeared to show no real increase in crime since Enforcement Action was taken and the gates were once again unlocked.
In response to the above the Committee indicated that:
· Given the similarities in the overall crime rate reduction across the whole Island Gardens Precinct and that of the Ironmongers Development, the reduction in crime in and around the subject development during 2018 and May 2019 cannot be directly attributed to the locking of the gates.
· The proposal would result in the loss of a safe, convenient and traffic free access way, which would disadvantage those less able pedestrians, would provoke less sustainable transport choices.
· Reduced natural surveillance may allow the passage to become a more attractive location for drug dealing, robbery, fly tipping and Anti-Social Behaviour.
· The wider Island Gardens area experienced a general reduction in crime during the same dates, suggesting there were alternative causes. It therefore cannot be accurately ascertained that the proposed locking of the gates would cause a reduction in anti-social behaviour.
· The passage being out of sight of residents or being more difficult to access by police patrols would make it easier to store or discard stolen mopeds/cycles and aid burglary of surrounding properties.
· The locking the gates may in fact lead to an increase in antisocial behaviour within the walkways, given that they would still be accessible from Ironmongers Place but not used regularly and properly as pedestrian thoroughfares.
· If the gates were locked, the design and location of the existing gating would allow the gates to be easily climbed and would not deter illegitimate users of the site. and
· Any attempt to reduce anti-social behaviour should be consistent with planning policies which encourage activated areas, natural and passive surveillance. These methods would assist in reducing anti-social behaviour whilst also ensuring socially connected communities.
On a vote of 4 in favour the Committee RESOLVED:
That the proposed variation of Condition 4 from Planning Permission PA/13/01547 is refused for the following reason:
The proposal is considered to be unacceptable as it would result in the loss of a safe, convenient and traffic free access way, which would disadvantage those less able pedestrians, would provoke less sustainable transport choices and would lead to the creation of underused spaces which may result in antisocial behaviour and a lack of social cohesion, contrary to policies D.DH2, S.DH1, D.DH8 and S.TR1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan (2020).
For the avoidance of doubt the planning Officer asked committee to confirm that their vote was for refusal. This was agreed.
Supporting documents: