Agenda item
Brune House, Bell Lane & Carter House, Brune Street & Bernard House, Toynbee Street, London E1
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
Paul Buckingham (Development Manager) introduced the application that sort approval for the replacement of the existing 1200mm railings and addition of gates to a height of 1800mm along the northern and eastern boundaries of the Holland Estate.
Kathleen Ly (Planning Services) presented this application which was being reported to the Development Committee as more than 20 individual representations supporting the development have been received.
Ms Ly advised the Committee that (i) this application has been assessed against planning policies contained in the London Borough of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (January 2020), the London Plan (2016), and the National Planning Policy Framework; and (ii). The application has also been considered against the Draft London Plan (2019) as this carries substantial weight.
The Committee was informed by Mr Simon Westmorland (West Area Team Leader - Development Management) that (a) the proposal would result in an incongruous form of development that will neither preserve nor enhance the local streetscape nor maintain the positive character and appearance of the conservation areas; (b) the increase in height to the railings and addition of vehicle and pedestrian gates will result in a gated community, unnecessarily segregating the estate from the public realm; (c) this proposal would negatively affect the social integration of the area and be contrary to the promotion of mixed and balanced communities.
Therefore, the officers considered that the proposal is not considered to be acceptable in policy terms and is not supported.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.
Kabir Ahmed the Chair of the Holland Estate Management Board addressed the meeting the main points that he raised maybe summarised as follows:
1. At the time of the Stock Transfer from LBTH to Eastend Homes (EEH) in 2006, the bid made to residents to win support for this process was based mainly on a programme of improvement works to the buildings and the estate i.e. ‘security and safety’; and ‘boundary treatment with gated access. This included lifts and perimeter security enhancements (as in the current application) to offer better safety on the estate as well as the key promise of lifts to the blocks in the application area’;
2. During the housing stock transfer these promises were supported by the Council and all the consultation documents included these as key aspects of work that will be undertaken once transfer was completed;
3. Additionally, these enhancements were granted planning permission as part of the broader applications (PA/08/02347 refers), of estate improvements that EEH made after they took possession of the estate;
4. At the time the Council encouraged residents to consider transfer to housing associations with the promise of being able to make improvements to the estate. Key promises that led to residents voting for transfer were improved security measures and lifts;
5. If permission is not granted, it would bring into question that whole process and whether those promises made were worth the paper it was written on. It would be a betrayal of the trust that residents put into the whole stock transfer process and on the information supplied to residents by both the Council and EastendHomes;
6. With this historical context, and promises made to residents at the time of stock transfer, we believe that the application deserves exception and should be considered for approval by the Development Committee.
7. Since the stock transfer in 2006, the night time economy has increased drastically in the area, which has seen an increase in ASB. Residents are plagued with non-residents using the estate as a urinal, taking drugs, dealing drugs, noise issues related alcohol, groups congregating and causing general nuisance and intimidation, amongst many other issues. Therefore, the experiences and difficulties faced by residents who live in the area should be taken into account and this application be approved in order to improve the quality of life and wellbeing for these residents.
Councillor Tarik Khan addressed the main points that he raised are summarised as follows:
Councillor Khan indicated that the:
a. use of historically appropriate style of fencing, at a height that is applicable to the streetscape, would provide the strong boundary that has always been there, but with a more open and permeable feel;
b. proposed design would in effect enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area through the railings being of a conservation type style and therefore should be welcomed and approved;
c. Proposals would not have a significant adverse effect on the accessibility and permeability of the local area. The courtyard areas leading into the estate are not public thoroughfares and visually as you enter the state, you get an impression that there is no through route except leading into the individual buildings. There are signs indicating the estate is for private resident access only; and
d. proposed improvements will deal with the issues associated with ASB, and allow residents to use these communal spaces again, with clear benefits to social inclusion and wellbeing within the estate, and in terms of interaction between residents within the estate on Brune Street and outside, because the fencing allows much more visual permeability than the wall that was there before. These are very real issues that the proposed perimeter will actually improve, with negligible negative results.
However, the Committee was informed that:
· The improvement of entrances to reduce anti-social behaviour, to exclude intruders and enhance the appearance of the blocks as presented at the Stock Transfer Stage would be subject to further resident consultation, planning approval and the development of new homes for rent and sale. As such, the submitted information does not warrant or justify the approval of the proposal as any planning proposal is subject to a formal assessment and is considered on its planning merits.
· The proposal is not supported given the increase in height, reduction in the width between the rails and prominent location of the fence fronting the street;
· The proposal would result in an incongruous form of development which would negatively impact the local street network and would not be socially inclusive, cohesive or connective. Additionally, the design of the gates is more of a modern approach and is not considered to be in keeping with the estate;
· Development should be sympathetic in form, scale, materials and architectural detail to the heritage asset and/or setting. The existing views along Brune Street are currently open and transparent as the existing 1200mm railings is not considered to be a dominant feature and is not imposing to the streetscape;
· The proposed pedestrian access gates would restrict movement within the estate and surrounding area. This is contrary to policy which encourages development to increase and maintain well-connected areas. Enclosing all access points will limit the number of connections available when moving from one point to the other, and thus impacting upon the pedestrian connectivity to the wider street network;
· The applicant and received public comments identify the site as a private estate where public access is restricted. However the erection of the 1800mm high railing and gates would create a hostile and enclosed environment, unnecessarily segregating the estate from the public realm. This would result in the estate becoming a ‘gated community’ where accessing the site would only be possible via a key code or intercom. However, the London Plan and the Local Plan sought to resist the creation of gated communities which do not promote socially inclusive and cohesive neighbourhoods or connectivity between places. The enclosing of the estate would negatively affect the social integration of the area and be contrary to allowing mixed and balanced communities;
· The National Planning Policy Framework and the London Plan sought to create safe, secure and appropriately accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion;
· The London Plan also aims to achieve the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design and ensures development can be used safely, easily and with dignity by all regardless of disability, age, gender, ethnicity or economic circumstances. Development should be convenient and welcoming with no disabling barriers, so everyone can use them independently without undue effort, separation or special treatment;
· Reduced natural surveillance may allow the passage to become a more attractive location for drug dealing, robbery, fly tipping and Anti-Social Behaviour;
· The purpose intended for the gates and railings although intended to improve the quality of life for residents in terms of safety and security, is contrary to Council’s policies which encourage socially connected communities. Therefore, alternative methods to alleviate anti-social behaviour should be considered which could include activating areas to provide natural and passive surveillance; and
· The proposal would restrict movement and access, does not incorporate the principles of inclusive design and is not sensitive to nor enhance the local streetscape and conservation areas.
On a vote of 2 in favour 2 against, with the Chair exercising his casting vote in favour, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the proposal is refused for the following reason:
· That it would result in an incongruous form of development that will neither preserve nor enhance the local streetscape nor maintain the positive character and appearance of the conservation areas. The increase in height to the railings and addition of vehicle and pedestrian gates will result in a gated community, unnecessarily segregating the estate from the public realm. This would negatively affect the social integration of the area and be contrary to the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be acceptable in policy terms and was refused.
For the avoidance of doubt the Planning Officer asked committee to confirm that their vote was for refusal. This was agreed.
Supporting documents:
- PA.19-02040 Brune House, Bell Lane & Carter House, Brune Street & Bernard House, Toynbee Street, London E1, item 5.2 PDF 3 MB
- Update report 5.2, item 5.2 PDF 130 KB