Agenda item
King Henry Stairs, Wapping Pier, Wapping High Street, London
Decision:
On a vote of 3 for and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the replacement of the collar barge with pontoon. Installation of staff toilets, the relocation of the preparation kitchen's odour extractor, the relocation of the glass crusher, relocation of waste oil storage and installation of sewage and grey water tank at King Henry Stairs Wapping Pier, Wapping High Street, London be GRANTED subject to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal being given delegated authority to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following:
1. Standard time limit
2. Hours of works (construction)
3. Construction method statement
4. No solid matter stored near river
5. Construction storage for oil, fuel and chemicals in accordance with submitted details to prevent pollution of the water environment
6. No light spill to protect wildlife habitats
Informatives
- Environment Agency Informative
The Committee RESOLVED NOT to take enforcement action against the use as an operational base for a river cruise business because there are no grounds to sustain a reason for refusal subject to:
The completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) to secure the following:
1. Control activity during the night time
That if within 3 months of the date of this Committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development and Renewal be given delegated authority to serve an enforcement notice in respect of the use of the pier as set out in Section 2 of the Committee report.
Minutes:
Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the replacement of the collar barge with pontoon. Installation of staff toilets, the relocation of the preparation kitchen's odour extractor, the relocation of the glass crusher, relocation of waste oil storage and installation of sewage and grey water tank at King Henry Stairs Wapping Pier, Wapping High Street, London. He also introduced the enforcement issues surrounding the use of the Pier which the Committee had to consider.
Mr John Sayers spoke in objection on behalf of the residents of Gun Wharf on the grounds that the applicant had not applied for a change of use. He felt that consultees had been misled as to the nature of the application. Therefore the process was flawed and the application should be deferred. He also objected on the grounds of noise.
Ms Louise Steele and Ms Judy Moody-Stuart spoke on behalf of the applicant and addressed the residents’ concerns. It was felt that the use had not changed, it had developed over time. It was also stressed that the River Thames was a working river and needed to be used.
Councillor Tim Archer spoke on behalf of the St Katherine’s and Wapping ward residents. He felt that the application was a breach of planning control and created noise and odours. He asked that it be deferred for a noise assessment to be carried out, in relation to the effect on the residential properties. He also requested that there be a legal agreement to restrict what could be moored at the development.
Mr Kiely presented a detailed report on the application and outlined the history of the site and the background to the report. He informed Members of the advice which had been received from Counsel. It was considered that the structures in place were lawful. However, the use was not. The Council had advised the applicant to submit an application, at which point the applicant had also sought legal advice and decided that an application was not required.
Mr Kiely detailed the planning policies relevant to the application, which supported the principle of the use in the location. In respect of the preparation of food and the noise levels, the Council’s Environmental Health officers had examined the application and did not feel that there was a significant impact. However, there were concerns relating to night time noise and therefore a legal agreement would be negotiated to mitigate this issue and it was proposed to delegate authority to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal to serve an enforcement notice if the agreement was not secured.
Mr Kiely informed the Committee that the most significant element of the application was the replacement of the collar barge. At present the structure was unsightly and potentially noisy. It was proposed to replace with a smaller structure which would potentially improve the situation both visually and audibly. Therefore, it was the view of officers that there were no justifiable reasons to refuse the application.
Members expressed concern over the breach of planning control. They asked a number of questions relating to the noise assessment carried out by the applicant; the impact of odour in all weather conditions; the relocation of the extractor fan; the notice served on owners; the alleged misleading of statutory consultees; and the retention of the barge.
Mr Kiely advised that it was normal practice for an applicant to submit required assessments, which the officers would then scrutinise prior to making recommendations. The onus was on the applicant to serve notice on all owners; the Council could only bring it to the applicant’s attention. In respect of the retention of the barge, he advised that planning permission would be required to do so. However, the application needed to be determined on its merits, and weight could not be given to a potential future situation. Mr Kiely informed the Committee that he would ensure that the Environment Agency had the opportunity to comment with respect to the enforcement issues. If the Environment Agency did raise any significant concerns, he would report those concerns back to the Committee.
Members also expressed concern that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been carried out. Mr Kiely explained that there were only carried out if the application met certain criteria, and it was considered that the application did not meet those criteria. Therefore, the correct procedures had been followed. Members proposed that the application be deferred to allow the Environment Agency to examine all the issues. Mr Kiely reminded the Committee that the Environment Agency examined the general environmental impact of a development and it was not within its remit to consider specific residential impact. He reminded Members that if it did raise any issues, he would report these back to the Committee. On a vote of 2 for and 3 against, this motion was lost.
The Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the replacement of the collar barge with pontoon. Installation of staff toilets, the relocation of the preparation kitchen's odour extractor, the relocation of the glass crusher, relocation of waste oil storage and installation of sewage and grey water tank at King Henry Stairs Wapping Pier, Wapping High Street, London be GRANTED subject to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal being given delegated authority to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following:
1. Standard time limit
2. Hours of works (construction)
3. Construction method statement
4. No solid matter stored near river
5. Construction storage for oil, fuel and chemicals in accordance with submitted details to prevent pollution of the water environment
6. No light spill to protect wildlife habitats
Informatives
- Environment Agency Informative
The Committee RESOLVED NOT to take enforcement action against the use as an operational base for a river cruise business because there are no grounds to sustain a reason for refusal subject to:
A No objections being received from the Environment Agency
B The completion of a legal agreement to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) to secure the following:
1. Control activity during the night time
That if within 3 months of the date of this Committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development and Renewal be given delegated authority to serve an enforcement notice in respect of the use of the pier as set out in Section 2 of the Committee report.
Supporting documents: