Councillor Ahmodur Khan and Councillor Suluk Ahmed both left the meeting. Councillor Sabina Khan reintroduced herself to the Committee, as did Councillor Kamrul Hussain. Councillor Kabir Hussain then introduced himself. None of the Councillors had any disclosable pecuniary interests to declare, however, Councillor Kamrul Hussain declared he received emails from residents in regards to the application.

 

Paul Buckenham introduced the application to grant permission for minor material amendments to planning permission Ref: PA/21/00288, Dated 14/07/2022: Amendment(s) sought: Amendment to the wording of Condition 22 – Operational Requirements.

 

Aleksandra Milentijevic  provided a presentation to accompany the application, which highlighted the proposal’s site and surroundings. Details on the consented jetty structure were noted and Members were informed that the proposed changes include a variation of the Section 73 condition, the operating requirements for the Jetty noted in Condition 22. The Committee heard that no changes have been proposed to the physical extent of the structure.

 

Ms Milentijevic then presented an overview of the consented wording of Condition 22, which indicated the operating hours for Uber boats, the movements of the Thames Clipper and the engine capacity for all vessels approaching and leaving the jetty.

 

The Committee was informed of the proposed wording of Condition 22, which indicated the average engine emissions at full power, the vessels' annual average daily traffic, and the maximum hourly boat movements from 23:00hrs and 06.00 hours. Details of the public consultation were included, including the press release, site notice, and 483 letters sent to neighbouring properties.

 

The Committee heard that 293 representations were received, with 196 in objection and 97 in support. Since the release of the report 9 additional representations were received. The consultation related to the existing issues in the area, the general planning matters in regards to the procedure of Section 73, comments on assessments undertaken, the air quality, noise levels, amenity and safety concerns, ecology, transport and heritage issues. The objections raised related to the impact on ecology and increased foot traffic.

 

Ms Milentijevic informed the Committee that the applicant submitted an additional air quality assessment, which included the change in pollutant concentration of less than 1%. A pollutant dispersion assessment was also conducted, to examine the consented versus proposed emissions changes, A Carbon Strategy condition has been applied to the application to determine if carbon neutral energy is feasible for vehicles in the future.

 

Noise assessment and noise modelling was undertaken, the latter tests the number of  hourly vehicle movements taking place at the jetty and showed that up to 70 vehicle movements could potentially take place without causing significant adverse effects to neighbouring properties.

 

Regarding amenity concerns related to the types of boats the jetty would accommodate; an additional condition has now been placed to prohibited private boat hire from stopping or departing at the jetty and restricted access via lockable gates will be in place. To summarise, Ms Milentijevic recommended minor material amendments to planning permission be granted.

 

The Chair invited Keith MacLean, representing residents of New Providence Wharf, to speak in objection to the application. Mr MacLean highlighted the following concerns:

 

·       Noted that residents were not approached by the applicant or the consultants regarding the aforementioned assessments and have made assumptions and assertions to residents.

 

·       Section 73 should not be used for fundamental alterations and stated that Officers must only consider the potential impact of the proposed changes to the conditions. The emissions will double compared to the original amendment.

 

·       The basis for the consented operational arrangement is unrealistic and  a baseline of the 2019 figures should be used. The change in operating hours will result in an increase in noise levels.

 

The Chair next invited Ashley Lumsden, Chair of London City Island Residents Association, to speak in objection to the application. Mr MacLean highlighted the following concerns:

 

·       Condition A: Average Engine Emissions at Full Power: 8,317 g/hr. This does not specify what type of emissions they are nor allow understanding of the impact to the environment. This should be altered to include specific emissions.

 

·       Condition B: Vessel annual average daily traffic (AADT) flow of 212, allowing for passenger service boat, excluding private boat hire, movements to and from the jetty to account for 106 unique stops at the jetty. This does not permit four movements per hour nor adequately regulate the service and therefore should be removed.

 

·       Condition C:  Maximum hourly boat movements of up to 6 per hour between 23:00 and 06:00 not exceeding SEL/LAE 73 dB per movement, as measured during the boats departure at a distance of approximately 70m from the pier. This condition should be maintained.

 

The Chair next invited Ralph Hardwick, to speak in objection to the application. Mr Hardwick highlighted the following concerns:

 

·       Reference to the Thames Path is incorrect. This specific jetty stops at Island Gardens on the north side of the river, this is a riverside walkway.

 

·       Both the London Plan and Local Plan states that developments must be air quality neutral or air quality positive. Additional vessels would invalidate this, as there should be no additional emissions permitted. A concession permitted  in the initial Condition 22 stated that only vessels with IMO Tier three emissions can arrive and depart at that jetty. Currently only 4 Thames Clippers only have 4 vessels which comply with this.

 

·       There appears to be a lack of ambition from Tower Hamlets Council to ensure the vessels have low emissions or electric driven, so residents are protected from adverse air and noise pollution.

 

The Chair then invited Alex Portlock, Senior Development Manager from Hadley Blackwall Yard Properties, Jeff Simons, Chief Operating Officer, Uber Boats Thames Clippers Jonathan Roynon and Danny Fiumicelli  from Buro Happold,  to speak in favour of the application:

 

·       The parameters of the initial consented condition would have significantly reduced passenger river boat services at this pier and affect other services in the area. The wording of the condition has been achieved using existing vessel data and analytics, to keep emission levels low. The air quality of background would be reduced by 1% when assessed against existing levels.

 

·       Uber Boat Thames Clipper has launched three new hybrid vessels which use sustainable fuels. The revised wording will ensure continued operation of the boats and connect this part of the river to the existing river network and ease the pressures on other transportation services.

 

·       Thames Clippers has held a Trasport for London licence to operate since 2000 and delivers services to 24 piers carrying around 5 million passengers along 30km of the Thames. The Blackwall Yard Jetty will provide valued transport links to the area and residents with a cross river connection to the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

 

·       Thames Clippers collaborate with the private sector and do not receive any financial assistance from the public. The first hybrid high speed vessel in Europe was delivered by Thames Clippers and added two more boats to the service. A fully electric cross river vessel is now in production for the  Canary Wharf and Rotherhithe route, which will be in operation by 2025.

 

·       Thames Clippers aims to reduce net emissions by 50% in 2030 and net zero emissions by 2040. The fleet already passes the site at a higher frequency than the current permitted condition, so it will not be doubling emissions if this amended condition was to be approved.

 

The Committee were asked to vote on hearing the remainder of the application, since the meeting was nearing 3 hours. Members voted to continue.

 

Councillor Mufeedah Bustin and Councillor Kabir Hussain both declared that they had previously met Jeff Simons in relation to other sites. Further to the presentation, the Committee asked questions to objectors, the applicant and officers regarding the following issues;

 

·       Confirmed that the amended wording of the condition will enable the Thames Clipper service to depart and arrive at the Jetty. All vessels return back to Trinity Bouy Wharf Head base at the end of the service, passing the jetty.

 

·       Clarified that the emitted pollutant is Nitrogen Oxide (NOx).Other pollutants include  fine particulate matter, or sulphur dioxide which are produced from vessels running off diesel.

 

·       Explained that the noise assessments to measure the noise levels produced from the Clipper approaching, leaving and passing a cruising speed at Surrey Quays jetty were conducted. It also included noise levels of passengers disembarking the jetty Findings showed no change in levels on the bank from a distance from around 70 metres. As the jetty projects towards the river, the noise levels reduce considerably as it gets to the bank.

 

·       Confirmed that air quality assessments were conducted on vessels moving in the Thames and showed a net decrease in pollutants emitted. There are impacts from the vessels slowing down and speeding up, however this is a less than 1% change.

 

·       Confirmed the fleet consists of three hybrid boats running on H3O fuel, and electric vessels in the central zone. These are the first of its time and are currently developing a fully electric vehicle for the Canary Wharf and Rotherhithe route.

 

·       Explained that the route starts from Putney to Barking Riverside and this stop will provide a fast link cross river to Greenwich. This will reduce journey times and give enable new travel connections across the river.

 

Following the points raised by Officers, the Committee debated the application and noted the following:

 

-      Further clarification required on the wording of the proposed condition.

 

-      Further clarification on the air quality and noise pollution.

 

The Chair requested to defer the application and was seconded by Councillor Gulam Choudhury.

 

Upon a vote of 7 in favour it was therefore RESOLVED;

 

1.    That consideration of the application be DEFERRED for further information to clarify the impact on resident in terms of air quality and noise.