Agenda item
Land Adjacent To Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road, London
Decision:
On a vote of 5 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission at land adjacent to Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road, London, for the erection of 2 no. three storey, four bed houses be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, mass and increased sense of enclosure, would result in an overdevelopment of this restricted site and a loss of open space, detrimental to the open character and visual amenities of the area and the character and appearance of the Victoria Park Conservation Area and the Regents Canal Conservation Area, contrary to polices SO23, SP02 and SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010), policy DEV1 and OS7 of the Unitary Development Plan 1998 ("saved") and polices DEV2, CON2 and HSG1 of Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance (2007).
2. The proposed development, in view of the restricted pavement width found within this stretch of Old Ford Road, the highway alignment in the vicinity of the site and the proposed layout of the buildings close to the back edge of footway, would be detrimental to highway/pedestrian safety, contrary to policies SO20, SO21, SP03 and SP09 of the adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) and policy DEV17 of Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance (2007).
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the circulated report and Tabled update concerning the application for planning permission at land adjacent to Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road, London (Ref. No. PA/10/02510).
The Chair then invited persons who had registered for speaking rights to address the meeting.
Mr Tom Ridge, a local resident, indicated that he was also a representative of the East London Waterways Group and was speaking in objection to the application. He pointed out that he had sent a letter to all Members of the Committee commenting on the matters of whether or not the site adjacent to Bridge Wharf had brownfield status, however his letter had been reduced to four bullet points in the report. He expressed the view that the site was not brownfield and had not been previously developed land, as there had only been a temporary structure there in the late 1980s. The proposed residential use did not comply with PPS3 as claimed in the report. The fact that the front view of the site was obscured by a wall was irrelevant as it could be seen well from other locations. To open up and develop the site would destroy a unique feature in two conservation areas, which also provided a green corridor, with Mile End Park and Victoria Park. This was also maintained by two small, wooded areas opposite the lock.
Ms Emily Greaves, a resident and owner at Bridge Wharf, speaking in objection stated that the proposed building would have a severe negative impact on open space, security, outlook and view, natural light and a quiet community. Development would produce dust that would affect the health of residents and wildlife. The size was unsustainably large and there would be no parking for builders or residents. There would be no waste disposal facilities and security would be compromised. The scheme would be at odds with the surrounding area and quality of life would be compromised. Environmental issues included the removal of a willow tree and damage to the roots of others. The site provided a breeding ground for birds, animals and bats, which should be protected so as to comply with legislation and the Council’s own policies.
Councillor Amy Whitelock commented that she and Councillor Bill Turner had sent written objections when the application had been put before the Committee on 10th March 2011 and she had been delighted that Members had heeded her concerns about over-development, loss of open space and loss of wildlife habitat. There had since been no substantial changes to the concerns she had raised and she was further concerned that Officers were still supporting the development. She felt that the report did not adequately address the concerns and objections raised. She could not understand why two large houses were being built in such a small space and this would not benefit the local community. Officers admitted that concerns about scale were sound and there was no mention of matters affecting wildlife. Many residents had commented on highways issues and the site linked two conservation areas and two parks, therefore the previous decision should be upheld. She noted that she lived on Old Ford Road and heard of near misses along this stretch of road all the time. She was therefore surprised that this concern had been dismissed by Officers.
Mr Andrew Hamilton, the applicant’s agent, stated that he had worked in conjunction with the Planning Design Team on preparing the scheme. The site was not greenfield as it had been occupied by community buildings and a restaurant. It had been earmarked for future development. The site was currently walled, with no public access and had been subject to flytipping. The proposed two houses had been carefully designed for the site, with the scale and mass being subservient to existing houses. The development would contribute to the conservation area, not detract from it and there would be no overlooking of windows.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Richard Murrell, Deputy Team Leader, made a detailed presentation of the report and update including powerpoint maps relating to the application. He pointed out that the site history confirmed its status as brownfield, there having been a previous development, and earmarked for a social club but that proposal had fallen through. The housing provision would also help in meeting Borough targets. The development was clean and crisp and trees would be retained, with unattractive parkside fencing being removed. Windows relative to buildings to the south of the site were more than the standard distance away at 19m and there would be no direct overlooking. Nor would there be overshadowing of existing houses. Tree roots would be protected and there would be some pruning of willows, that would soon grow back. A condition of the planning approval would be to protect the use of the area by bats as a corridor and roost. Following earlier concerns raised by residents on highways matters, he pointed out that the houses would be set further back than the existing wall line, which would reduce footpath congestion. There had been one serious accident and two others around the location in the last 36 months and Officers felt that the development would improve the road situation.
There being no questions from Members, on a vote of 5 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission at land adjacent to Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road, London, for the erection of 2 no. three storey, four bed houses be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, mass and increased sense of enclosure, would result in an overdevelopment of this restricted site and a loss of open space, detrimental to the open character and visual amenities of the area and the character and appearance of the Victoria Park Conservation Area and the Regents Canal Conservation Area, contrary to polices SO23, SP02 and SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010), policy DEV1 and OS7 of the Unitary Development Plan 1998 ("saved") and polices DEV2, CON2 and HSG1 of Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance (2007).
2. The proposed development, in view of the restricted pavement width found within this stretch of Old Ford Road, the highway alignment in the vicinity of the site and the proposed layout of the buildings close to the back edge of footway, would be detrimental to highway/pedestrian safety, contrary to policies SO20, SO21, SP03 and SP09 of the adopted Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) and policy DEV17 of Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance (2007).
Supporting documents: