Agenda item
St David's Square, Westferry Road, E14 (PA/10/2786)
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 2 for 3 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to refuse permission for the erection of entrance gates to Westferry Road, Ferry Street and Thames Walkway together with associated walls to perimeter estatebe NOT ACCEPTED
The Committee indicated that they were minded not to accept the recommendation due to the following reasons:
- The levels of crime at St David’s Square.
- The precedence set by the Lockesfield Place Appeal, which adjoined the site.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Owen Whalley, (Service Head Planning and Building Control) introduced the report and tabled update report concerning St David's Square, Westferry Road, E14 (PA/10/2786).
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Fred Sutton spoke as the Applicant’s Agent. He was the Chair of the St David’s Square Residents Association and a resident of the square. He expressed concern at the many acts of vandalism and incursions in the Square. The Applicant had held meetings to mitigate such concerns and the Police have suggested a number of alternative options. None of which had solved the problems. The only solution was to gate the community as proposed. The square was a microcosm of London and there were issues in achieving community cohesion. For example it was impossible to identify residents and invited visitors. The proposal would facilitate community cohesion and would also improve security. He referred to gated schemes nearby secured due to similar problems with nuisance behaviour. This precedent could be followed here. The residents funded maintenance, repair of damage and improvement works however the lack of gates undermined this. The square was seen as a soft option for criminals.
Members then put questions to Mr Sutton. He responded that the Applicant did consider gating the water feature to prevent anti social behaviour. However this would also require planning permission. It would also hinder permeability making residents including children walk extra distances via dangerous roads. Segregating the development in this way would also be divisive and cause a lot of inconvenience. In terms of accessibility the plans remained as per the last application. He explained the pedestrian entrance changes via Westferry Road. There would be little inconvenience. The residents most affected were supportive of the changes.
Jerry Bell (Strategic Applications Manager) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. Mr Bell explained the site, location and nature of the proposal, deferred in April 2011 by the Committee for further information now before it. Mr Bell explained the outcome of the statutory consultation including the representations in support and the case for refusal as recommended by Officers.
In relation to crime, Mr Bell referred to the statistics from the Police comparing crime levels in each ward in LBTH. The report also provided a break down of the types of crime in St David’s Square itself. He also reported the advice of the Council’s Crime Prevention Officer. Their advice indicated that crime in the square was higher than expected in terms of certain crimes. However crucially the levels of crime were not exceptional compared to other areas in LBTH. Therefore there were insufficient levels to justify contravening policy and creating a gated community. Lesser measures should be tried as set out in the report. The plans would also decrease permeability and access, be visually intrusive and create unacceptable level of segregation. For these reasons the application contradicted policy so should be refused.
Members then put a number of questions to Officers.
Questions were raised over crime levels in Millwall given the statistics in the report. According to a Member, the ward had the fourth highest crime rates in LBTH, twice as many as the lowest rated ward. It was questioned what levels of crime justified gating a community. As well as the recorded crime, Members also had regard to the incidents of anti social behaviour recorded by residents in the log books.
A key issue for Members was whether the residents in the square itself were experiencing higher than average incidences of crime as suggested by the Crime Prevention Officer.
The Committee also referred to gated communities nearby. In particularly the Lockesfield Place site scheme allowed on appeal due to local concerns over crime. It was argued that the reasons for allowing this application also applied in this instance. This case justified similar action. The Committee requested that the recommendations be reviewed with this in mind.
Members also asked about the measures to prevent misuse of the water feature. Concern was expressed at the option of glass screening. Was there any other measure that could be tried. Members also questioned the crime comparisons. Specifically the logic in comparing Millwall with all wards rather than just similar residential areas. It was also asked whether the plans would restrict access to the Thames Pathway.
Some support was also expressed for trying the alternative options.
Mr Bell than responded to each question. He referred to the crime statics supplied by the Crime Prevention Officer and the Police. Planning based their judgements on expert advisers who were of the view that, whilst crime in the area was higher than expected (say in relation to Blackwall and Cubbitt Town) it was not significant enough to warrant gating the square. They were not exceptionally high. That was the key issue. The information was based on the latest statistics. He also explained the reasons for comparing Millwall with all wards as this was requested by the Committee at the last meeting.
It was also feared that gating the community could displace the problems elsewhere and segregate the community. The scheme would also restrict permeability via the Thames Pathway. In relation to the Lockes Field site, a key difference was that it didn’t affect the permeability of that site as there was no through route there.
Mr Bell also explained the options in relation to the central water feature. A number of measures could be explored to prevent its misuse as set out in the report.
On a vote of 2 for 3 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to refuse permission for the erection of entrance gates to Westferry Road, Ferry Street and Thames Walkway together with associated walls to perimeter estatebe NOT ACCEPTED
The Committee indicated that they were minded not to accept the recommendation due to the following reasons:
- The levels of crime at St David’s Square.
- The precedence set by the Lockesfield Place Appeal, which adjoined the site.
In accordance with Development Procedure Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents:
-
7.1 St Davids Sq comm rep 310811(2) final, item 7.1
PDF 974 KB
-
Appendix, item 7.1
PDF 19 KB
-
7.1 app a, item 7.1
PDF 494 KB
-
Appendix, item 7.1
PDF 19 KB
-
7.1 App B final, item 7.1
PDF 332 KB
-
Appendix, item 7.1
PDF 19 KB
-
7.1 app c final, item 7.1
PDF 182 KB
-
Appendix, item 7.1
PDF 19 KB
-
7.1 app d1, item 7.1
PDF 964 KB
-
7.1 app d2, item 7.1
PDF 330 KB
-
7.1 app d3, item 7.1
PDF 299 KB
-
7.1 app d4, item 7.1
PDF 709 KB
-
7.1 app d5, item 7.1
PDF 1 MB
-
Appendix, item 7.1
PDF 19 KB
-
7.1 app e, item 7.1
PDF 274 KB
-
Appendix, item 7.1
PDF 19 KB
-
7.1 app f, item 7.1
PDF 698 KB