Agenda item
Carriageway adjacent to 2-108 Telegraph Place, Spindrift Avenue, E14 PA/11/001655
Decision:
Councillor Marc Francis seconded by Councillor Shiria Khatun proposed an additional condition ‘That the Stage 3 Road Safety Audits (as referred to in circulated report) be undertaken and reported back to the Council within 3 months of first use of the scheme’.On a vote of 3 in favour 0 against and 3 abstentions this amendment was carried.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 3 against (with the Chair casting a second vote in favour) the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission be GRANTED for the installation on the carriageway of a Barclays Cycle Hire docking station, containing a maximum of 40 docking points for scheme cycles plus a terminal subject to the conditions set out in the circulated report AND that the Stage 3 Road Safety Audits be undertaken and reported back to the Council within 3 months of first use of the scheme.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the circulated report.
3. Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal.
Minutes:
Mr Richard Murrell (Deputy Team Leader, Planning Services) gave a general presentation on the Transport for London (TFL) cycle hire scheme. The presentation covered the aims of the scheme being rolled out across Tower Hamlets. He explained the number of approved and proposed docking stations in the Borough, their location and the criteria for selecting sites. He also outlined the key planning matters that were taken in account in considering such schemes.
Pete Smith, (Development Control Manager) introduced the report concerning the Carriageway adjacent to 2-108 Telegraph Place, Spindrift Avenue.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
ConorNaughton spoke in objection to the proposal. Of the 54 residents notified 50 had submitted objections and there was a petition against with 49 signatures. The highway was narrow and the docking station would take up a disproportionate amount of the highway. It would increase traffic congestion, and obstruct traffic (including emergency vehicles) especially when there was a bus at the bus stop. The parking spaces were not well used but there was regular traffic flow and this was a bus route. It also would adversely affect sight lines and cause an obstruction contrary to policy. The alternative site in Mudchute should be considered instead which complied with the criteria.
Katarina Safai spoke in objection. She expressed concern at loss of privacy (from people coming in from elsewhere), noise nuisance and amenity impact on residents. There would be cycle bays under residents windows. Bikes would need to be restocked and maintained 24hrs per day. There had been many incidences of people causing trouble in the avenue. This would increase nuisance behaviour. It would also impact on property values and breach human rights. Consideration should be given to the alternative site in Mudchute more suited to this proposal.
Councillor Zara Davis also spoke in objection. Whilst supporting the scheme in principle, she felt that this scheme was inappropriate for the area. It would be built into the middle of the road taking up half the left hand lane. Therefore it would be barely possible for vehicles to pass through. They would have to veer onto the other side of the road to pass oncoming traffic. Furthermore when a bus was stopped at the bus stop, it would be impossible for vehicles on the side of the docking station to pass by. It would therefore affect the journey times of buses. It was the only access road for 3 housing estates and also provided access to several other housing estates. Therefore would aversely affect many residents. The scheme should be moved to the Mudchute DLR site and this was much more suitable.
Nick Chester spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained the reasons for choosing this site and the amendments to improve the scheme. TFL had conducted Road Safety Audits and no safety issues were raised. He referred to the plans for the Mudchute site, an extra site in addition to this. Both stations were required to create an appropriate number of docking spaces to facilitate the scheme. In relation to crime, TFL took these concerns very seriously and have implemented schemes to address this. Should it become a problem at the site, steps would be taken to address this. The crime figures showed that there had been a low incidence of crime across all docking stations in London since the schemes launch.
In reply to questions, Mr Chester clarified the width of the current parking bays and that of the docking station. The station would be situated at an angle to the road and be located on the highway as per most stations. Cyclists would reverse onto the carriageway in taking the cycles out.
?
Mr Richard Murrell presented the detailed report. He explained the proposal and the amendments to mitigate the concerns. He commented on the number of objections including a petition against the scheme. He also explained the design, the location of the bus stop and that traffic levels on the avenue were relatively low. He also addressed the loss of car parking spaces; (mitigated by the low levels of use and the contribution to a more sustainable form of transport). He also explained the impact on passing traffic. The width of the road was sufficient to allow traffic to pass along the highway even with the installation of the docking scheme. The overall impact of the scheme in terms of the key issues was considered acceptable and should be granted.
In response, questions were raised regarding the angle onto the highway and conflict with the bus stop. Assurances were sought that there would be adequate space for large vehicles to pass by when there was a bus waiting at the bus stop. Mr Murrell clarified that larger vehicles would have to wait if a bus was at the stop, though a car could probably get past. Other questioned covered: safety issues in vehicles having to pass around the station; cyclists reversing onto the highway; the impact on servicing routes for supermarkets; the timetable and the content of the Road Safety Audits particularly whether Officers had seen and were happy with their content, how the Council could influence them should they see fit.
In reply Mr Murrell confirmed the length of clear carriageway and that according to Highways, it would allow vehicles to pass through safely. It was unlikely that servicing vehicles would pass through this road favouring larger routes. Mr Murrell expressed confidence in the safety reports ( reviewed by the Council’s highways experts) revealing no issues. The station would be clearly visible from the highway from a long distance away.
Mr Murrell showed a map of proposed and existing docking stations in the Borough including the nearest docking stations.
Councillor Marc Francis seconded by Councillor Shiria Khatun proposed an additional condition ‘That the Stage 3 Road Safety Audits (as referred to in circulated report) be undertaken and reported back to the Council within 3 months of first use of the scheme’.On a vote of 3 in favour 0 against and 3 abstentions this amendment was carried.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 3 against (with the Chair casting a second vote in favour) the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission be GRANTED for the installation on the carriageway of a Barclays Cycle Hire docking station, containing a maximum of 40 docking points for scheme cycles plus a terminal subject to the conditions set out in the circulated report AND that the Stage 3 Road Safety Audits be undertaken and reported back to the Council within 3 months of first use of the scheme.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the circulated report.
3. Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal.
Supporting documents: