Agenda item
Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 31st May, 2012 7.00 p.m. (Item 9.1)
- View the background to item 9.1
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 4 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendations to grant planning permission (PA/11/03824) at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns over:
- The safeguarding status of Orchard Wharf.
- The impact on the FAT walk.
- Impact from noise and general use on the biodiversity of the site and the East India Dock Basin.
- Impact of noise on neighbours.
- Transportation impacts.
- Design and Impact on Views
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 proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) presented the application regarding Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
John Gordon spoke in objection to the proposal. He stated that he was a resident of Virginia Quay that looked over looked the site. He referred to the regeneration of the area as an urban site. The signs indicated that the site would follow this pattern of urban regeneration and this informed his move to the area. This proposal was never presented in any of the plans.
This scheme would hinder its regeneration as a residential area. It would also cause pollution, put at risk the nature reserve and birds as demonstrated by research. It would increase traffic. The Leamouth roundabout would be unduly affected. However, the traffic implications in the report were unclear. The application should be refused.
In reply to Members, Mr Gordon stated that he lived in Pilgrims Mews. The plant would visually dominate the landscape. It would generate lorry movements onto the A road and the roundabout adding to the noise levels in the surrounding that were already very substantial.
Julian Hilton spoke in objection. He owned a property in Orchard Place. He stated that 50 residents had objected to the scheme. He questioned whether this would add value to the community. It would harm the regeneration already underway. The site owner opposed the application. The concrete structure would spoil the area and harm the nature reserve. The application should be rejected.
Councillor Tim Archer spoke in objection. The site was located within close proximity to the residential properties, Virginia Quay and Orchard Wharf and a nature reserve - a point for the proposed FAT walk. Therefore the application was wholly inappropriate for the area especially in view of its potential use. Objections had been received from key groups such as the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority. The site owners opposed the scheme as set out in their letter. Therefore, he urged the Committee to oppose the scheme.
Ms Vilna Walsh spoke in support of the application. The site had been designed as a safeguarding wharf since the 1990s and the recent 2012 review recommended that it be retained as such. The scheme would bring the site back into use and restore it back to its historic use in accordance with national and local policy. This with a high quality sustainable form of development given the use of river transport that made best use of the site. The Applicant had undertaken extensive public consultation and pre application discussions with the Council and had sought to address the concerns. There were a host of measures to mitigate the impact on the East India Dock Basin and ecology. In relation to noise and dust, all activities would be enclosed to prevent any adverse impacts. The Highways assessment had been approved by Officers as having no impact. It would create employment with opportunities for local people. The plant would comprise state of the art equipment with all environmental safeguards in place.
In reply to questions, Ms Walsh referred to the results of their noise testing. The testing showed that the impact on Virginia Quay fell below the threshold for mitigation. In reply to a question about the closure of the plant in the 1990s, Ms Walsh could not comment on the reasons for this. The consultation included public meetings and extensive leafleting. There was a mixture of responses to the scheme and many concerns were raised. The developer had arranged a meeting with residents from the buildings most affected. Yet this was poorly attended. However the applicant had provided mitigation for the building most affected.
In reply to Members about the benefits and local employment, Ms Walsh considered that the application would bring the site back into use, create employment with targets for local employment. There was no chance the site could be used for any other uses due to the designation. In response to questions about sites elsewhere in similar locations, Ms Walsh highlighted a similar site in Haringey. Despite strong opposition from residents at application stage, since operation no complaints had been received.
Mandip Dhillon (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the update assisted by a power point presentation. The scheme was a cross boundary application. Members were therefore being asked to approve this scheme and also formally support the duplicate application within the LTGDC boundary area.
Ms Dhillon explained the details of the scheme. She explained the outcome of the public consultation carried out twice in January and February 2012 as set out in the report and update. Ms Dhillon also highlighted the safeguarded wharf status of the application site. A review of its status carried out by the GLA in 2012 recommended that the site be retained as a safeguarding site. Therefore the scheme complied with this decision and the policy for the site.
The scheme fitted in with the area, protected views and included measures to protect amenity. Contributions had been secured for biodiversity and environmental improvements amongst other things.
The scheme would create a total of 12 jobs with 6 in construction and 6 post construction.
Overall the scheme complied with policy with no major impacts and should be granted.
In response to the presentation, the Committee raised a number of questions regarding the following issues:
- The ecology impact from the transport activity
- The cost of distilling the East India Dock basin (EIDB).
- Confirmation of the loss of natural habitat.
- The impact on noise sensitive species.
- Noise impact on Virginia Quay.
- The dust impact
- The relevance of the protected wharf status given the changing nature of the area. Particularly given the growth in residential developments since the initial review. Had such changes been taken into account?
- The Council’s response to the 2012 safeguarding wharf status consultation.
- The merits in arguing for an alternative use for the site given the consultation period for the above had yet to close.
- The traffic impact on the wider area. The need to take into account the off site impact as well as the on site impact.
- Pollution.
- The FAT walk.
- Impact of vehicle activity at night on neighbours.
- Alternative sites for the scheme in the region.
Regarding the GLA consultation, Members expressed a wish to be able to comment on such reviews in the future.
Officers addressed each point. A total of 198 HGV trips per day were anticipated. The movements by river would greatly reduce the highway impact. The study focused on the vehicular impacts on site as required by policy. The route of the FAT walk stretched across the borough from north to south and allows the route to be enjoyed over the full course. It was not limited to the area around the East India Dock Basin. Officers advised that the proposal had been designed to offer positive views of the area and did not therefore impact upon the FAT walk.
It was proposed to mitigate for any loss of habitat so that the impact on the site was neutral. Officers explained the costs and merits of distilling the East India Dock basin that would provide off site biodiversity enhancements to the EIDB. They explained the steps in the application that would substantially assist this.
Officers had fully examined the noise impact on neighbours. It was considered that mitigation for the impact on Virginia Quay was unnecessary given the lack of impact as shown in the noise report. However, there would be some impact on 42-44 Orchard place. Mitigation had been proposed for this site and secured through the agreement.
Officers stressed the safeguarding history of the site. The policy strongly encouraged the sites reactivation for aggregate management and that steps be taken by the Authority to achieve this. The policy indicated that it should only be used for such purposes. The scheme met these aims. Officers must have regard to this policy. Support for an alternative use may be difficult to defend at a later stage.
Officers acknowledged that the surrounding area had changed in recent years. Nevertheless they have to base their recommendations on the present status of the site. The Council did respond to the recent consultation of the GLA. Its response to this was explained.
There were a number of safeguarded wharfs in the region. However, the Committee should only consider the merits of this application. This site met the requirements in policy for the reactivation of the aggregate storage and cement plant.
Officers explained the measures to mitigate impact including the operation of aspects of the works and the passive ventilation system. There were conditions to secure both dust and noise management strategies. The hours of operations for the vehicles would be regulated as set out in the report to protect residential amenity. There would be some uploading of lorries at 11pm. But only in the remote areas of the site.
Should Members be minded to refuse the proposal, the duplicate application would still be a matter for the LTGDC to consider and determine themselves.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 4 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendations to grant planning permission (PA/11/03824) at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns over:
- The safeguarding status of Orchard Wharf.
- The impact on the FAT walk.
- Impact from noise and general use on the biodiversity of the site and the East India Dock Basin.
- Impact of noise on neighbours.
- Transportation impacts.
- Design and Impact on Views
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 proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents: