Agenda item
Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 16th August, 2012 5.30 p.m. (Item 7.2)
- View the background to item 7.2
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 1 for and 3 against, with 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824) be NOT ACCEPTED due to Members’ concerns over:
- The impact of the development 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, along with the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the Committee report concerning the application for cross-boundary hybrid planning permission at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824), for erection of a concrete batching plant, cement storage terminal and aggregate storage facilities, together with associated structures and facilities, walkway and landscaping, jetty and ship to shore conveyor.
Mr Smith added that the application had previously been submitted to Committee on 31st May 2012, when Members had not been minded to grant planning permission. He made the point that Greater London Authority consultation had confirmed that Orchard Wharf had safeguarded status and they had taken account of matters raised by Members. In the light of additional information and clarifications, the application was now being presented to the Committee afresh.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Peter Golds, speaking in objection to the application, stated that he was representing the Blackwall and Cubitt Town Ward, residents of Virginia Quay and also Jim Fitzpatrick MP, who was most concerned about the application. He expressed the view that the application would have been acceptable 50 years ago but the nature of the Borough had changed greatly and there was a large local population in the vicinity of the wharf. The site would generate a large number of vehicle movements in close proximity to Virginia Quay, which was also affected by the large Ballymore site nearby. Transport issues and environmental interests must be an absolute priority in that locality and provided excellent grounds to turn down the application. Councillor Golds added that he was concerned at the level of consultation that had taken place and local people had not been listened to by the developers. Over 200 lorries per day would have severe effects on local roads and the Canning Town flyover. The application should be refused on transport and many other reasons.
Ms Vina Walsh, speaking in support of the application, stated that the application would reactivate a derelict site. A range of environmental and other issues had been raised when the application was last considered. However, the amended scheme was now the culmination of two years’ work, which now contained mitigation measures and the proposals were justified. Public consultation had been conducted through public meetings and mailshots. All objections raised had been reviewed and comments provided. Officers had put forward Members’ concerns and the applicants’ environmental statement addressed these in detail. It was important to recognise the policy statement and the wharf’s safeguarded status. The applicants had done all they could to address Members’ and residents’ concerns comprehensively.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Walsh indicated that:
· There would be 30 Borough employees at the construction stage and 30 at the operational stage.
· There would be 198 lorry journeys throughout the working day, spread out at about 20 per hour. The site would be largely served by river traffic. Road traffic had been fully assessed and it was felt there would be no significant adverse effects on the locality.
· Approval to such traffic levels had been obtained on appeal after refusals in other locations based on traffic movements, etc. Mitigation was provided by the fact the traffic levels were spread evenly over the working day.
Ms Mandip Dhillon, Planning Officer, made a detailed presentation of the Committee report and tabled update, as circulated to Members. She indicated that the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation were also recommending approval of planning permission and the application would be submitted to their committee in the following week. Ms Dhillon referred to concerns on safeguarding of the wharf that had been previously raised with the GLC and which had now been resolved. Use of the land for aggregate storage had been approved by the Secretary of State and the scheme remained viable despite a reduction in demand for construction materials. Environmental measures including screening along the East India Dock Basin, to the west of the site, had also been negotiated. Officers were still recommending that planning permission should be granted.
The Chair then invited questions from Members, which included:
· Lorry movements and associated noise that would be generated by activities on the site and effects on surrounding roads.
· Responsibility for monitoring environmental impacts on the East India Dock Basin.
· As part of the site would be uncovered, what would be the likely position regarding dust impact on residents.
· Further consultation measures that had been undertaken with the GLA.
· Any possible alternative uses for the site.
Officers’ responses included information including:
- Anticipated vehicle movements from the site were considered acceptable. Noise would be created near Virginia Quay but this was also felt to meet acceptable normal standards in an inner-London borough. Secondary glazing would be available to residents despite this consideration and the mitigation in place would be the same as for works that had been undertaken on the DLR and Crossrail. Road surfaces would also be treated to reduce noise levels.
- The Lea Valley Regional Park Authority was responsible for the East India Dock Basin but the Council would be seeking to access funding streams to assist them de-silt the basin.
- Buildings on the south part of the site would be linked by a conveyor to a jetty in the Thames. However, this was the furthest point away from Orchard Place. Concrete batching plants had responsibilities to observe and had to apply for an operating permit. There would be a risk assessment and subsequent monitoring and control of site emissions. Some materials might need partial enclosure or have to be kept wet. Of three concrete batching plants in the Borough, none had been the subject of complaints regarding operations.
- Following the meeting on 31st May 2012, there had been full consultation with the relevant Cabinet Lead Member and comments had been forwarded to the GLC, which they had taken into account.
- The most recent documentation indicate that the wharf would be safeguarded for cement and aggregate storage and the scope for any other uses would be very limited.
The Chair referred to the extensive discussion that had taken place at the meeting on 31st May 2012 and commented that he had allowed Members time to clarify other queries that had arisen. He then indicated that the matter would be put to the vote.
On a vote of 1 for and 3 against, with 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Orchard Wharf, Orchard Place, London (PA/11/03824) be NOT ACCEPTED due to Members’ concerns over:
- The impact of the development 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, along with the implications of the decision.
Adjournment
At this point (7.00 p.m.) the Chair proposed and it was
RESOLVED that the proceedings be adjourned for a five minutes break.
Councillor Zara Davis then left the meeting and Councillor Craig Aston deputised for her.
Supporting documents:
-
Committee Report OW final map, item 7.2
PDF 1024 KB
-
Orchard Wharf PA 11 3824 final, 31/05/2012 Strategic Development Committee, item 7.2
PDF 1 MB
-
update report 31st May SDC, 31/05/2012 Strategic Development Committee, item 7.2
PDF 53 KB
-
PA113824 information report, 05/07/2012 Strategic Development Committee, item 7.2
PDF 59 KB
-
App 1, 05/07/2012 Strategic Development Committee, item 7.2
PDF 1 MB
-
Appendix 4, item 7.2
PDF 1 MB
-
Appendix 5 part 1, item 7.2
PDF 45 KB
-
Appendix 5 part 2, item 7.2
PDF 53 KB