Agenda item
The Odyssey, Crews Street, London, E14 3ED (PA/14/01582)
Proposal:
Installation of freestanding electronically controlled vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates.
Recommendation:
To refuseplanning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Councillor Shah Alam left the meeting at this point.
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
David Stephens (resident of area and representative of local residents association) and Councillor Peter Golds spoke in support of the application. The speakers referred to the level of support for the application amongst residents to prevent crime in and around the site. Residents of the street felt unsafe given such activity (drug dealing, muggings, car break-ins at anti-social hours). The development tended to attract such behaviour given its secluded location. Residents had approached the Authorities to address these issues. The applicant would be open to discussions with the various stakeholders within the development about the hours of operation for the gates. Reference was also made to the number of similar applications to install gates in the Borough that had been successful at appeal and the number of gated developments in the area. Gated areas were a common feature in Tower Hamlets. In response to Members questions, it was considered that a proactive approach needed be taken to crime prevention given the pressures on police time in the area.
Jane Jin (Planning Officer) gave a presentation on the application. She explained the proposed height and width of the gates to be located on the private land.
She highlighted the crime figures from the Police for the street and wider development. These showed that the crime levels for the development were not exceptional
The Crime and Prevention Officer supported the application to reduce crime. However, taking into account the crime rates and the broader issues (as mentioned below), Officers did not consider that the plans justified a departure from policy seeking to create a cohesive community.
The proposal would prevent access thought the site and the river walkway as required by the s106 agreement for the development. The proposal would also affect the safety and capacity of the highway arising from vehicles waiting on the street to gain access through the gates. The gates would have a visually intrusive appearance. The Council’s Enforcement Team had sent letters regarding gates in the Estate. Officers were recommending that the proposal should be refused.
In response to Councillor’s questions, Officers noted the appeal decisions in respect of previous applications to install gates. This case should be considered on the planning merits. There were worries that the gates would hinder access to the development for wheelchair users. The issues around fire safety and maintenance could be dealt with by condition.
It was noted that there were gated developments elsewhere in the Borough. But given the range of concerns, it was considered that this application should be refused.
As highlighted above, the Enforcement Team were taking steps regarding gates in the Estate. Gerald McCormack (Enforcement Team Leader) gave an overview of this work. At the request of a Member, it was agreed that an update on the enforcement action in respect of these gates be included in the next enforcement activity report to the Committee.
On a vote of 5 in favour, 1 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/14/01582) at the Odyssey, Crews Street, London, E14 3ED be REFUSED for the installation of freestanding electronically controlled vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates for the reasons set out in paragraph 3 of the Committee report as follows.
a) The proposal would restrict full public access and inclusive access resulting in an unacceptable form of development that would fail to retain a permeable environment, by reason of creating a physical barrier and the loss of a legally secured publically accessible route to the riverfront which forms a part of the Blue Ribbon Network. This would be contrary to the general principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies 7.2 and 7.27 of the London Plan (2011), policies SP04 and SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010), and policies DM12 and DM23 of the Managing Development Document (2013). These policies require development to protect and improve existing access points to the Blue Ribbon Network and increase opportunities for public access and use of water spaces.
b) The proposed gates and fixed means of enclosure by virtue of their height and scale would appear visually intrusive and result in an inappropriate form of development that would create a ‘gated’ community and would therefore fail to achieve an inclusive environment and create an unacceptable level of segregation. This would be contrary to the general principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies 3.9, 7.1-7.5 and 7.27 of the London Plan (2011), policies SP04, SP09, SP10 and SP12 of the Core Strategy (2010), and policies DM12 and DM23 of the Managing Development Document (2013). These policies require development to promote the principles of inclusive communities, improve permeability and ensure development is accessible and well connected.
c) The proposed security gate due to its location adjacent to the adopted highway would have an unacceptable impact on the capacity and safety of the adjacent 3 public highway. This would be contrary to the general principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the London Plan (2011), policy SP09 of the Core Strategy (2010), and policy DM20 of the Managing Development Document (2013). These policies require that development does not have any adverse impact on the capacity and safety of the transport network.
d) The proposed security gate would introduce security measures at the site which are overbearing and would compromise the visual quality of the local environment and would be an unsightly addition to the public realm. This would be contrary to the general principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), the London Plan (2011), policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010), and policy DM24 of the Managing Development Document (2013). These policies seek to ensure that design is sensitive to and enhances the local character and setting of the development.
Supporting documents: