Agenda item
Footway Adjacent to Ansell House on Mile End Road, E1 (PA/15/00117)
Proposal:
Relocation of an existing Barclays Cycle Hire Docking Station comprising of a maximum of 44 docking points by 45m to the east as a consequence of the proposed Cycle Superhighway 2 Upgrade Works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposed
Amy Thompson (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the report explaining the site location and the need for the proposal to facilitate the installation of the TfL super cycle 2 upgrade project. Members were advised of the existing site for the docking station and the proposed new site in relation to Ansell House. The new docking station would be split into sections adjacent to the eastern side of Ansell House.
Consultation had been carried. Objections had been raised about the impact on residents of Ansell House and the potential for anti social behaviour (ASB) from the scheme. No statutory consultees had raised objections.
Whilst mindful of the concerns, Officers felt that there was sufficient mitigation to protect the amenity of residents from the activity given: the screening from the existing fence, the separation distance, that most of the windows affected at Ansell House were dual aspect and the difference in floor level and pavement level. Furthermore, given the level of activity on Mile End Road, it was felt that some increase in activity would be acceptable in this context.
Officers had considered the Police and TfL records and found that there was no crimes recorded relating to the existing docking station at Ansell House or the proposal location. So there was no evidence that the proposal would result in ASB.
In response to the presentation, Councillors questioned the need for the number of cycle stands and merits of the location in view of the impact on neighbouring amenity. In view of the issues, consideration could be given to screening the proposed cycle stand to protect residential amenity.
Members also questioned whether alternatives locations for the proposal had been considered in the surrounding area in view of the concerns.
They also drew attention to crime statistics and the need to take into account anecdotal evidence to give a more accurate picture of the issues with crime in the area.
It was also commented that due to the width of the pavement, the proposal in this location might encourage cyclists to unlawfully use the pavement between the proposed docking station and the public highway
In response, Officers further explained the rational for the location for the scheme. The closest docking station to the site was over 300 metres away and according to TfL, the cycle scheme in this area was heavily used, so TfL felt that 44 spaces were needed. It would be impractical for the scheme to be moved too close to the centre of Ansell House given the proximity to the entrance.
TfL had considered other sites (including sites at Cambridge Health Road, Whitechapel Road and on Mile End Road) but these had been discounted due to issues ranging from: the impact on the local market and street furniture; conflict with underground utility services; loss of trees; lack of physical space issues with street clutter and public safety. It was not uncommon for such stations to be set back on the pavement and given that the highway was busy, this was considered a sensible approach.
Officers had spoken to TfL about the possibility of screening the proposed station. Whilst they were happy to provide screening, (for example obscure glazing to retain a sense of openness and transparency), Officers expressed caution about this since it would create a narrow, secluded space behind the docking station which might attract criminal or anti-social activity and cause safety issues.
In terms of crime relating to the existing station, officers felt that was necessary to rely on the official crime figures.
Some Members felt that TfL should change the position of the cycle hire station to address the issues of concern. Officers advised that the Committee needed to consider the merits of this application and to determine whether to grant this application or not. Any suggestions for moving this particular scheme would need to sit within the site boundary, otherwise it would constitute a new planning application.
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation and 5 against the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Footway Adjacent to Ansell House on Mile End Road, E1 be NOT ACCEPTED for the relocation of an existing Barclays Cycle Hire Docking Station comprising of a maximum of 44 docking points by 45m to the east as a consequence of the proposed Cycle Superhighway 2 Upgrade Works (PA/15/00117).
The Committee were minded not to accept the application due to the following reasons:
- Concerns over the impact on the residents of the eastern side of Ansell house in terms of noise nuisance and loss of privacy.
- Preference for an alternative location for the proposed docking station.
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 this decision.
Supporting documents: