Agenda item
Passageway to the south of 18 Cleveland Way, London E1 (PA/15/00096)
Proposal:
Erect a 2.4m high gate across the passage way
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Sirajul Islam left the meeting for the consideration of this item
Councillor Marc Francis (Chair)
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application. The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Richard Kirker, (Keep Coopers Close Open) spoke in opposition to the scheme. He stressed the merits of retaining the openness, permeability and cohesive nature of the close. The group had been formed to stop this application and had organised the petition as set out in the committee report, as well as other events to oppose the application. He considered that the vast majority of people accessed the development without disturbance and the crime rates were below average as set out in the committee report. However, he was also aware of the problems felt by some people about a small number of people misusing the pathway. If the permission was refused, the organisation would do all that they could to address any issues.
In response to questions, he stated that attempts had been made to address nuisance behaviour around the close and the organisation maintained the pathway and would continue to do so. It was feared that the proposal could actually worsen the problems by displacing anti social behaviour (ASB) into other areas into the estate. As suggested by the Crime Prevention Officer, it would be necessary to install more gates, alongside the proposal to make the close completely safe.
Karen Tan (local resident) spoke in support of the proposal for the safety and security of residents. Whilst the report said that the crime figures were not exceptional, the reality was very different. Residents were too scared to go out. Gates had been installed at other parts of the estate and smaller gates could be installed without planning permission but this would not be as effective. The Crime Reduction Officer statement was supportive of the proposal to reduce crime.
In response to questions about ASB on the estate, she gave example of recent incidences from personal experience. (She spoke about people congregating outside her property and the car park intimating residents and preventing use of the parking spaces. She expressed concern at drug dealing on the pathway due to its secluded nature). The gate would prevent such people from coming into the area and would stop these problems. The gates should be open in the day time and closed at night
Jermaine Thomas(Planning Officer, Development and Renewal), presented the report highlighting the site location and the location of the proposed gates. He also explained the outcome of the local consultation, resulting in representations in support and objection, and addressed the issues raised.
In terms of crime, it was explained that Officers had assessed the crime statistics from the Police showing that crime levels in the close were no greater than the wider area. As such it was not considered that the proposal justified a deviation in policy. In terms of permeability, it was considered that the installation of the gates would restrict movement and would significantly increase walking distances for residents in the estate to the surrounding area. There were also general concerns that the providing a gate at this end of Coopers Close would inevitably lead to pressure for further gates at other access points Given the design and height, it was also considered that the gates would be an unsightly addition to the area. However, it was noted that they would have no impact on amenity.
Due to these issues, Officers were recommending that the planning permission was refused.
In response to questions, Officers referred to the policies in the Development Plan seeking to promote community cohesion and a well connected Borough. The concern was that the scheme would contribute towards the creation of a gated community, restricting movement, contrary to the policy. Whilst there had been no direct contact with the Bethnal Green Crime Team, Officers did consult the Crime Prevention Officer who whilst generally supportive of the scheme, also felt that other gates would need to be installed to address the issues with crime in the estate.
Overall, Members were minded to refuse the application due to the concerns. They were also mindful of the strength of local opposition to the scheme. However, it was felt that more action needed to taken to make the residents feel more safe. For example, it was suggested that the Council should take action to discourage people from congregating in the estate and promote the use of Leisure facilities nearby. Police should work to make the pathway more safe
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission at Passageway to the south of 18 Cleveland Way, London E1 be REFUSED to erect a 2.4m high gate across the passage way (PA/15/00096) for the reason set out in the Committee report as set out below:
a) The proposal would restrict full public access resulting in an unacceptable form of development that would fail to retain a permeable environment, by reason of creating a physical barrier. This would be contrary to the general principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies 7.2 of the London Plan (2015), SP09 of the Core Strategy (2010) and DM23 of the Managing Development Document (2013). These policies require development be well connected with the surrounding area and should be easily accessible for all people.
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 discourage community cohesion 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 (2015), 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.
Supporting documents: