Agenda item
Holland Estate, Commercial Street, London (PA/16/01628)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 26th October, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.2)
- View the background to item 5.2
Proposal:
Application for variation of Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development comprising the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route
between Herbert House and Jacobson House.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report:
Minutes:
Jerry Bell(East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application to vary Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development.
The application sought the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route between Herbert House and Jacobson House.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Akmal Hussain of Herbert House spoke in support of the application contrary to the officers recommendation to refuse the application. He expressed concern at the anti-social behaviour levels within the area and considered that the proposed gates would address and prevent such problems. He cited examples of the type of problems encountered and felt that that no other measures would address the issues. Furthermore, he did not consider that the application would block public access given the proximity of the site to many other alternative access routes. In response to questions from Members he explained in further detail the severity of the existing problems, that had been partly cause by the displacement of problems from other sites. He also further discussed the strength of the support for the proposal amongst residents, the impact of the plans on public access and expressed concern about the frequency of Police patrols of the area.
Jenifer Chivers (Planning Services) presented the report brought to the Committee as it has received a petition in support with 73 signatures that was contrary to the officer recommendation to refuse the application. The application had also received one letter in support and one in objection.
She drew attention to the location of the subject housing development and the site designations in policy. She also explained the planning history, highlighting the appeal case for a similar application. She also described the key features of this application including the appearance of the proposed gates and the importance of the access route that would be affected. She also referred to the issues raised in the representations in support, stressing the need for the gates to prevent ASB in the area.
Officers had reviewed all of the issues and considered that the proposal to install the gates would restrict access and create a segregated community. Therefore, Officers were of the view that the application should be refused planning permission.
The Committee enquired about the problems with ASB in the area and the reasons for this. In particular they asked about the crime statistics and the anecdotal evidence of ASB related issues in the area. The Committee also asked about the weight that should be given to the policy in respect of gated communities and whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify a deviation from policy given the concerns about ASB.
In response, the Committee were advised of the crime statistics in the area obtained from the police over a three years period. Overall, Officers did not consider that the level of reported crime in the area were that exceptional and justified a deviation from the local and national policy. Officers could only assess the application on the basis of the reported crime statistics not anecdotal evidence. It was also pointed out that the Council had a responsibility to the whole Borough and needed to be mindful of the fact that the installation of gates may displace crime elsewhere. Moreover there was no evidence to suggest that gates prevented crime. In response to further questions it was noted that the level of support for the proposal did add some weight to the case for the application.
The Committee also asked questions about the loss of the public access route. It was reported that the route would provide access to the surrounding area and also the city area to the west. Furthermore the footfall from the route would improve natural surveillance that in itself should help to reduce crime in the area .
The Committee also discussed the issue of setting a precedence, the adequacy of other solutions to the issues, the strength of the evidence, and the existing security arrangements within the development.
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission, 4 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to refuse the planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Chris Chapman proposed and Councillor Sabina Akhtarseconded a motion that the recommendation to refuse planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Holland Estate, Commercial Street, London for the variation of Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development comprising the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route between Herbert House and Jacobson House (PA/16/01628)
The Committee were minded to approve the application as they considered that the public safety concerns outweighed the policy considerations set out in the Committee report in respect of gated developments.
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 approval and proposed conditions.
Supporting documents: