Agenda item
Millwall Outer Dock Moorings, Selsdon Way, London (PA/16/01798)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 10th May, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.2)
- View the background to item 5.2
Proposal:
Erection of a 16 berth residential mooring, including the installation of mooring pontoons and associated site infrastructure.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the erection of a 16 berth residential mooring, including the installation of mooring pontoons and associated site infrastructure.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Philip Style and Councillor Dave Chesterton spoke in objection to the proposal. The speakers expressed doubt about the suitability of the location for the proposal given its proximity to a 24 hour commercial premises at Greenwich view place. It would cause a conflict between theses uses. The premises would receive constant noise complaints, as it was doubtful if the moorings would have adequate insulation to minimise the noise disturbance. Concern was also expressed about the right of access over third party land to service the development.
Furthermore, there would also be no affordable housing or play space, but high end canal boats and so it would effectively privatise the open water space. It would also adversely affect the sailing activities on the dock , particular the ability of novice sailors and children to practice their sailing skills given the risk of collision with moored boats. The plans should be developed in accordance with emerging water space strategies. In response to questions, Councillor Chesterton stated that he was not speaking on behalf of the Docklands Sailing and Watersports Centre. He reiterated that the plans would particularly affect inexperienced sailors, especially children. The comments in the report about the preservation of the navigation lane were irrelevant, as the sailors would require the whole dock. In fact, the need to protect the water space was all the more important now in light of the pressure that the Westferry Printworks scheme would place on the dock.
Richard Newton (Canal and Rivers Trust) spoke in support in support of the proposal. He talked about the pressing need for new housing and residential moorings in London. The plans complied with the London Plan that promoted the establishment of moorings in sites such as this. It would occupy a very small part of the water space (1.9% of the water space) and be set back from the navigation channels as stated in the report. He noted that the sailing club did not have an exclusive right to use the dock. The scheme had been amended to respond favourably to the setting of the dock. There would be conditions to safeguard amenity and a management plan to control activity. He was happy to build in to these plans measures to address the liability issues.
In response to Members, he explained that the proposal would be car free and there would be relatively little servicing. He also clarified the servicing arrangements and proposed route. In the event that the dispute with the third party over site access could not be resolved, an alternative route had been identified as set out in the Committee report and update. He did not consider that the plans would affect sailing activities. The applicant had engaged with the DSWC. They would work with the club to address any liability issues.
Jane Jin (Planning Services) presented the application describing the planning history and the key features of the plans. Consultation had been carried out and the results were noted. The proposal sought to provide permanent residential moorings. The plans would only occupy 1.9% of the water space and would preserve the open character of the water space and would have no harmful impacts. There would be a range of safeguards to ensure this. Consequently, the loss of the water space could be considered acceptable. In terms of the servicing plans, Officers were aware of the issues raised by the objector about access over the Greenwich View Place. Legal advice on this matter had been sought as set out in the update report. In view of the issues, the applicant had identified an alternative route for refuse collection that would enable the servicing to be carried out without the need to rely on the third party land.
Given the merits of the application, Officers recommended that it was granted planning permission.
Members asked about the servicing and delivery route, and the contingencies plans in view of the legal issues. Some concern was expressed about the merits of the alternative route involving the unlocking/locking of a trade link. It was felt that it could further increase vehicle congestion in that area and impede pedestrian access. In response, Officers outlined the nature of the legal issues. They also provided reassurances on the operation of the alternative route. Overall, it was considered that the impact on the highway would be minimal given the size of the scheme and that there would be adequate space for pedestrians to pass the vehicles.
The Committee also asked about the impact on the water space and the objections about the impact on sailing activities. They also asked if the plans would contribute to the Borough’s housing targets.
It was noted the proposal did not count towards the housing targets as the moorings did not fall within a specific use class. As a result, no contributions for infrastructure could be secured. It was reiterated that each application should be considered on its own merits. Whilst the loss of water space was generally not supported, the policy supports proposals which were water related, that did not affect amenity and preserved the navigability of the dock. Due to the size and location of the proposals, the plans did.
The Committee sought clarify on the quantum of water space that would be lost as a result of the development. It was questioned whether the measurement quoted in the presentation related to only the platform itself. In response, officers clarified the total surface area of the application.
The Committee also asked questions about the design of a nearby development.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and 7 against, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 7 in favour and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Millwall Outer Dock Moorings, Selsdon Way, London be NOT ACCEPTED for the erection of a 16 berth residential mooring, including the installation of mooring pontoons and associated site infrastructure(PA/16/01798).
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Loss of open water space
· Impact on the sailing activities in the Millwall Outer Dock given the risk of collisions with moored vessels.
· Vehicle access arrangements.
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 the decision.
Supporting documents: