Agenda item
Entrance To Claire Place Between 46 and 48, Tiller Road, London E14 (PA/17/02781)
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
During the consideration of the item, the Committee heard from the following registered speakers. Councillor Kyrsten Perry, Mr L Tanswell, a local resident and Ms C Apcar, representing the applicant spoke in support of the application. No persons had registered to speak against the application.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East) Planning Services) introduced the report which concerned an application for the installation of automated vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates at the vehicular entrance to Claire Place
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Councillor Perry, Ward Councillor for Canary Wharf spoke in support of the application to install gates at the entrance to the development setting out the following reasons:
- the area was known to have crime and antisocial behaviour problems
- incidents of illegal parking, threatened violence, aggressive behaviour and antisocial behaviour in the private development were increasing, leading residents to feel terrorised in their own homes
- installation of gates would help address these escalating issues
- Claire Place was not a thorough fare and the gates would not impact traffic in the area
Mr Tanswell and Ms Apcar, each addressed the meeting setting out their arguments for the approval of the application. They contended that:
· the application was located in a private development which was wholly residential and did not form part of a thoroughfare, in fact the gates at the rear of the development in Caravel Close caused the development to be secluded except for the entrance at Tiller Road
- the development contained a number of secluded zones which, which did not design out crime but created un-overlooked zones which non-residents were able to access from the main entrance to Claire Place These areas were used for illegal activity such as drugs and Police had been called on a number of occasions
- residents received threatening behaviour from drivers of illegally parked cars
- the proposal to install the gates would establish a sense of place for residents without affecting other areas in the vicinity.
- Police recognise the benefits of the gates in terms of addressing issues of crime and antisocial behaviour in the development. Additionally, elsewhere other such applications had been permitted on appeal
- the activities of non-residents in regard to antisocial behaviour and illegal parking was causing significant negative impacts on the quality of life of residents
Responding to Members’ questions the following additional information was provided:
- the design of the development, narrow paths and small roads leading to garages, offered opportunities for unauthorised parking causing obstruction to residents’ properties and for antisocial behaviour.
- residents that addressed drivers of illegally parked cars were met with abuse and threats
- there were escalating incidents of antisocial behaviour and criminal activities. Police were aware of the ongoing issues and it was asserted that issues of antisocial behaviour or illegal parking were taking place daily
- the application for the installation of gates was supported by the Tower Hamlets Safer Neighbourhood Teams
- there were other developments nearby which were gated to control these same types of issue
- previous measures such as installation of gates at the garage area in Caravel Close and pedestrian gates at the entrance to gardens and at the end of walkways had in part addressed issues on the development however the main access into the development remained open to all. It was felt that the gates would resolve these issues as they will provide a method of controlling access into the development.
The Committee noted that unauthorised parking was an enforcement issue and queried if this had been pursued. Objectors informed Members that enforcement had not been used since issues of concern not only related to illegal parking but also burglaries and threatening behaviours. Additionally they argued that parking tickets were known to be an ineffective deterrent.
Mr H Vong, Planning Officer, presented technical report which outlined the technical elements and key features of the application. He highlighted the Council's policy on gated developments, and NPPG para 58 – 69 which requires local and neighbourhood plans to develop robust and comprehensive policies based on objectives for the future of the area and an understanding and evaluation of its defining characteristics concerning good design. He also informed Members that the reported levels of criminality were insufficient to justify departing from the Council's policy not to support gated communities.
Responding to Members’ questions the Committee noted:
- that concerning the Council’s performance at appeal relating to applications for gated access to premises, prior to 2010 the Council lost a number of appeals because of evidence of crime and antisocial behaviour
- the application under consideration was in an area known to be a hotspot of antisocial behaviour and crime, additionally the access via Caravel Close had been gated to reduce antisocial behaviour.
- the site of the proposed gates would not obstruct a thoroughfare
- the purpose of the application was to provide a means to address issues of unauthorised parking and serious crime such as the threat of gun crime that was reported at the meeting
- the previously installed pedestrian gates around the site were kept locked
- one of the reasons for officers’’ recommendation to refuse the application at the previous Council meeting on [x] was that installation of gates would result in congestion at peak times on Tiller Road. The applicant’s representative advised that the design incorporated automatic opening for residents’ vehicles.
- the imposition of a condition around prevention of congestion on the highway might mitigate the impacts of the gates on traffic in Tiller Road.
- the options to reduce congestion were that the gates remain open during ‘peak hours’ namely 7AM - 10AM and 3PM -7PM or that sensors be installed which triggered automatic opening upon approach by residents’ vehicles.
Having discussed the matters at issue, the Committee moved to vote on the application.
The Chair proposed and Councillor Ruhul Amin seconded and on a vote of two in favour and four against the Committee DID NOT ACCEPT the officer recommendation to refuse permission for the installation of automated vehicular and pedestrian access gates at the vehicular entrance to Claire Place between 46 and 48 Tiller Road London E14.
The Committee was minded to overturn the officer recommendation and grant permission on the following grounds:
1. the seriousness of clients and antisocial behaviour reported outweighed the recommendation for refusal based on criteria that the gates would create unacceptable levels of segregation, the gates’ design and that they will have an impact on congestion on the surrounding highways
2. the area's note have high levels of crime and antisocial behaviour
3. there are other gated developments in the vicinity which have been installed as a measure to control crime and antisocial behaviour
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, Councillor Pierce moved and Councillor Ruhul Amin seconded an alternative proposal that the application for the Installation of automated vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates at the vehicular entrance to Claire Place BE GRANTED with the following conditions:
- That the gates be installed within 3 years of the grant of permission
- The development take place in accordance with the approved plan
- The gates to operate in accordance with the details provided within the application
On a vote of 5 in favour and 0 against and with one abstention, it was
RESOLVED:
That the application for Installation of automated vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates at the vehicular entrance to Claire Place, 46 – 48 Tiller Road London E14 BE GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS.
- That the gates be installed within 3 years of the grant of permission
- The development take place in accordance with the approved plan
- The gates to operate in accordance with the details provided within the application
At the request of Councillor Gold it was recorded that although he supported the proposal in principle he abstained from the vote because of road safety concerns.
Supporting documents: