Sunday, 6 June 2010

Construction Management Plan - REFUSED

The Construction Management Plan submitted by Telford Homes plc for the Eric and Treby Street Estate Regeneration has been REFUSED by the local planning authority.

On 3rd June Tower Hamlets Planning considered the Construction Management Plan submitted for the Eric, Treby & Brokesley construction sites.

This plan needs to considered sound by planning officials as it is one of the major conditions that needs to be met before work can start.
Condition 5
  • Prior to commencement of development, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
  • The plan shall detail the proposed method for demolition and construction works associated with the development. It shall include details of noise control measures, measures to preserve air quality (including a risk assessment of the construction phase) and vehicular access / circulation arrangements during construction phases.
  • The plan shall include a consideration of the feasibility of accessing site 10 during the construction phases from St. Clements Hospital.
  • The development shall only be implemented in accordance with the details and measures approved as part of the construction management plan, which shall be maintained throughout the entire construction period.
Reason: To avoid hazard and obstruction being caused to users of the public highway and in the interest of public safety and amenity in accordance with the requirements of policies DEV2 and DEV50 of the Council's Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies DEV1, DEV10 and DEV11 of the Council's Interim Planning Guidance (2007).
MERA submitted a 20 page letter to Tower Hamlets Planning indicating our comments on and objections to the submissions made by Telford Homes and EastendHomes in attempting to satisfy the planning conditions for the development.

In the main we focused on omissions of content and various ways in which the submissions failed to satisfy us that the amenity, health and safety of local residents had been properly considered. We focused in particular on:
  • Hours of Working: hours stipulated in the planning conditions incorrectly stated in the plan and no note of the limits on hours for noisy working
  • the Traffic Access Plan - grossly deficient given the context for the development
  • Refuse: the lack of any plan for revised refuse management/collection arrangements - both temporary and permanent - for Ennerdale House
  • Communication: the lack of any indication of how local residents would be kept informed during the contract and how we can advise about any problems and/or any breaches of any of the planning conditions
The exact reasons for refusal have not yet been published on the LBTH website but we expect them to appear soon here.

No comments:

Post a Comment

We welcome comments however please note:
* All comments are MODERATED prior to publication (which means they are unlikely to be published straight away)
* Spam is NEVER published


Related Posts with Thumbnails