St Clement's Hospital Site - Tower Hamlets Council considers planning application 11 December 2013

Councillors will consider the report on the planning application

REDEVELOPMENT OF ST CLEMENT’S HOSPITAL SITE

At the meeting of the Council’s Development Committee

On Wednesday 11^th December

In The Council Chamber

At Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 2BQ

The meeting is open to the public

MERA will be representing the views of local residents as one of the two people selected to speak on the application at committee

The meeting starts at 7pm and finishes when all business is done or 11pm

However The report on this planning application is the last one of the agenda and

consideration may not start until as late as 10pm

The MERA Brokesley Street Representative will be there from 8.30pm

MAIN COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS:

Concerns about the impact on local residents living in Brokesley Street with respect to:

·      Noise from 4 years of construction in particular late night deliveries to the site and impact on children’s sleep

·      Overshadowing and loss of light due to building new units up to the boundary wall separating Brokesley Street homes from the hospital site. Omission of Brokesley Street housing from lighting assessment

·      Adequacy of local school provision to meet demand from people coming to live in the new housing

·      Impact of construction traffic on safety of entry/exit from Brokesley Street

DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 

AND OFFICERS REPORT  pages 165 – 212 of the publicreports pack

EXTRACTS FROM THE FORMAL MERA RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION

Below you can read the summary of our detailed response which was submitted in August

Overall conclusions

In general, we are broadly supportive of the proposed development. 

·       It’s very important to increase the amount of affordable social housing in the borough

·       It’s important to integrate social housing with opportunities for shared ownership and private accommodation to promote better communities

·       We welcome new initiatives involving the Land Trust and the Ricardo Trust and see these both as positive new initiatives.  We trust they will grow and develop to fulfil their aspirations.

·       We very much endorse the use of the building fronting onto Mile End Road as a suitable place for community focused activities.

·       We agree it’s very important to preserve the character of our local heritage – particularly that within a recognised and existing Conservation Area. 

However we remain concerned about a number of aspects of the planning application.  Some of these can be dealt with under delegated powers as part of the Construction Management Delivery Plan. 

Others need a clear steer from the Committee as to what is and is not acceptable in relation to assessing

·       The impact of the construction contract on local residents

·       The assessment of the impact of the development given some serious omissions of data and serious misunderstandings about the nature of the neighbouring properties

Clearly, it’s inappropriate to build new quality homes while having a serious impact on the quality standards of recently built new homes and other neighbouring properties.

Our concerns – in summary

Matters that concern us about the planning application for the proposed development on the St Clements Hospital site include:

·       Noise control:  It’s expected this project will be on site for up to 4 years. We are now much more aware than we used to be about how intrusive and wearing noise can be when experienced on a daily basis over a period of years. It’s vital to the wellbeing of the community to ensure that the disruption to amenity and people’s quiet enjoyment of their homes is minimised during the construction process.  We’re not yet convinced that the developer has thought through how this can be as considerate a construction process as is possible.

·       Site traffic management and site deliveries:  In our view it completely inappropriate and insensitive to ask for an extension in normal working hours for site deliveries.  Some 30+ children live in Brokesley Street and the proposals means intrusive levels of noise when parents should be able to reasonably expect that they can get their children to bed and to sleep. There is no option appraisal presented the planning application with respect to alternatives and it’s clear other alternatives have either not been examined or need to be revisited.

·       Overshadowing and impact on natural light and sunlight levels

o   There are very serious inaccuracies and omissions in the data used in the report with respect to the lighting assessment. It excludes both residential units and back gardens which will be seriously affected by the development.

o   Adding height and building up to the boundary wall has considerable implications for light. Overshadowing has an impact on the wellbeing of families and their ability to provide fresh vegetables for their families

o   The development also appears to place more priority on retaining a low level building of extremely limited heritage value over the needs and wellbeing of existing local residents. 

·       Opening up the site – and use of gates: we need to recognise that this development proposes a change of use from long-term incarceration to habitation.  It’s imperative that this site is also opened up to promote integration with the rest of the local area. The use of gates in this context is inappropriate and we would like to see the gates only retained as heritage features rather than as ways to create a boundary around the site.  We’d also like to see more reduction in the height of the boundary wall next to the British Street estate and Hamlets Way.

·       Design and usage of the buildings at the front (John Denham Building and Bungalow): We think this aspect needs to be looked at again so that it better supports the objectives of the core strategy for this area.

·       Adequacy of local school provision:  We’re concerned that the development may aggravate the existing deficit in provision of local primary school places for local children who are currently being schooled all over the borough.  We can find nothing in the application that identifies the impact on demand for local schools and we can see nothing from Education that identifies scope to meet demand.  The failure to make a connection between creating homes for families and checking to see whether local infrastructure can meet the demand it creates is irresponsible.

 

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Bonner Primary School comes to Mile End

NEWS ABOUT SCHOOLS #3

Professional Development Centre, English Street - to become a school again
- an extension of Bonner Primary School

Yesterday you may have voted at the Polling Station in the Professional Development Centre in English Street - however did you know that very soon children of primary school age will again be using the Centre as a school?

That's NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL places for Mile End!

This post is about:

• what the Centre used to be
• what the Centre is now
• the shortage of primary school places in Tower Hamlets - and what MERA has been doing
• how the Centre will change back into a primary school and become an extension of Bonner Primary School.

Olympics 2012: Missiles on top of Bryant & May Factory?

The old Bryant and May Factory in Fairfield Road in Bow is apparently adding missile site to its other claims to fame.

The factory is famous for many things:

1. The largest factory in London in the nineteenth century - it had been developed by William Bryant and Francis May in 1861 to make safety matches
2. This was where the London matchgirls strike of 1888 took place - leading to the first trade union for women
3. The factory led the fight against phossy jaw - a disease of matchworkers caused by the white phosphorus used in the manufacture of early matches
4. and now..... the site of missiles to protect the Olympics in 2012.  Apparently the Ministry of Defence require a tall building near the Olympic site for ground-based air defence systems as an anti-terrorist precaution.

The tower at the old Bryant and May Match Factory in Fairfield Road, Bow
- a future site for the missiles?

The factory was converted to residential accommodation in the 1980s and is now a private gated community comprising 19 town houses and 714 apartments - called The Bow Quarter.  

Residents have received an official communication - and it would seem have no choice about the new proposed use of the top of what is the old water tower.

Brian Whelan, a resident of the building, said the MoD leaflet said the missiles would only be fired as a last resort. He said: "They are going to have a test run next week, putting high-velocity missiles on the roof just above our apartment, and on the back of it they are stationing police and military in the tower of the building for two months
The Guardian - Missiles could be stationed on rooftops during London Olympics

Murder nightclub premises for rent

The former Broke/Boheme Nightclub at 562a Mile End Road where Kelvin Easton was murdered is available for rent. (see Police Appeal for witnesses to murder in Mile End 31 Mar 2011)

Should any enterprising entrepreneur be in any doubt, the Mile End Residents Association will be doing all it can to prevent this property ever again being used as a location for a nightclub.  

We understand informally from the Police that the track record of repeated and enforced closures of nightclubs on the premises due to illegal activity and criminal/anti-social behaviour associated with this venue (see Murder Club should NOT have been open!; Broke / Boheme Nightclub Licence REVOKED! 22 Apr 2011) means it is extremely unlikely that any future application for a licence would ever be successful.

In the meantime the Council is currently consulting on whether or not any activities related to the sex trade can ever be located anywhere in Tower Hamlets (see Have your say on strip clubs and sex shops in Tower Hamlets!).  The Council is firmly of the opinion that there is nowhere suitable - and prospective lessees will wish to note this.

MERA supports the owners in seeking uses appropriate to this residential and family area.  In our opinion that means

• family-friendly only
• likely to promote the economic health and well-being of the area
• nothing connected to the night economy 
• nothing likely to attract violence, crime or anti-social behaviour to this area
• absolutely no more fast food shops

MERA will of course be scrutinising any planning application for a permanent change of use with great interest.

WHY NOT LET US KNOW WHAT YOU LIKE TO SEE THE PROPERTY USED FOR?

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Telford Homes breach planning permission at Site 1 - again!

Telford Homes have started building on Site 1 despite the fact that they have failed to complete all the pre-commencement planning conditions.

Condition 8 relating to waste management arrangements remains outstanding - of which more later.

We heard this morning that Site 1 had been withdrawn from the application submitted to date - and we're not surprised!  So, in principle, there should be no development on site except excavations of foundations whereas in reality some considerable progress has been made above ground. This is despite the fact that Telford Homes have already had a formal written warning by Owen Whalley, Tower Hamlets Lead Planning Officer,  about ignoring and breaching planning conditions in relation to The Eric & Treby development.

This morning we've sent the following images (below) to the responsible planning officer.  Telford Homes don't appear to be able to read their own plans - as well as not being able to read planning conditions.

This is a very clear breach of the plans for the approved development at Site 1.  The plan is for the rear of Site 1 (next to the old skip area) and the photo has been taken from a flat on that corner of Ennerdale House.

plan for development next to rear of Ennerdale House (next to refuse area)

actual development at the same location
bricks are ABOVE ground / broom handle gives scale

Note the broom handle lying on the ground which gives the scale of the gap left between existing building and new development.

There is no way that the proper distance between the existing building and the approved footprint for the new building has been located correctly.

So - is this yet another example of Telford Homes contravening approved planning permission as well as ignoring the terms of pre-commencement planning conditions?

We expect that Tower Hamlets Planning will be along shortly to inspect the illegal progress being made on site 1 to date.

We'll be very interested to hear what Mr Whalley has to say about this development.......

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Mile End - Fast Food Update

Location of SIXTEEN A5 (hot food takeaways)
in the Mile End area
(see end of post for explanation of A3 and A5)

Did you know that:

• children in Tower Hamlets are much more obese than children elsewhere in London and England?
• Focus groups recently interviewed by the Council identified the number of fast food outlets in an area as being an important contributory factor in people having a poor diet?
• there are 41.8 junk food outlets to every school in Tower Hamlets  compared to the national average ratio of 25 outlets per school?(City University School of Community and Health Sciences research)
• there are SIXTEEN hot food takeaway units in the Mile End Area?

  

Children in Tower Hamlets are far more obese
than children living elsewhere in London and England

Did you also know that the Council has been reviewing how Tower Hamlets can become a more healthy community?

In September last year the Council set up the The Childhood Obesity Scrutiny Review Working Group.  Its aim was to identify how the Council and NHS in Tower Hamlets could work together to reduce the serious problem of childhood obesity in the borough.

One of the key objectives of the review was to identify how to better manage and regulate the fast food outlets within the borough - with the specific aim of making sure that they don't become too concentrated

A report was received and approved by the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 8 June 2010.  Members of the Committee welcomed the report and made a number of comments about the importance of promoting healthy eating and exercise as well as focusing on the planning and business issues in relation to fast food outlets.

One of the outcomes of the review is that the Development and Renewal Directorate intend to submit a paper to Cabinet titled ‘Healthy Borough Programme – Managing Fast Food Outlets via Planning’.

MERA is currently trying to find out what progress has been made on getting this published.

Fast Food Planning Applications in Mile End

MERA is  taking a lead on making sure that:

• there's a focus on helping the local community in Mile End to be more healthy
• environmental concerns associated with takeaways are reduced
• local retail activitiy is not swamped any further by yet more hot food takeaways
• we promote the role of local shops within the local economy.

Of late, what used to be retail units (Class A1 Use) have progressively been taken over by fast food takeaways (A5) and betting shops (A4) - with no apparent regard for the concentration of A5 in the Mile End area.

The impact is detrimental to both the local economy and amenity in general

• Retail activity in the Mile End area needs to be supported.  Shops need other shops around them to attract shoppers and thrive.   The fewer the shops, the less likely they are to attract customers.
• There's a knock-on effect in terms of the amount of litter and smells in the environment which are NOT dealt with effectively by the building control, environmental health and refuse collection activities of the Council.

This is what one local resident recently had to say about the level of rubbish around Mile End Tube Station and Burdett Road

...some of my colleagues who do not live around there but come out of the Underground to get a bus down to Canary Wharf, simply can't believe the mess of the place.  Canary Wharf is also Tower Hamlets, and there are bins everywhere for rubbish.  Why do we in Mile End have to put up with third class eating places and second class provision for rubbish?

After the MERA Survey of Hot Food Take-aways in the Mile End Area, MERA now takes the view that there are quite enough fast food outlets and that we will in future oppose all planning applications which propose any change of use from A1 Retail to A5 hot food takeaway.

Quality control of planning applications

Recently members of MERA have been invited to comment on yet another planning application for a proposed change of use - PA/10/01611 566 Mile End Road - Change of use from A1 to A5 hot food take away only (see categories of use below)

 Yesterday - just three hours before the deadline for the end of a 21 day consulation period - and after a number of members had taken the time and effort to submit their observations and objections, the planning application was REMOVED from the Tower Hamlets Planning Application Database. 
Apparently the planning application was deemed invalid due to the fact that the Certificate of Ownership has been completed incorrectly.

This followed confusion about the address of the property which had listed two separate addresses (556 Mile End Road and 566 Mile End Road) in its application which Mark Taylor, the MERA Chair highlighted to Planning on 20th August.

While these might be the sort of routine mistakes any applicant might make in submitting an application we would have thought that these type of mistakes would have been picked up by the Planning Department's quality control processes prior to applications being published for consultation with the public.  We have an email from the Council saying that the application was validated and yet that validation failed to pick up either of these two fundamental mistakes.

MERA has been impressed of late with the quality of responses we have been getting from Planning when we raise issues.  It was was therefore very disappointing to find all our efforts apparently wasted this time around.

We sincerely hope that Tower Hamlets Planning will derive some lessons from this as we really don't need our time wasted by mistakes of this sort again!

We understand that a further application is to be submitted.  If you'd like a copy of the MERA letter of objection do please get in touch - you can find details of how to contact us in the right hand column.

________________

NOTE: These are the classes of planning use associated with economic activity at Mile End.  These are what the terms mean when you see an application for a proposed change of use.

A1 Shops - Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices (but not sorting offices), pet shops, sandwich bars, showrooms, domestic hire shops, dry cleaners, funeral directors and internet cafes.

A2 Financial and professional services - Financial services such as banks and building societies, professional services (other than health and medical services) including estate and employment agencies and betting offices.

A3 Restaurants and cafés - For the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises - restaurants, snack bars and cafes

A4 Drinking establishments - Public houses, wine bars or other drinking establishments (but not night clubs).

A5 Hot food takeaways - For the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises.

Sui Generis - Certain uses do not fall within any use class and are considered 'sui generis'. Such uses include: theatres, houses in multiple occupation, hostels providing no significant element of care, scrap yards. Petrol filling stations and shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles. Retail warehouse clubs, nightclubs, launderettes, taxi businesses, amusement centres and casinos.

Planning - Use Classes

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Mile End Estate Management Board - queries, comments and complaints

Many local residents have concerns about the development of the Eric & Treby Estate and how it is going to affect them. However many people don't realise that they are able to comment direct to the Council about their concerns. 

You can object to planning proposals if it affects your life, home or amenity.  Here in Tower Hamlets (and every other local authority in the country) the democratic system puts a priority on ordinary residents having an input to important planning decisions which affect their lives.

This means everybody is entitled to comment to the Council about any planning policy or planning application which affects their lives, their property and their amenity (eg peaceful enjoyment of where you live).  

The Minister of Town and Country Planning in 1951 stated that 'anything ugly, dirty, noisy, crowded or uncomfortable may injure the interests of amenity'. Amenity is often a material consideration in planning decisions.

You can even OBJECT if you want to! Not only that but the Council INVITES us to comment if you live nearby!

You can do more than just comment on planning matters.  If you have a concern about a proposed development, you can

• get questions about planning aspects answered by the Council's Planning Officers
• submit an objection to a planning application direct to the Council
• ask the Council's Planning Enforcement Team to take action about developments which deviate from what has been agreed
• contact Highways to express your views about obstructions to the streets and pavements
• contact Environmental Health and ask for support about aspects of developments which constitute a statutory environmental nuisance - such as noise

The important point is that you do NOT have to direct your comments to the applicant (ie EastendHomes) or any intermediary (including the Estate Management Board or MERA).   You can if you choose - but it's your choice.

However you may want to provide your feedback direct to EastendHomes........

How Mile End Estate Management Board handles feedback

This is the Resident Involvement page on the EastendHomes website.  It states

Local delivery of services, decision making and accountability are at the heart of EastendHomes approach.

However some of the Board members on EastendHomes' Mile End Management Board have criticised MERA for representing residents' views direct to the Council's Planning Department!

MERA’s direct complaints to the Planning Department should have been discussed with the Board in the first instance and DO added that MERA’s action had subsequently undermined the Board.
Minutes of Mile End Estate (Special) Board Meeting 10th June 2010 (MERA inserted the bold italics in above quote)

It seems to MERA that Board members may fail to understand the distinction between comments/objections about planning applications and complaints.

They may also not appreciate that all households have various opportunities to make representations about various matters about redevelopment contracts direct to the Council. Residents in Mile End are doing this more and more as they lose confidence in the Board's approach to handling comments and complaints promptly and effectively.

Bernie Cameron (Chair of the Mile End Estate Management Board, Vice Chair of the EastendHomes Main Board and “Resident of the Year" - whose photo is frequently in EEH publications but who is NOT seen often on the Eric & Treby Estate) has suggested we should approach the Board with any queries we have about the building works.

Too much tarmac and too little grass and permeable surfaces
means Telford Homes MUST redo this landscaping

• The Chair of MERA raised an example of just one aspect of the current development by Telford Homes at a meeting with the Board held on 10th June. (download minutes here). 
• To date there has been no response despite reminders.
• However, after contacting the Council direct about exactly the same matter, MERA received a letter from Planning Enforcement in July indicating that this area of concern MUST be addressed by Telford Homes on behalf of EastendHomes as it does not form part of the permitted development.

MERA would consider approaching the Board but we have serious reservations about its speed of response and overall effectiveness.

On the whole we still need to be persuaded that the Board is very accessible, genuinely interested, will listen carefully to residents' concerns and take prompt action to address them.

MERA says....

• comments and/or objections are NOT complaints per se and 
• comments and/or objections do NOT have to reported to the Board first
• some issues need to be addressed quickly - and can't wait until the next Board meeting - whenever that is....
• if the Board doesn't sort issues out quickly then residents are left with no option but to go direct to the Council

MERA would like to know how local residents' queries, comments and complaints regarding the development proposals can properly be  dealt with by the Estate Managament Board which has.....

• NOT met in a normal session open to residents since 22nd April 2010 as indicated on the website...

The Mile End Board meets regularly at the British Street Community Hall.

• NOT included the latest minutes on the website - the latest are Minutes 4 March 2010
• a POOR TRACK RECORD in involving the residents from Eric & Treby Estate in decision-making which affects their lives 
• IGNORED very many representations about the planning application being made by tenants and leaseholders to the Council in 2009 - and FAILED to respond adequately to the concerns which were highlighted.
• FAILED to highlight on its website how local residents can contact the Mile End Board
• FAILED to highlight how residents can get a quick response to queries from the Board
• FAILED to highlight to residents how they can comment to the Council on the Application for Approval of Details of Planning Conditions to residents  (unlike MERA)
• NEVER made any comments to Planning about various matters which are an infringement of the conditions of the permitted development (unlike MERA which has been very active in this area - resulting in visits from the Planning Enforcement Team and the Health and Safety Executive and subsequent enforcement action)
• NOT responded to queries from MERA about building works
• several VACANT places on the Board and inactive members
• NO EVIDENCE (in Board minutes) that the Mile End Estate Management Board has even seen - never mind signed off - the revised Construction Management Plan for the Eric & Treby Estate.  (It took MERA 30 pages to comment on all the errors and omission in the plan)
• NO RELATIONSHIP whatsoever with the local Mile End householders who do not live in EastendHomes Properties;
• NO EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION with other local Mile End householders who do not live in EastendHomes Properties about their concerns.  Many have been totally ignored despite representations.

Mile End Estate Management Board also refuses to recognise MERA!  Apparently we undermine it, don't fit their structures, etc. etc.

The reality is that MERA does exist, does represent local resident's views to the Council and provides support to individuals who want to make their own independent representations.

PLUS as a direct result of writing direct to Tower Hamlets Planning and the Health and Safety Executive, MERA has secured changes which will improve the health and safety of the environment for local residents

Would we have got the same result in the same time by submitting comments direct to the Mile End Estate Management Board?

We don't think so! What do you think?

Tomorrow - find out how to make a comment. We'll highlight what you can comment on and explain how to comment or register an objection to a planning application.

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Proposed Construction Management Plan - version #2

The revised version of the Construction Management Plan for the Eric & Treby Development has been posted on the Council's planning database and individuals who have noted their interest in this development have now received letters about the consultation process

PA/10/01572 : Submission of details pursuant to condition 5 (construction management plan) of planning permission dated 22nd March 2010, reference PA/09/2065.

The deadline for responses is the 1st September. 

MERA will be reviewing the new proposals in detail.

To date we have noted:

MERA asked for:	Submission includes?
Much more information about traffic access and circulation	YES
Details of planned routes to and from each individual numbered construction site and numbered landscape site which: meets health and safety requirements and  recognises the existence of a large number of children on the estate	Appendix 3 provides details of planned Delivery Route Vehicles.   Reference is only made to numbered construction sites and omits any reference to all numbered landscaping sites despite the fact that removal of earth and delivery of new landscaping materials will involve considerable site traffic - as has already occurred.
Details of all planned parking bay suspensions	Appendix 4 provides a plan of parking bay suspensions.
Details of all Hoarding having an impact on pedestrian Traffic and measures to provide adequate separation of pedestrians from construction traffic which meets health and safety requirements and recognises the existence of a large number of children on the estate	NO Appendix 2008 plans re development submitted indicates fencing associated with the completed scheme and proposed landscaping.  The legend provides no indication of how hoardings are represented on the site plan.
Details of how the Grade 2 Listed Piers and Gates into St Clements Hospital were to be protected from accidents with construction vehicles due to the very tight turning circle for construction lorries.	Appendix 9 Provides drawings of the St Clements Hospital Pier Protection Plan. This includes creation of concrete bollards, hoarding and removal of the iron gates to a place of safety during construction. This work has now gone ahead in advance of the approval of the CMP.
Improved communication with residents	NO Proposals are inadequate as will be evidenced in the MERA response.
Better management of noise	NO
Exclusion of all EEH traffic associated with other developments from the site due to near accidents generated by drivers of such vehicles	NO
Schedule of Works (Timeline) for all numbered construction sites and all numbered landscaping sites	NO Furthermore the timeline for the deliveries and removal of waste works contained in the Construction Management Plan assumes a one site development - not a complex set of sites which are coming onstream at different times There is also no recognition whatsoever of the fact of the existence of another major contract on the Estate identified as part of the original planning application.
Explanation of how the contract for the works relating to new buildings is going to work alongside the separate contract for to achieve decent homes standards - as identified in the original planning application	NO RECOGNITION OF THE SECOND CONTRACT and associated movements of goods (ie kitchens and bathrooms)

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Yet another planning application for a hot food takeaway in Mile End!

MERA takes a dim view of the extent to which Tower Hamlets Council has allowed Mile End to become a Hot Food Take-away HOT SPOT at the expense of the provision of a variety of small shops providing other much needed services to the local community.

Yet another planning application has been made for yet another conversion of A1 use to A5 use - this time at 566 Mile End Road.  See PA/10/01611.  The planning documents are not yet up on the Council's planning database but when they are we shall be going over for both them and the Council's planning policy in some details

The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 states use classes are as follows

• Class A1 Shops:  Shops, retail warehouses, sandwich bars, hairdressers, undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, dry cleaners, showrooms, domestic hire shops, funeral directors, internet cafés^[1] etc.
• Class A5. Hot food takeaways Use for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises 

MERA is also very much NOT in favour of any use - whether night club or late night take away - which leads to noise late at night and rubbish in residential neighbourhoods - to the detriment of the residential amenity of local residents. 

Let us know what you think as we shall definitely be commenting on this application as well as making representations to the Council about this unplanned and unwanted explosion in hot food takeaway businesses.

We'll also be raising this issue with Mile End East Ward Councillor Rachael Saunders who has Special Responsibility: 'Lead Member - Health and Wellbeing' in the Cabinet.

We'll be asking how exactly the vast number of hot food take-aways around the Mile End Road/ Burdett Road junction contribute to the health and wellbeing of the local community in Mile End.

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Memo to Tower Hamlets Planning

LB Tower Hamlets website page - for accessing Planning Database

MERA gets involved with looking at a lot of planning applications and applications for approval of details relating to planning conditions for the Eric & Treby Estate redevelopment.  HOWEVER we have lots of diffculty finding planning applications on the planning database UNLESS we know the case reference number of the application or the "secret address code" for accessing them.

How local residents get told about planning applications

If you live very near to the address of a planning application you have to be notified about the application by letter - and the Council should write to you.  However not everybody gets sent a letter.  The Planning Department's notion of "who needs to know" (which is quite tightly defined) and our experience of "who needs to know" are sometimes very different. 

All objectors to planning applications who have asked to be kept informed also get sent letters whenever another one is posted seeking approval for conditions.  These letters give the case number reference code of the application.

So HOW can you find out about planning applications which affect your property if you don't get a letter?

In theory, you can look up your street name or post code and find all planning applications which affect your property. Except this isn't quite the way it actually works in practice

Anybody who wants to know should be able to access any planning applications relevant to their area by looking them up online via the planning database.

• Register of Planning Notices - introduction
• Recent planning applications and decisions by case reference, postcode or address

HOWEVER There is no scope within the Planning Application Database to recognise planning applications which affect a large area and several streets.

It's not actually possible to access planning applications by address as suggested.  That's because, despite the nature of planning applications received, the database is extraordinarily parochial and can only list ONE ADDRESS for each application.  This means that even if a planning application affects several streets these will not be identified on the planning database as being affected. 

When raised with the Planning Department initially (when all estate redevelopment planning applications were listed under Treby Street only) the response was to create a whole new planning identity called "The Eric and Treby Estate" - which is an improvement - EXCEPT that this cannot be found via a search of the the address based part of the Planning Database!

MERA thinks the residents of Mile End should be entitled to the same quality of access to planning applications as all other residents of the borough - where planning applications affecting their street get listed on the database by street name.

We think the basic standard should be:

• planning should not assume that everybody with a "need to know" has access to the planning case reference number 
• every planning application affecting a large area and several streets should ensure that ALL these streets are referenced on the planning database
• all streets affected by a redevelopment should list ALL the relevant planning applications

This email has been sent to Tower Hamlets Planning Department.

From: Mile End Residents Association
To: Tower Hamlets Planning Department

Why are local residents living in Mile End denied ready access online - as required by e-government - to planning applications which affect them?

Why is "The Eric and Treby Estates, Mile End, Treby Street, London" not listed as an address on the Council's Planning Database under "e" or "t" in the alphabetical section of the database?  Many of the estate roads on the Eric and Treby Estate are not recognised at all by the Planning Applications despite having numbered construction sites in them which relate to the current redevelopment.

If "The Eric and Treby Estates, Mile End, Treby Street, London" is put in as a search term (ie if you already know this is what you have to look for) it brings up all the numerous planning applications relating to the Eric & Treby Estate run by EastendHomes and associated decisions - including planning conditions.

We note that there are also a number of addresses which are "estates roads between (name of road) and (name of road)" which are listed under "e"

So why is "The Eric and Treby Estates, Mile End, Treby Street, London" missing from the alphabetical listing since it is obviously recognised by the planning applications database?
--
Mile End Residents Association
MERA - website | MERA - blog | MERA on Twitter | MERA on Flickr

PS  If you want to know about all the current planning applications and applications for approval of details for the Eric & treby estate take a look at the Redevlopment Page at the top of this blog - where they are all listed - with numbers, descriptions and links to further details

__________________________

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Manual for Streets & comments on planning conditions

Consultation deadline

The deadline for comments on the next set of applications for approvals of details relating to the redevelopment of the Eric & Treby Estate is 5th August 2010.

These are:

1. CONDITION 4 - Service and Delivery strategy: Required in advance of commencement of development.  This relates to access, circulation and servicing arrangements. MERA made significant comments on this at the time of the original application - particularly in relation to the legality of access by emergency vehicles and refuse collection vehicles at the base of Ennerdale House given the proposed plan for development. Approval of Details PA/10/01352 comment deadline 5th August 2010
2. CONDITION 18a - Energy Efficiency:  - Scheme detailing proposed energy efficiency measures required prior to commencement of development (with exception of site preparation works and the digging of foundations).   This relates to the WHOLE site.  This must include details of: energy improvements, renewable energy technology.  It must also demonstrate no net increase in carbon emissions and detail communal energy systems for Sites 2A and 15. Approval of Details PA/10/01395 - comment deadline 5th August 2010
3. CONDITION 28 - Visibility splays: To ensure adequate sightlines are preserved in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety.  Details to be provided and approved prior to the first occupation of any residential unit  - Approval of details  PA/10/01396 comment deadline 5th August 2010

The Department of Transport's Manual for Streets

Department of Transport's Manual for Streets - published 2007

Any resident interested in commenting on 1 and 3 above might well find the Department of Transport's Manual for Streets to be a very interesting and informative resource

You can download the Manual from the DoT website. You may find it easier to right click on the link and select Save Target As (IE) or Save Link As (FireFox). Please email webmasterdft@dft.gsi.gov.uk if you experience any problems downloading the PDF file.

• Manual for Streets: a summary (916 kb) The Manual for Streets was published in March 2007. This summary gives a brief overview of the Manual and is broken down chapter by chapter.
• Manual for Streets (5 Mb) Manual for Streets provides guidance for practitioners involved in the planning, design, provision and approval of new residential streets, and modifications to existing ones. Please note this is a large file which takes time to download.

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

MERA comments on Foul and Surface Water "Scheme"

Tower Hamlets Planning now have MERA's comments on Telford Homes' proposed "Scheme" to address Planning Condition 21 relating to the disposal of Foul & Surface Water from new residential units on the Eric & Treby Estate redevelopment. 

Just so everybody knows what we're talking about....

• Foul drainage removes the waste from the toilet, bath, basins, sinks, washing machines, dishwashers and showers. 
• Surface water drainage deals with rainfall as it collects around a property (eg roofs, gutters and land) 

Planning Condition 7 (application for approval not yet submitted) deals with the required scheme of water and sewerage infrastructure delivery for the whole development.  In short whether the existing water supply and sewerage system can cope with delivering an effective supply of drinking water and the disposal of waste water and sewerage (ie what needs checking before any homes can be occupied) 

Planning Condition 21 deals with the micro site level aspects (pipes and connections required and planned)  and is worded as follows

Prior to commencement of the development, with the exception of site investigation works and the digging of foundations, a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance the particulars so approved.

Reason: To protect and conserve water resources and to prevent increased risk of flooding and pollution of the water environment in accordance with:

• policy 4A.16 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004),
• policies U2 and U3 of the Unitary Development Plan 1998 and
• policies DEV5, DEV7 and DEV21 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007): Core Strategy and Development Control.

Summary of MERA Comments

MERA consider that this Application fails to satisfy as to the adequacy of arrangements for foul water and surface water drainage at a specific site level.  It is inadequate for the purposes of discharging this planning condition.

REASONS INCLUDED:

• This pre-commencement planning condition has already been breached at Site 14 through unlawful development in advance of the discharge of ALL pre-commencement planning conditions.  Note the drains and manhole covers in place on Site 14 on Monday evening - when the consultation did not even finish until today.
  

Drains and Manholes - development contravenes planning permission/conditions

• A Scheme is a plan of action. A Scheme requires explanation. A set of drawings is not a Scheme.  Drawings support the narrative text of a Scheme, they do not explain it.  PA/10/1159 is the application for approval of details PRIOR to commencement of the development.  If you click the link in the Application Reference you can see the quality of the documentation submitted.
• The application for approval of details fails on the grounds of accessibility for the purposes of consultation.   Technical drawings and no report renders this application completely inaccessible to most people.
• The Scheme does not revisit issues raised in the Flood Risk Assessment Scheme - as recommended in that report.  
• The Scheme for Site 10 fails to indicate how the drains connect to the main sewer.  However, in doing the research to respond to the proposal we have identified a probably reason why Brokesley Street has problems with drainage.  This is because the main drain under the road is only 300mm wide according to the documents submitted, making it the smallest drain in the area by quite some way.  It's very unlikely that Planning Condition 7 (Water and Sewerage Infrastructure) which covers capacity issues can be satisfied without a comprehensive review of what a 500+% increase in people living on Site 10 will have on the rest of Brokesley Street given the tiny size of the drain.  We will be keeping a very careful eye on this issue which generated several comments from local residenrs during the course of consultation.

As noted in section 3.1.2, there is a residual risk of sewer flooding as a result of the increase in foul sewerage requirements for the new properties on the site.
Flood Assessment

• The Scheme fails to demonstrate any awareness of the implications for pipework underground  resulting from remarks about and recommendations arising from the Expert Report on Site Contamination.   (see Eric & Treby Estate: Site Contamination)  The nature of the contamination requires protective sleeves for the pipework underground to avoid any contamination transferring into the water.  
  
• The drawings give no indication to the layman of how greywater is captured for recycling - which contravenes planning policy as well as being very silly if no effort is being made! 
• This "scheme" gives inadequate consideration to how surface water drainage will change following the soft landscaping.    

The risk of surface water flooding to and from the development will be increased as a result of the conversion of permeable to impermeable land cover.
Flood Assessment

MERA considers that the nature of concerns raised by residents (particularly those near Site 10) means that these need to be adequately addressed by the developer

• BEFORE submitting a Scheme for the disposal of foul water and surface water
• BEFORE the proposals for meeting this planning condition can be approved; and
• BEFORE the planning condition can be discharged

________________________________

If you want to be kept updated why not subscribe to this blog.    
You can do this by clicking the link below 
  Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email