Objections from the East End Waterway Group
Below are three objection letters from the EEWG. They are reproduced here for quick reference, but if you want better presentation with supporting references then you can view them in their original format via these links:-
Letter of 29th November 2011
Letter of 20th April 2012
Letter of 18th November 2012
EEWG's first letter of objection, 29th November 2011
Dear Mary
BOW WHARF PA/11/3371 and 3372/MAS
1. INTRODUCTION
The proposed pitched-roof blocks and the proposed pitched-roof terrace are an improvement on previous schemes. However, like the first appealed scheme it is still a "high-density development", which would "change the character of the . site" and would not be "an appropriate solution for this location" (31 May 2005 para. 35).
Whilst the eight-storey block of the second appeal scheme has been reduced to six storeys (five storeys plus attic storey), proposed block B would be higher and more bulky than the adjacent 1901 warehouse. It would, therefore, still "appear intrusive and significantly out of context" (2 November 2010 para. 9).
The 1901 warehouse is one of only a few surviving historic canalside warehouses on the uniqe six-mile waterway ring in Tower Hamlets. It is also the only one of its particular type which may be termed the 'layby warehouse'. It must, therefore, remain as the dominant and best seen building on Bow Wharf.
For the 1901 warehouse to remain as the dominant and best seen on Bow Wharf, proposed blocks C and A would also have to be reduced in height. The height and bulk of proposed block A would dominate the towpath next to the narrow stop lock passage and would also have a negative impact on the open setting of the listed Stop Lock Bridge. Map and other evidence indicates that this particular site was probably occupied by a two-storey stop-lock-keeper's house. Just as the scale of Royal Victor Place "provides enclosure without dominating the towpath or nearby structures" (2 November 2010 para. 5) so also any replacement of the existing warehouse. In this context, proposed block A and the proposed tall three-storey terrace would:
dominate the towpath and the nearby structures of the narrow stop lock passage and the listed Stop Lock Bridge
"appear intrusive and significantly out of context"
"change the character of the ... site"
"not be an appropriate solution for this location".
The decisions made by both Inspectors provide a firm benchmark against which all subsequent schemes must be judged, especially in relation to the need to respect:
the special character of the locally listed buildings and historic open spaces at Bow Wharf
he special character of the canals at the historic canal junction
the setting and structure of the listed Stop Lock Bridge
2. BOW WHARF
The second appeal decision states:
The Bow Wharf site as a whole, of which the appeal site is part, has been carefully developed to retain (its) character (2 November 2010 para. 4)
Clearly, any further development at Bow Wharf must also be "carefully developed" to retain the special character of this part of the Regents Canal Conservation Area. London-stock-brick walls and pitched roofs, together with a careful avoidance of 'canalside' pastich are steps in the right direction but, in other respects, the submitted scheme for the western part of Bow Wharf would be an overdevelopment in contrast to the "careful" development of the central and eastern parts of Bow Wharf. It would also fail to maintain the "sense of space which has been maintained . by restricting the height of new additions (to) provide a contrast to the converted warehouses" (31 May 2005 para. 33).
3. CANAL JUNCTION
The need to respect the special open character of the canals at the historic canal junction is enshrined in the first appeal decision, which clearly acknowledged the open setting of the listed Stop Lock Bridge (31 May 2005 paras. 27, 31, 34 and 35). The Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to protect the open setting of the listed bridge. And, as established in a recent appeal decision relating to Bridge Wharf (26 October 2011 paras. 11, 12 and 21), the Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to protect open space within the 'historic canalscape' of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area.
The central and western parts of Bow Wharf were previously occupied by Victoria Park Wharf. From c. 1878 to c. 1898, this was an open wharf for the delivery, storage and distribution of paving stones, with a layby on the south bank of the Hertford Union Canal and a narrow row of single-storey buildings on the southern boundary (the remnants of which are insultingly referred to as "units" in the design and access statement). The 1901 warehouse was built alongside the layby and the adjacent open spaces were used in conjunction with the warehouse.
It was only in the mid-C20 when Victoria Park Wharf was briefly occupied by the Victoria Veneer Mills that the open space to the east of the warehouse was occupied by a scotch derrick and piles of logs. And the open space to the west was occupied by single-storey sheds. The eastern open space and historic open setting of the locally listed 1901 warehouse has been "carefully developed" with single-storey timber buildings to maintain the sense of space and contrast with the locally-listed 1901 warehouse to the west and the locally-listed 1912 paint factory to the east. The western open space must also be "carefully developed" to maintain the sense of space and respect the historic open setting of the locally-listed 1901 warehouse, and respect the special open character of the canal junction, and the open setting of the listed Stop Lock Bridge.
The western open space was until recently in use as a car park, and has a row of well established trees on its northern boundary with the Hertford Union Canal. This historic open canalside space with its trees is also an essential part of the open setting of the listed Stop Lock Bridge. The setting also includes the extensive turning basin in the Regent's Canal to the west of the bridge and the two historic open canalside spaces on the west bank of the Regent's Canal. The northern of these contains a right-angular layby or small dock with adjacent open spaces, which constituted "an open working area associated with the dock" (26 October 2011 para. 4). The dock and associated open spaces at Bridge Wharf was the subject of a recent appeal decision (26 October 2011), which identified the land and water open space with its overhanging willow trees as "significant conservation interests that are protected by both the policy context . and the statutory duty" (para. 21). The appeal decision also states that:
The character of the Regent's Canal (Conservation Area) is clearly that of a waterway. Part of its historic interest and present attractiveness is its close relationship to spaces and buildings along the bank (26 October 2011 para. 11).
Clearly, the Local Planning Authority has relevant policies and a statutory duty to preserve or enhance the historic open canalside space with its row of well-establishe trees at Bow Wharf, in the Regent's Canal Conservation Area.
This open space at Bow Wharf and the two open spaces on the west bank of the Regent's Canal were referred to in the first appeal decision (31 May 2005)
. the open expanse of Victoria Park Wharf was the predominant feature at the junction echoed by wharves on the west bank of the Grand Union Canal (Regent's Canal). (para. 33)
Commenting on the open spaces and the long views obtained down the canals from Stop Lock Bridge in para. 34, the appeal decision goes on to state that the views ". contribute to the attractiveness of the surroundings (and) increase the open character of the canalside rather than creating a sense of enclosure and they feature natural vegetation which helps to soften the built form". (para. 34)
The positive contribution of the two wharves on the west bank of the Regent's Canal to the character and appearance of the Regent's Canal CA and their contribution to the green corridor between Mile End Park and Victoria Park is fully described in the character appraisal and management guidelines for the Regent's Canal CA (adopted by Cabinet 4 November 2009):
Large sections of the canal are bordered by Victoria Park and Mile End Park and in these areas the spaces widen out and the canal is bordered by broad green swathes the character here is different, the parkland adjoing the canal giving it the feeling of a green corridor. This is maintained between the two parks by the two small wooded open spaces at former wharves on the west bank of the Regent's Canal more or less opposite the listed Stop Lock Bridge over the entrance to the Hertford Union Canal (page 10 of 23).
The historic open canalside space in the western part of Bow Wharf (with its row of well-established trees) is clearly part of the same green corridor between Mile End Park and Victoria Park. This vital green link would be broken at Bow Wharf as proposed block C would block the view of the green corridor from Mile End Park. And the row of trees (alongside the Hertford Union Canal) is shown partly as a hedge and partly as a shortened row of much smaller trees in bird's eye views from the NW, in the design and access statement. This would have a seriously negative impact on the Regent's Canal Conservation Area, and would contravene OBJECTIVE SO12 in the Council's Core Strategy:
This objective seeks to create a high quality sustainable and well connected natural environment of green and blue spaces that are rich in biodiversity.
4. THE SETTING OF THE LISTED STOP LOCK BRIDGE
Reference to the second appeal decision has demonstrated that proposed block A would dominate the towpath next to the narrow stop lock passage and would also have a seriously negative impact on the open setting of the listed bridge. Reference to both the first and second appeal decisions, the recent appeal decision relating to Bridge Wharf, and the character appraisal for the Regent's Canal Conservation Area has demonstrated that proposed blocks B and C would also have a seriously negative impact on the open setting of the listed bridge. Having stated that ". the open expanse of Victoria Park Wharf was the predominant feature at the junction", the second appeal decision states:
The listed bridge, the turning basin, the towpath ramps and the narrow stop lock (passage) on the canal are historic features which combine to create a pivotal point in this part of the conservation area and serve as a reminder of the importance of the site in London's canal network (31 May 2005 para. 35).
Furthermore, the listing description for the listed bridge refers to its open setting. Clearly, the Local Planning Authority has relevant policies and a statutory duty to protect the open setting of the listed Stop Lock Bridge at this pivotal point in what is now part of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area.
5. THE STRUCTURE OF THE LISTED STOP LOCK BRIDGE
The bridge was built about 1830 to take the existing Regent's Canal towpath over the western entrance to the newly-built Hertford Union Canal; and an access road from Old Ford Road to the south side of the Hertford Union Canal. The towpath ramps are faced with stone and rise up to form the western parts of the stone abutments. Whilst the superstructure of the bridge consists of seven segmental cast-iron arches with intervening cast-iron deck plates. It is London's only example of a combined towing and access bridge.
As such, it is the most important of all the bridges over the canals in the Borough's unique six-mile waterway ring. It is, therefore, regrettable that the applicants have chosen not to mention the fact that the listed bridge is subject to a 3 tonne GVW weight restriction. Whilst efforts have been made by the applicants to reduce vehicular use of the bridge, it is seriously misleading on drawings to label it as a "footbridge", when it is clearly intended to be used by a disabled person's vehicle and a transit van. From the vehicle data given in the transport statement, it would seem that the disabled person's vehicle would not exceed the weight limit. But clearly, a 3.5t transit van would.
There is also the strong probability that other vehicles belonging to residents and/or large delivery vehicles would use the bridge. At present, the 1901 warehouse is unoccupied but previous observations indicate that when it is occupied large delivery vehicles in excess of 3 tonnes will use the listed bridge, unless prevented. Furthermore, it is disingenuous to suggest that residents and others making deliveries to their homes are going to park in an already well used car park at the Grove Road end of the wharf, and carry goods to the other end of the wharf - especially when there is direct vehicular access from Old Ford Road to the proposed residential development.
The application is unclear as to whether or not this would be a car-free residential development. Assuming that this would not be the case, then residents' vehicles would almost certianly be parked in the so-called piazza - especially as the Grove Road car park is already well used and would be even more used when the 1901 warehouse is occupied.
In either case, the Grove Road car park would be filled to capacity, and improperly parked vehicles would make it impossible for a fire engine to use the difficult right-angular and narrow 'route' to the fire gates in the corner, which are diagonally opposite the splay entrance on the corner of Grove Road and Wennington Road. The fire gates are now clearly signed and unlocked. But from thereon in to the proposed piazza between proposed blocks C and B, the narrow 'route' includes two right-angled corners (both partly obstructed by fixed tables and chairs) and a covered 'roadway' between a popular restaurant and the currently unoccupied 1901 warehouse, both accessed from the covered 'roadway'.
In 2010, a fire engine from Bethnal Green fire station attended an incident at Bow Wharf and, failing to access the fire gates had to drive round to the Old Ford Road entrance and proceed over the weight-restricted Stop Lock Bridge. In cases of extreme urgency this route will almost certainly be used by fire engines and ambulances needing to access the proposed piazza and the western part of Bow Wharf.
Although dry risers are to be installed in proposed blocks A, B and C, there can be no guarantee that a "7.7m LWB fire tender vehicle" will attend Bow Wharf in an emergency. Larger and heavier fire engines may attend and may even be required. Given the difficulties of access along the 'route' from the Grove Road car park, they would almost certainly have to use the Old Ford Road route over the listed Stop Lock Bridge. The swept path plot for a 7.7m LWB fire tender vehicle shows it manoeuvring in the proposed piazza. Should the fire be at proposed block A or the proposed adjacent terrace houses, the overweight fire tender vehicle would have to cross the listed Stop Lock Bridge.
Given the above concerns, there is clearly a need for further information about the proposed gates at the Old Ford Road entrance, especially as the granite stoneway between the entrance and the bridge is labelled on some drawings as a vehicle and pedestrian link.
Unless ways of avoiding all these potentially adverse impacts on the listed bridge are agreed before this or any other application is determined, the Local Planning Authority would have failed to meet its statutory duty to protect the bridge from damage by overweight vehicles. Should the bridge be damaged in this way, it would have to be strengthened, and, in this regard, the first appeal decision concluded that the risks of damaging the cast-iron components during strengthening works were such "that there is no need to risk damaging the bridge when less intrusive repairs might be possible if the bridge were not required to carry the additional weight".
Given this conclusion by the planning inspector, it would seem that vehicular access must be strictly limited to as few underweight vehicles as possible. And that an alternative fire, ambulance and heavy delivery vehicle route to the western part of Bow Wharf must be secured before this or any other application is determined. Furthermore, such a route must be in place before permitted development works commence. To ensure that plant and materials can access the application site without passing over the listed Stop Lock Bridge.
6. CONCLUSIONS
For all the reasons set out in this letter, the application site (with the exception of the vacant warehouse on the north bank of the Hertford Union Canal) makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area.
All the current proposals for residential development at Bow Wharf would overwhelm the locally listed buildings and detract from the character and appearance of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area and the setting of the listed Stop Lock Bridge.
As such, they would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Regent's Canal Conservation area and fail to protect the listed Stop Lock Bridge.
The proposals would, therefore, contravene LBTH policies which seek to ensure that development takes into account and is sensitive to the character of the surrounding area in terms of bulk and scale. And would contravene LBTH policies which seek to ensure the amount of development proposed on a site is acceptable. And would also contravene the purposes of national policy as set out in PPS5. The applications should not be granted planning permission.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Ridge
EAST END WATERWAY GROUP east.end.waterway.group@gmail.com
PATRON JIM FITZPATRICK MP POPLAR AND LIMEHOUSE
Local residents, schools, community groups, amenity societies and businesses working with British Waterways, Tower Hamlets Council and others for the protection and beneficial use of the six mile waterway 'ring', its historic buildings, structures and habitats.
Cc: Mark Hutton,
Vicki Lambert,
Andrew Hargreaves, English Heritage
|
EEWG's second letter of objection, 20th April 2012
Dear Mary
BOW WHARF PA/11/3371 and 3372/MAS
We are pleased to learn that the applicant is working with the London Fire Authority to make sure that the existing fire engine route from Grove Road to the application site is a satisfactory route for the access and egress of fire engines.
For all the reasons set out in my EEWG letter of 29 November 2011, the existing fire engine route would not ensure the safety of residents and others in the central and western parts of the wharf. And, as happened in a previous emergency, fire engines would be obliged to access the central and western parts of the wharf via the weight-restricted listed Stop Lock Bridge.
In my opinion, the only possible solution to this problem is for a fire engine-only route to be created from the truncated end of Wennington Road, via the northern part of Wennington Green, to a new fire gate in the SW corner of the application site. This would provide direct access to the proposed "piazza" and the necessary shortening of proposed block C would also mean that:
- the three inset balconies in its east-end wall would not be directly adjacent to and above the back of the Regent's Canal towpath
- the green corridor and open spaces between the northern part of Mile End Park (Wennington Green) would not be visually "blocked" in either direction by proposed block C
With respect to the first point, there is only one existing canalside residential development in LB Tower Hamlets where the fronts of balconies are adjacent to and above the back of a towpath. This is the "affordable" canalside block at Abbot's Wharf on the Limehouse Cut. But in this case the balconies project and towpath users can see when they are being used by residents.
With respect to the second point, the importance of maintaining historic open spaces in this part of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area was upheld in the Planning Inspectorate's decision re. Bridge Wharf (26 October 2011) and must be adhered to by the applicant and the Local Planning Authority at Bow Wharf, where the open space is protected by the same policy context and statutory duty.
On the subject of the proposed projecting balconies and "an over development of the canal side", the EEWG fully endorses the view of the Conservation and Design Advisory Panel (as recorded in the officer's report of 8 March 2012 paras 7.4 and 7.5) that the balconies are "intrusive". However, EEWG does not think that full Juliette or inset balconies are a particularly desirable alternative in this location.
Whilst the provision of projecting balconies is now sadly regarded as an appropriate means of meeting residential amenity standards, there are other considerations to be addressed at Bow Wharf:
- together with the canal junction and Stop Lock Bridge, it is probably the most important part of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area, and is adjacent to the Victoria Park Conservation Area
- together with the canal junction and Stop Lock Bridge, it is the most historic and visually attractive part of the unique 6-mile waterway 'ring' in LB Tower Hamlets
- it includes two of the very few locally listed industrial buildings in LB Tower Hamlets (only one of which is acknowledged in the applicant's heritage statement, and incorrectly described as the "remains of an originally larger 20th century warehouse
- the application site includes the Grade II listed Stop Lock Bridge, which is the most important of all the bridges on the Borough's unique six-mile waterway 'ring' and London's only example of a combined towing and access bridge
The application site is also subject to two specific Planning Inspectorate decisions (2005 and 2010) as set out in my EEWG letter of 29 November 2011. These decisions are material considerations and the applicant's proposals must be revised in line with these decisions.
In particular, the "height of new additions" must be "restricted" to "provide a contrast to the converted warehouses" (31 May 2005 para. 33). Otherwise the new additions would be a "high-density development", which would "change the character of the . site" and would not be "an appropriate solution for this location" (31 May 2005 para. 35). Clearly, proposed block B would be higher than the locally listed 1901 warehouse and the locally listed 1912 paint factory. And proposed blocks A and C would be at about the same height as the locally listed 1901 warehouse and the locally listed 1912 paint factory.
As such, they would "change the character of the . site" and would not be "an appropriate solution for this location". Furthermore, the proposed proliferation of projecting balconies would be completely alien to the 'industrial aesthetic' of the two locally listed canalside buildings in the Regent's Canal Conservation Area. As "Bow Wharf . has been carefully developed to retain . the historic canalside ambience . of this part of the CA" (2 November 2010 para. 4) any new additions must also respect the "historic canalside ambience . of this part of the CA". And not dominate the towpath or nearby structures (2 November 2010 para. 5). To comply with the Inspector's decisions:
- block A (with its projecting balconies over the narrow ramped access to the western end of the Hertford Union Canal towpath, and in close proximity to the Grade II listed Stop Lock Bridge) should be replaced by a westward continuation of the proposed terrace of three-storey houses.
- block B should be reduced in height by the removal of 2 stories, as recommended by the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society
- all block B's projecting balconies should be the same length as the proposed north-side projecting balconies and inset by four fifths so that each vertical set of projecting/inset balconies would at least relate to the glazed loading doorways in the
- block C must be reduced to three stories and shortened at its western end, as proposed above (even if it is decided that our proposed fire gate is not needed)
STOP LOCK BRIDGE PA/11/03373
We are pleased to learn that this application will be included in your committee report on the proposed residential development at Bow Wharf. With respect to the 'latest' drawings for the proposed works to the Grade II listed Stop Lock Bridge. These indicate that the L-plan brick wall at the SE corner of the bridge is to be replaced by metal railings. This particular proposal may have been superseded as a proposed elevation drawing dated 9.10.11 but marked as REV3 shows a new 1.1m high brick wall with grit stone coping (London stock brick to match existing bridge wall). This drawing was copied to Malcolm Tucker (GLIAS) by British Waterways. Hope you can confirm that REV03 is the 'latest' drawing. And that the rebuilt wall will be suitably thick to take the reinstated original coping stones from the base of the existing Fletton-brick wall.
The four parapet walls over the bridge abutments are not "part of the setting" of the listed bridge - as stated in my EEWG letter of 21 December 2011 - but are component parts of the listed bridge, referred to in the listing description as "adjoining walls". It is not just the cast-iron deck of the bridge which is listed (as labelled on the Lewis & Hickey drawings) but also the brick abutments with their parapet walls and towpath ramps to the towpath part of the bridge deck.
We note that all three existing metal railings are to be given a "new black paint finish". The middle of the three is very loose and needs to be carefully secured (without damaging the cast-iron deck) as it is an essential barrier between the now very crowed towpath and the vehicular part of the bridge. We are therefore pleased that the middle railing is to be retained, despite the heritage assessment stating that it "restricts access between the vehicle access and the towpath" (5.4).
At 6.4, the heritage assessment refers to the resin bound gravel being "rolled over the existing bridge surface". We hope that the roller will not exceed the 3 tonne weight restriction on the listed Stop Lock Bridge.
STOP LOCK BRIDGE PA/11/01950
We are sorry to learn that as there were only 4 or 5 objections to BW's proposed reinstatement of the water pipe on the east side of the listed bridge, this particular application will be determined by officers under delegated powers. We very much doubt that should BW be given permission to replace the pipe they will reroute it at a later date. As the proposed residential development would be served by this water pipe we feel very strongly that (for all the reasons set out in my EEWG letter of 21 December 2011) BW should be encouraged to remove the neglected and obtrusive water pipe and replace it by a water pipe from Grove Road or the truncated end of Wennington Road.
We hope that all the comments and proposals in this letter will be taken into consideration, together with our previous letters of 29 November 2011 and 21 December 2011.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Ridge
For and on behalf of EAST END WATERWAY GROUP
Cc: Mark Hutton
Vicki Lambert
Andrew Hargreaves, English Heritage
Malcolm Tucker, GLIAS
|
EEWG's letter re fire safety and access 18th November 2012
Dear Mary,
BOW WHARF PA/11/3371 and 3372
Further to my East End Waterway Group letters of 29 November 2011 and 20 April 2012 (also dated 29 November 2011), I now write with EEWG observations on the proposed fire safety and access arrangements at Bow Wharf (and the adjoining site).
The new arrangements are better than the previous arrangements in that there would be an additional fire engine route from Old Ford Road (along the narrow roadway to the north end of Stop Lock Bridge) to serve the residential units on the north side of the Hertford Union Canal. However, we note that a returning fire engine would have to reverse back up the narrow roadway and would need the full width of Old Ford Road to turn left for its direct return journey to Bethnal Green fire station.
The fire engine route to the residential units in Blocks B and C (in the disused car park at the west end of Bow Wharf) is to be further improved by the partial demolition of the easternmost of the single-storey wooden buildings. But it is still a very narrow and difficult route and would require 24-hour attendance by the managing agents to ensure that:
the fire engine route between the entrance from Grove Road to the open fire gates in the diagonally opposite corner of the car park is free from improperly parked vehicles
the fire engine route between the three-storey warehouse (now a banqueting venue) and the single-storey restaurant is not blocked by crowds of people and/or improperly parked vehicles
the fire engine parking and turning area in the proposed piazza between proposed blocks B and C is not blocked by crowds of people and/or improperly parked vehicles
A further cause for concern is that the driver of a fire engine attending an incident at Bow Wharf would need to know its exact location to avoid using the incorrect fire engine route. Should the fire engine be on the wrong side of the Hertford Union Canal, the driver would have to drive over the weight-restricted Stop Lock Bridge.
In 2010, a fire engine from Bethnal Green fire station was unable to get from the Grove Road car park to attend a fire at or near the single-storey restaurant and returned to Old Ford Road to be driven over Stop Lock Bridge. As the applicant is proposing to allow the weight-restricted bridge to be used by a disabled-driver's vehicle and a transit van for deliveries to the commercial unit or café on the ground floor of proposed block C, other vehicles (including fire engines and other vehicles over the 3-tonne weight limit) would be able to use Stop Lock Bridge. As happened in 2010, a fire engine unable to access the fire engine route from Grove Road would have to return to Old Ford Road and be driven over Stop Lock Bridge: only to find its parking and turning area in the proposed incredibly small piazza already occupied by improperly parked vehicles.
We also note that both the Grove Road and Old Ford Road fire engine routes would only be accessible to 7.7m LWB fire tender vehicles. This is the main type of fire engine and is the type used at Bethnal Green fire station. As neither route could be used by a high-reach fire engine (with a turntable-mounted projecting ladder), the Londo Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) have stipulated that each residential unit would not only have to be fitted with an automatic fire detector but also a domestic sprinkler system. These two requirements are additional to the dry rising mains (to be installed in blocks B and C and possibly in Block A) for direct water supply to hoses.
Clearly, the LFEPA has probably done all that it can (within the regulations) to improve the fire safety and access arrangements. It is now up to the local planning authority to decide whether or not it should be granting permission for a residential development on small sites with difficult access, linked by the weight-restricted and listed Stop Lock Bridge.
The bridge is London's only towing and accommodation bridge and was built c.1830 with a cast-iron deck. Although its use is subject to a 3-tonne weight limit, this has not been properly enforced by the managing agents. In addition to the fire engine mentioned above, 'Council' refuse vehicles and heavy delivery vehicles have been seen using the bridge when the three-storey warehouse was occupied by a bar and a comedy club.
We do not believe that the proposed new fire safety and access arrangements would sufficiently ensure that the bridge is only used by vehicles under the 3-tonne weight limit. In our opinion, the only way to effectively prevent overweight vehicles from using the bridge (and fracturing the old, brittle cast-iron deck) is for all vehicles to be barred by suitably-designed and well-placed steel bollards at the northern end of the bridge. And for the one disabled driver's saloon and any delivery vehicles for the ground floor of proposed block C to use the fire engine route from Grove Road. EEWG is also very concerned that the bridge would be used during building operations. We, therefore, request that any planning permission is accompanied by a condition that the bridge is totally blocked off at both ends and inspected by the Council before any work starts; followed by frequent Council inspections to ensure that the bridge remains fully blocked off to all vehicles, until the building work is completed and steel bollards are fixed at the north end of the bridge.
Furthermore, as the proposed residential development would cause substantial harm to the significance of the most important part of the Regent's Canal Conservation Area and the setting of the two locally-listed industrial buildings at Bow Wharf (see EEWG letters 29 November 2011 and 20 April 2012); and the Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to protect the Grade-II-listed Stop Lock Bridge, the applicant should withdraw the current applications. And submit a scheme for a two- and three-storey residential development which would be adequately served by 7.7m LWB fire tender vehicles, and respect the conservation area and the two locally-listed buildings: in accordance with the three relevant planning inspectorate decisions, and LPA's statutory duty and relevant policies.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Ridge
For and on behalf of the EAST END WATERWAY GROUP
Cc: Mark Hutton
Vicki Lambert
Andrew Hargreaves
Malcolm Tucker GLIAS
waterway_logo
East End Waterway Group
PATRON JIM FITZPATRICK MP POPLAR AND LIMEHOUSE
Local residents, schools, community groups, amenity societies and businesses working with British Waterways, Tower Hamlets Council and others for the protection and beneficial use of the six mile waterway 'ring', its historic buildings, structures and habitats.
|
|