Friends of Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park helped the council with planting ideas and 50m of native hedge including Hawthorn, Blackthorn, Crack Willow, Dog Rose, Dog Wood, Field Maple and Hazel was planted.
How the same location looks today, the council haven't continued to maintain its beauty. As we all know Mother Nature is a wonderful thing. What you see below is her magic at work today, overgrown and abandoned but still breathing oxygen into the neighbourhood, refusing to give up on her duties.
Instead the council came along without warning and bulldozed most of the trees! Their conduct was so brutal and savage it made it onto London Live news at the time. Cllr Andrew Wood and locals fought back.
It's not too late to still have this site as a nature conservation, unique to the area – help address climate change. It's not too late to save the Limehouse Triangle as although they have planning permission - the council can actually decide not to go ahead and build.
Red Campion (Silene dioica) , Greater Periwinkle (Vinca major), Dog Rose (Rosa Canina) with Common Hawthorn (Crataegus Monogyna), Cut-leaved Cranesbill (Geranium dissectum), Spring Vetch (Vicia lathyroides), Common Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) foliage
Some of these part of the native hedge, planted during the earlier environmental project (supported and funded by the council).
As part of the latest application and to address the biodiversity loss, the council said they will develop an EXISTING wildflower meadow at Ashpark House. The Council stated to the Development Committee that is was a disused herb garden!
But those that live here know this site has always been used as a dog fouling area!
How will it be maintained! By who? It's a feeble and unworkable alternative.
The same location was one of five sites looked at by the council as a potential area to develop into properties. This site is a better location for a new development for security, safety, privacy, there are only two existing trees, minimal wildlife so there would be minimal impact on the biodiversity as there currently isn’t much BUT it is not overlooking the Regents Canal! Money cannot be made!
August 2016 first application submitted. Planning Application Number: PA/16/02295
January 2017 planning committee meeting where members indicated it wouldn't be approved because of:
1) the loss of a publicly accessible open space
2) the impact on the setting of the Canal Towpath and the Regents Canal Conservation Area
3) the impact on the properties at Parnham Street due to the separation distance
4) over concentration of one housing type.
February 2017 application withdrawn as development committee indicated it wouldn't be approved
June 2017 second planning application submitted by the developers. Planning Application Number: PA/17/01618
October 2017 planning committee meeting where members again did not accept the recommendations to approve the development. (The application was deferred so the council could highlight the implications of rejecting it).
November 2017 the development was again refused because:
1. The application still resulted in a loss of open space and the loss was not adequately off-set by the public benefits of the development.
2. Conflicted with policy SP04 of the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to protect open spaces.
3. By virtue of its height, design and sitting with a lack of setback from the Regents Canal failed to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Regents Canal Conservation Area and the Blue Ribbon Network.
4. The application failed to accord with 134 of the National Planning Policy framework, policy 7.24 of the London Plan, policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy and policies DM12 (water spaces) and DM27 (heritage and the historic environment) of the Managing Development Document.
THE COUNCIL THEN CLAIMED AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN WERE MADE TO FINALLY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS RAISED.
Suddenly one year later in November 2018, without any further consultation the council informed residents the application had been submitted again. The concerns highlighted at the 2017 Committee meeting STILL had NOT been addressed!
Residents were given 21 days to comment on the plans although nothing could be changed because the Planning Application had already been submitted!
We exercised our right for the consultation that never happened which took place in January (as mentioned above)
Do you believe the council were really interested in what the public thought? Or were they just ticking another box! You decide!
Again, the residents came out in force 42 (some old names and some new names adding to the already 200+) people objecting to the planning application. This meant it had to go to committee again! Even though the issues highlighted in 2017 were NOT addressed!
The council website has guidance notes for these committee meetings :
The committee determine applications for planning that have triggered over 20 representations (in support or against) or that exceed a particular threshold with regards to size amongst other issues.
The guidance lists examples of material considerations that the committee must have regard to when making decisions to grant planning permission. These are:
Siting, design, layout, external appearance and landscaping
Impact on the neighbourhood e.g. noise, loss of light or overbearing impact
National planning policy framework
Consistency of decision making
We say the decision making was consistent - the building was always rejected.
Apart from two committee members all the members below were NEW to the Committee.
Chair Abdul Mukit MBE
John Pierce – always voted for the build
Helal Uddin -always voted against the build
Gabriela Salva Macallan
At the meeting on the 1 April 2019 all the Councillors above voted FOR the development?!
Other councillors present at the meeting were:
Cllr Andrew Wood who spoke to object to it.
Cllr Rachel Blake and Puru Miah who spoke for it.
Cllr David Edgar who is the Cabinet member for environment was not present.
All the Councillors (except Cllr Wood) were not concerned that the eight storeys building will be overbearing on the canal, Salmon Lane and on the Parnham residents.
Were not concerned about the loss of natural daylight and lack of privacy for Parnham Street, Rhodeswell Road and Carr Street residents. (remember the block will face Sir William Burrough Primary School!).
No mention or concerns about the Air Pollution it will create!
How does this fit with the material considerations??
The development still conflicts with policy SP04 Core Strategy which seeks to protect open spaces.
The development still fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Regents Canal Conservation Area and the Blue Ribbon Network.
The development still fails to accord with the same policies it did in November 2017, as above.
134 of the National Planning Policy framework, policy 7.24 of the London Plan,
Policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy and policies DM12 (water spaces) and DM27 (heritage and the historic environment) of the Managing Development Document.
It is a real concern that smaller planning applications are dealt with by officers under delegated powers. If 20 people don't speak up, then there is no committee meeting! You can see what happened when planning permission was given for the block of flats right on top of the Sir William Burrough primary school on this website.