King Henry’s Wharves – Here we are again

IMG_6205Another chapter in the saga of the King Henry’s Wharves development. A new construction management plan has been put together whose lengthiness tries to bore us into forgetting that there remains no decent strategy for how this development can be constructed without MAJOR disruption to our whole community.

We have been in touch with concerned residents and once again have used their knowledge and work to put together a template objection letter which residents may wish to send to the council.

Pasted below. Please send to dr.developmentcontrol@towerhamlets.gov.uk, adding your name at the bottom and with ‘King Henry’s Wharves Construction Management Plan’ as subject, as quickly as you can as they’ve put a short deadline on it.


 

I write regarding the new CMP (version 4 ,May 22, 2017) recently submitted after the planning deadline has lapsed (May 2, 2017) but for which Tower Hamlets’ Planning Dept has unilaterally permitted an extension. An extension should not allowable under the planning law since it resulted from illegal construction taking place.

On May 2, 2014 the Planning Committee granted provisional Planning permission solely on the basis that the Developer would provide a viable CMP, which dealt with the unique construction challenges faced in the area. That Planning Committee noted the CMP needed to be phased meaning construction on the Riverside sites was carried out independently of the Landside sites and River transportation of materials would be used. Under the proposed CMP, river transport will NOT be used and the Landside site is to be used for material and waste storage and supply to the Riverside sites.

As such, the CMP should be rejected outright or returned to the Planning Committee for approval.

It should be further noted that:

-       The Developer has illegally built on the landside in violation of the Planning application. They have shown they break the rules and will no doubt break the CMP rules.

-        The CMP itself is inadequate and lacking in proper governance. It allows the Developer to mark their own homework and decide whether they agree they have violated the rules.

-        The CMP lacks independent governance controls on compliance in regards to traffic congestion, noise, pollution, dust, vibrations and damage to nearby properties.

-        The scale of the construction envisaged is not viable given the narrow streets in the area and the close proximity of residents and businesses. It will destroy the quality of life, health of and ability of nearby locals to carry out their business during the 2-year construction period. The fact river transport is not feasible, means this construction is also not feasible.

-       The sites will not be developed “independently” since the Landside site (Site 4) will act for the entire 2 year construction period as a holding and storage area for waste, spoil, materials, plant and machinery. These will need to be constantly ferried to the Riverside sites across WHS and along the v narrow cobbled Brewhouse Lane. This will cause chaos and grid lock in the area.

-       The CMP proposes making Brewhouse lane one way (north bound) and dealing with the blocked exit access on the Brewhouse Lane Wapping Lane exit side, by banning loading and unloading. This is totally unfeasible. Bridewell Place, Tower Building and Chimney Court all need to have loading and unloading access for deliveries, TH waste collection and removal into/ out of those properties.

-       the plan contains the need for a 40-metre crane on the BrewHouse Lane site. In order to secure such a crane in place Pile Driving will be needed around 5-10 metres from the western side of Bridewell Place. This will clearly cause significant noise and vibration to the BridewellPlace community. The CMP only says the developer “might” consider restricted hours of use for such activities.

-       the CMP does not mention any funding for an evaluation of the impact on Bridewell Place when Pile Driving takes place and what action is needed. If damage is caused how will the developer compensate owners? This cannot wait until after the CMP is approved.

-       the CMP says a “working Group” will only be formed after they start construction and the CMP is approved. That is after the event, it is needed now.

-       A number of local residents are disabled and use wheel chairs / other mobility aids. The CMP is silent on disabled access. R

-       Bridewell Place was impacted by a WWII bomb. The CMP must contain an emergency protocol plan including what residents need to do and how they will be housed if an evacuation is needed and indeed at whose cost.

This CMP now needs to be either rejected or at a minimum approval should be passed back to the Planning Committee.

With kind regards,

Posted on by admin in Uncategorized

Add a Comment