|
TOWER HAMLETS STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DECIDES FATE OF WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL
An officer’s report packed with misinformation about the historic school building, plus a petition from 236 local residents in support of the Council’s proposed four-storey school, and a large attendance of teachers, parents and pupils at last night’s meeting ensured that the committee reversed its previous decision and voted unanimously for the four-storey primary school.
The conservation officer’s decision not to add the historic school building to the local list meant that some members thought that I had misinformed them about the significance of Woolmore Primary School.
Everything I have said and written about the 1916 school building is true and based on extensive research. Unfortunately, I am not a published architectural historian and that made it easy for the officer to dismiss my evidence. The fact remains that there is no other school building like Woolmore in the whole of London; and although vent stacks are a feature of the LCC’s Neo-Georgian elementary schools opened between 1912 and 1918, Woolmore is the only one with a highly visible and distinctive row of seven massive vent stacks.
Woolmore is not only a beautiful and unique building it is also a good and useful school building. With proper adaptation and refurbishment, all its alleged problems could have been solved; and would have been had the Birds Portchmouth Russum (BPR) scheme been given proper consideration by all concerned.
At least one member appeared not to be aware of this alternative scheme, which would have made the 1916 building “fit for purpose” and extended it with two new additions for a total of about 638 pupils. Clearly, the BPR scheme was not a proposal to just maintain the façade of Woolmore Street. Facadism is dishonest and not even mentioned in English Heritage’s recent report Refurbishing historic school buildings.
I have tried many times to draw attention to this report, which relates to all historic school building regardless of whether they are listed or not. Nothing one says or does makes any difference in Tower Hamlets, where all decisions about school buildings are made by Tower Hamlets Schools Limited; and nothing is done by the Council to dispel the general belief that only brandnew school buildings can provide high-quality education.
Had the BPR scheme been given proper consideration by all concerned, the older pupils at Woolmore would have had the addition advantage of specialist rooms (not provided in the Council’s four-storey school) and all the pupils would have been able to get around easily and feel at home in two two-storey buildings. Instead, they will have to cope with an intimidating and physically challenging four-storey primary school, with a teaching block served only by one very small lift, one safe wide staircase and one unsafe narrow staircase. In the original plans, shown to and voted for by the parents, the teaching block was served by two safe wide staircases.  Click image to enlarge – see the BPR scheme here
The tragedy of Woolmore is not just that a fantastic opportunity has been lost (and Poplar will lose yet another good historic building), but also the clear message from the conservation officer that he is not going to locally list any building on an existing or future development site. The Committee’s unanimous decision also gives the green light to all those other headteachers and parents who are demanding a brandnew school, rather than an adapted and refurbished school with new additions.
Many more unprotected historic buildings are now likely to be demolished and added to the growing list of demolished historic school buildings in Tower Hamlets. This includes Bonner Primary School, Mowlem Nursery, Christian Street School, Buckland Street School, the original board school building at Morpeth Secondary School, Woolmore Infants’ School (in Bullivant Street), and now Woolmore Primary School.
Our petition for local listing and the BPR scheme was signed by a total of 186 supporters. The paper version was signed by 3 non-residents and 116 LBTH residents, of whom 79 live at Robin Hood Gardens (not mentioned in the officer’s update report). The online petition was signed by 67 supporters.
For Notes on Significance of Woolmore Primary School see here. For misinformation, see April letter to Council Helal Abbas. For the school and community benefits of the BPR scheme, see April message to Mayor and Councillors.
Tom Ridge |
SAVE WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL APRIL 2013
Sign the petition to support expansion of the school without demolition
See a new photo gallery of the school
Last month Tower Hamlets councillors voted to refuse plans for a new four-storey primary school and demolition of the current school. But now council officers are trying to make the councillors reverse their decision when the committee meets again on Thursday 18 April 2013.
The officer’s report for this meeting of the Strategic Development Committee (item 6.1) is now available.
Officers say that the loss of the building would be “outweighed by the substantial public benefit of providing a high quality new three form entry school”. As predicted in the March email, the committee report contains a great deal of further justification for demolition. Both this and the short reason for refusal are designed to change the committee’s March 6 decision to one in favour of the Council’s proposed four-storey primary school, which involves the total demolition of the existing historic school building.
The new school building proposed by the Council’s department for “Education Social Care and Wellbeing”
|
Image removed
|
Section 4 of the report includes various representations from the school and others in support of the Council’s proposed four-storey primary school. Including a petition with 236 signatures (with local postcodes). The wording of this petition is not known.
To continue the campaign, a letter to the Mayor and Councillors (with photographs) has been sent. Please read it carefully, as the first part sets out the advantages of the alternative scheme drawn up by Birds Portchmouth Russum Architects. The last part explains what happened to the request to register Woolmore School as a Locally Listed building.
|
|
It is also hoped to send an email about the officer’s report to the Chair, members and deputies of the Strategic Development Committee. A copy will be sent to you in the next couple of days.
Please re-double your efforts to get many more signatures on our online and/or paper petitions, especially local postcode signatures.
Please also do your best to come along to the public gallery on the 18th to scrutinise the decision-making process and support the refurbishment of the school.
See details of the alternative ideas here that will allow school to be enlarged yet retain the original building
| TO PARENTS, TEACHERS AND GOVERNORS AT WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL, LBTH EDUCATION, SOCIAL CARE & WELLBEING, CHAIR & MEMBERS OF THE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE |
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, SUPPORT THE REQUEST TO ADD WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL TO THE LOCAL LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS; AND SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL TO RETAIN AND ADAPT THE HISTORIC SCHOOL BUILDING FOR THREE FORMS IN YEARS 5 AND 6 AND BUILD A NEW LINKED SCHOOL BUILDING TO THE EAST FOR NURSERY, RECEPTION AND THREE FORMS IN YEARS 1, 2, 3 & 4 (as shown on the sketch plans by Birds Portchmouth Russum Architects)
Petition is now closed
67 signatures sent to LBTH
Tom Ridge (SAVE WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL)
7 Shepton Houses
Welwyn Street
London E2 0JN (02008 981 7361)
SAVE WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL – PETITION
The unique Woolmore Primary School is under threat of demolition as part of the extensive Blackwall Reach Regeneration scheme. The school must expand from one to three forms of entry. This can be done without demolition. Blackwall Reach Regeneration Area needs at least one retained heritage asset, to maintain a sense of place and community pride. The alternative ideas below show that this heritage asset can be retained and the boroughs needs met.
TO PARENTS, TEACHERS AND GOVERNORS AT WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL, LBTH EDUCATION, SOCIAL CARE & WELLBEING, CHAIR & MEMBERS OF THE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, SUPPORT THE REQUEST TO ADD WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL TO THE LOCAL LIST OF HERITAGE ASSETS; AND SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL TO RETAIN AND ADAPT THE HISTORIC SCHOOL BUILDING FOR THREE FORMS IN YEARS 5 AND 6 AND BUILD A NEW LINKED SCHOOL BUILDING TO THE EAST FOR NURSERY, RECEPTION AND THREE FORMS IN YEARS 1, 2, 3 & 4 (as shown on the sketch plans by Birds Portchmouth Russum Architects) |
Petition is now closed67 signatures sent to LBTH |
.
Click image to see larger version
Woolmore Primary School must expand from one to three forms of entry and LBTH (Education, Social Care and Wellbeing) has already secured outline planning permission for a four-storey replacement primary school on the extended site of the existing two-storey Woolmore Primary School (opened by the London County Council in 1916).
However, at its meeting on 6 March 2013, the LBTH Strategic Development Committee refused (by four votes to three) a reserved matters application which included a justification for the demolition of the existing two-storey school building (PA/12/03318).
Reasons for refusal and further justifications for demolition will be presented at the committee’s next meeting on 18 April 2013. The committee will therefore be obliged to reconsider demolition and may grant full planning permission for the proposed four-storey replacement primary school building (with only one internal staircase) next to the northern entrance to the Blackwall Tunnel).
So that all concerned may give proper consideration to the refurbishment and extension of this beautiful historic school building (as recommended in English Heritage’s Refurbishing Historic School Buildings (2010):
- Tom Ridge has asked for the historic school building to be added to the LBTH Local List of heritage assets
- Award-winning Birds Portchmouth Russum Architects have drawn up sketch plans (PDF Doc) which demonstrate how the existing school building can be adapted for three forms in years 5 and 6, extended north to include a new multi-purpose hall and kitchen and linked to a new two-storey school building to the east for nursery, reception and three forms in years 1, 2, 3 and 4.
- The local listing request and the architects’ sketch plans are both fully supported by the Twentieth Century Society, which has been concerned for over a year about the loss of the historic school building and its embodied energy.
To encourage all concerned to give proper consideration to the refurbishment and extension of the historic school building please sign the online petition by 4 pm 17 April 2013 (and encourage others to sign) so that it can be reported to the Strategic Development Committee at its meeting on 18 April 2013. As there are no speaking rights at this meeting, a brief letter to Amy.Thompson@towerhamlets.gov.uk would also help.
NOTES ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL
Woolmore Primary School is described in The Buildings of England London 5: East as “Neo-Georgian with a severe row of tall chimneys and elegantly bracketed eaves.” (p. 648).
The “chimneys” are in fact upper-stage vent stacks for the removal of stale air from classrooms. Even so, as the building is good enough to be positively described in “Pevsner” it is surely good enough to be cherished by the local community and added to the LBTH Local List of heritage assets.
- the school is one of the finest and most distinguished of the LCC’s Neo-Georgian elementary schools
- of the 33 surviving examples (opened between 1912 and 1918) it is the only one with a highly visible and very distinctive row of seven massive upper-stage vent stacks (on the south side of its classroom range)
- only 13 of the surviving examples have pitched and hipped roofs with curved lower slopes over white boxed eaves
- the school is one of a few with its original white boxed eaves, which are probably the only ones with particularly elegant wrought-iron eaves and gutter brackets
- the convex brackets are complemented by the semi-circular relieving arches over the ground-floor classroom windows
- the school also retains most of its original cast-iron rainwater goods
- the school is in fact the least altered of the three surviving 1912-1918 LCC Neo-Georgian elementary school buildings in LB Tower Hamlets.
Apart from the post-WW2 rebuilt north-eastern part of the building and replacement roof cladding, the exterior and interiors of Woolmore Primary School are more or less as completed in 1916 as a two-storey school for boys and girls. The plastic replacement windows detract from the appearance of the building. They could and should be replaced by appropriate wooden window frames with double glazing, fully set back within the existing reveals.
The 1913 ‘heritage’ building at the Bow School of Maths and Computing in Paton Close is a very impressive locally-listed three-storey school building for boys, girls and infants with white rendered upper walls. However, the top floor of its main central part has been completely remodelled to form a sports hall under a (concealed) new roof.
Osmani Primary School is a long three-storey school building opened in 1915 for boys, girls and infants with the same planform and (similar) roofs as Woolmore Primary School but with red-brick instead of yellow-brick walls. It is the only surviving 1912-18 school with six side-wall, upper-stage vent stacks between seven gables (in the south wall of its classroom range). However, during its post-WW2 use as a boys’ secondary scshool, it was extended at both ends to include a three-storey science wing and a very large gymnasium.
Clearly, Woolmore Primary School must be added to the LBTH Local List of heritage assets and retained as a beautiful and useful part of an enlarged Woolmore Primary School. Especially, as its two associated buildings in Bullivant Street are to be demolished:
- the derelict single-storey former LCC Woolmore Street Infants’s School of 1914
- the derelict single-storey former LCC Woolmore Street Manual Training Centre of 1910, which provided woodwork lessons for boys at the Woolmore Street Boys & Girls School and other council schools in the vicinity.
This part of the very extensive Blackwall Reach Regeneration Area needs at least one retained heritage asset, to maintain a sense of place and community pride. Especially as it is right next to the All Saints’ Conservation Area, where the setting of the church and the conservation area is to be destroyed by a massive tower block on the site of the former infants’ school between Bullivant Street and Cotton Street.
Tom Ridge (SAVE WOOLMORE PRIMARY SCHOOL)
7 Shepton Houses
Welwyn Street
London E2 0JN (0208 981 7361)
NEWSFLASH – BOW WHARF – UPDATED
The Bow Wharf applications (PA/11/03371 – 3372 – 3373)went to the Development Committee on Thursday, 11th ApriDownload the Public Report (item 7.3) hereMembers for the refusal of the application – TwoMembers for approval of the application – ZeroThree abstentions
 Trudy Wilton’s excellent photograph shows the main, mostly open part of the application site at the western end of Bow Wharf; and, to the left of Stock Lock Bridge (over the narrow entrance to the Hertford Union Canal), part of the derelict warehouse. This is to be demolished for proposed block A and a short but tall terrace of three-storey houses.  The west end of proposed block A and the roofs of the terraced houses are seen on the left of the applicant’s AERIAL VIEW Of PROPOSALS (design and access statement), with the bridge leading to the proposed piazza. This is overwhelmed by proposed block B which would replace the adjacent three-storey warehouse as the most dominant building at Bow Wharf. Next to proposed block B is proposed Block C, which is not only right next to the Regent’s Canal towpath but also cuts the ‘green chain’ between Wennington Green (Mile End Park) and Victoria Park. Also note the loss of the tall sycamore trees alongside the narrow Stop Lock Passage. These trees are part of the ‘green chain’ of trees and historic open spaces linking the Borough’s two largest parks. The disused car park is the surviving western part of what was an open stone wharf, served by the surviving single-storey cottages on the right, which are to be demolished for proposed block C
The west ends of all three oversized blocks look like Swiss chalets, and with projecting balconies and crude dormers clash with the two locally-listed industrial buildings, in this the most attractive part of the Borough’s six-mile waterway ‘ring’. EEWG’s first letter of objection 29 November 2011 EEWG’s second letter of objection also dated 29 November 2011 but sent 20 April 2012 EEWG’s letter re fire safety and access 18 November 2012 Tom Ridge Click on box to see comments from the on-line petition
|
PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CLUB ROW’S UNIQUE FORMER INFANTS’ SCHOOL
Quick update ~ LBTH Development Committee reject alterations for Club Row…. for now. 3 against – Uddin – Aston – Khatun against – Abbas abstained.
STOP THE PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CLUB ROW’S UNIQUE FORMER INFANTS’ SCHOOL OF 1879
See some comments received so far
Click box below to sign the on-line petition
Click here to sign
Mary Jane Ingham, headmistress of the Nichol Street Infants’ School, wrote in the school log book on July 1881 that the “playground … is entirely covered in by a low zinc roof“.
This was just two and a half years after the newly-built school had been opened in January 1879; and as the metal roof is not recorded as additional or subsequent work (in the very comprehensive SBL Works Committee Minutes), the roof must have been erected by the contractors Kirk & Randall, as part of their contract. The work would have included the existing wrought-iron roof trusses and the existing eight 
iron-barred openings, to light and ventilate the fully-covered roof playground.
iron-barred openings, to light and ventilate the fully-covered roof playground.The School Board Architect E.R. Robson planned and designed the single-storey infants’ school and the adjacent two-storey boys’ and girls’ school. Both were on such small separate sites that he gave each building a flat roof for a school playground. On the two-storey building, the girls’ roof playground was provided with a ‘covered playground’ on each wing for shelter during wet weather. Their walls survive but only the eastern walls still have their original wrought-iron roof trusses.
Robson in School Architecture (1874) makes several recommendations for infants’ schools, including:
An exercising or marching ground, and a playground, are both necessary adjuncts to an Infant School. The former should be covered … The children attending school should be able to have marching exercise all the year round. It is important that they should breathe fresh air frequently and that the feet should be kept dry. (p. 191)
The only way Robson could provide a playground and a covered marching ground for the infants at Nichol Street was to make the roof playground also serve as a marching ground, and cover the entire flat roof with a metal roof on its eight enclosing walls.
E.R. Robson planned and designed a total of thirty detached single-storey infants’ schools (with schoolrooms), nearly all had pitched roofs and enough space for a playground and a separate covered marching ground. The Nichol Street Infants’ School was the only one on such a small site that it had to have a flat roof for its combined playground and covered marching ground. It is, therefore, the only one of the thirty infants’ schools to have been provided with a fully-covered roof playground; and a special “easy staircase” for the infants to climb up to their covered playground and covered marching ground.
Slum property was difficult and expensive to acquire for redevelopment. The School Board for London had done its best, but faced with these two small separate sites, Robson did even better for the poor children of the Nichol. Especially the infants. He gave them four extra-tall classrooms (including one as a nursery for children under three) and the widest, tallest, longest and most embellished schoolroom in London; and London’s only “easy staircase” for infants; and London’s only fully-covered roof playground and marching ground for infants.
Twenty-five of Robson’s thirty detached single-storey infants’ schools (with schoolrooms) have been demolished; and the former Nichol Street Infants’ School is the least altered of the five surviving examples.
The Nichol Street Infants’ School Log Book 1873-1905
(London Metropolitan Archives)
All three Nichol Street Schools were started by the School Board for London in 1872 at the Old Nichol Street Ragged School (built 1866).
School Board for London Works Committee Minutes 1871-1904
(London Metropolitan Archives)
Both school buildings were planned and designed in 1876 and built 1877-79. All the minutes from 1874 to 1904 were examined without finding any references to the pitched and hipped roof or the eight barred openings
…..and more about the school here.
.
Tom Ridge (0208 981 7361)
7 Shepton Houses, Welwyn, London E2 0JN
6 December 2012
NEWSFLASH BOW WHARF 19 November
Following on from the recent Newsflash about the petition, I now attach a copy of EEWG’s letter commenting on the proposed fire safety and access arrangements. As you will see, the letter sets out the concerns summarised in the last part of the petition.
Unless you particularly want to, there is no need to write to Mary O’Shaughnessy in support. However, I think that having read the letter you will want to redouble your efforts to collect signatures for sending to me by 23 November and/or encourage more friends and neighbours to sign the online petition.
The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority has put a lot of effort into this particular case. The photograph taken by Trudy Wilton from Velletri House shows firefighters attempting to get a hose across the Regent’s Canal. They failed, so the applicant had to improve the existing fire engine route from Grove Road, and provide a second route from Old Ford Road.
Trudy’s excellent photograph also shows the main, mostly open part of the application site at the western end of Bow Wharf; and, to the left of Stock Lock Bridge (over the narrow entrance to the Hertford Union Canal), part of the derelict warehouse. This is to be demolished for proposed block A and a short but tall terrace of three-storey houses.
The west end of proposed block A and the roofs of the terraced houses are seen on the left of the applicant’s AERIAL VIEW Of PROPOSALS (design and access statement), with the bridge leading to the proposed piazza. This is overwhelmed by proposed block B which would replace the adjacent three-storey warehouse as the most dominant building at Bow Wharf. Next to proposed block B is proposed Block C, which is not only right next to the Regent’s Canal towpath but also cuts the ‘green chain’ between Wennington Green (Mile End Park) and Victoria Park. Also note the loss of the tall sycamore trees alongside the narrow Stop Lock Passage. These trees are part of the ‘green chain’ of trees and historic open spaces linking the Borough’s two largest parks. The disused car park is the surviving western part of what was an open stone wharf, served by the surviving single-storey cottages on the right, which are to be demolished for proposed block C.
The west ends of all three oversized blocks look like Swiss chalets, and with projecting balconies and crude dormers clash with the two locally-listed industrial buildings, in this the most attractive part of the Borough’s six-mile waterway ‘ring’.
Demolition of the Toilet Block in Museum Gardens
|
PA/12/2233 and 2234
I strongly object to the application to demolish the closed toilet block in Museum Gardens, and to replace it with a multi-purpose bicycle park. The application ignores the fact that the toilet block is part of Museum Gardens. And Museum Gardens (together with Paradise Gardens) is on the English Heritage Register of Historic Parks and Gardens.
This is a material consideration and as such the application must be withdrawn to allow the Council to make proposals which respect the site’s double protection (as part of a designated heritage asset within the Bethnal Green Gardens Conservation Area); and fully address the several problems in the vicinity.
The English Heritage registration of the two gardens recognises them as former parts of the manorial common or waste known as Bethnal Green, and subject to the Poor’s Land Trust deed of 1690 “for the prevention of any new buildings thereon“. Consequently, The London Museum Site Act of 1868 authorised the Trustees to sell land for a proposed museum provided that certain conditions were met. Two of the conditions recited in the conveyance were that the land was for museum buildings only; and that the land not needed for the museum “shall be laid out and for ever maintained .. as an ornamental garden“. The government which provided the museum was therefore also obliged to open the land not needed for the museum as a public garden. Bethnal Green Museum Garden was opened and “dedicated to the public forever” in May 1875. Ownership and maintenance was subsequently passed to the London County Council, on its formation in 1888.
In 1958, the Metropolitan Borough of Bethnal Green was urgently seeking a site for a public convenience at the crossroads. The LCC gave permission for a toilet block provided its design was approved by the LCC; and (mindful of its legal responsibilities) granted a licence which the Borough was obliged to renew on a yearly basis. The low single-storey block was opened in 1960 in a sufficiently restrained style to respect St John’s Church and Museum Gardens, and a single entrance only from Cambridge Heath Road via the ‘landing’ at the top of the northern staircase to the tube station.
I recognise that there is an urgent need to provide a public convenience at the crossroads, proper bicycle storage for tube passengers, and a refreshment facility to replace the unsightly and obstructive coffee stall on the ‘landing’ at the top of the northern staircase to the tube station. However, the proposed reuse of the toilet block site appears to have been driven move by the availability of funds for improving bicycle provision and a spare Automativ Public Convenience (APC) than a genuine desire to provide facilities without destroying the special character of this part of the Bethnal Green Gardens Conservation Area.
In my opinion, too many conflicting uses are being crammed onto this small site with no consideration given to the site as part of a doubly-protected heritage asset; and the need to ensure that the site is safe for all users and does not add to the several problems in the vicinity.
A far less sensitive location at the crossroads would be at or near the southern end of the registered Paradise Gardens. This also has the great merit of being open to Cambridge Heath Road and Bethnal Green Road: and cyclists would be more willing to use it than the proposed enclosed bicycle park where thieves could more easily operate. However, it should not be of a size detrimental to Paradise Gardens and the listed Georgian terrace.
An additional and larger bicycle park could and should be provided on one or both sides of the very wide footpath between Cambridge Heath Road and Bethnal Green Library. From here it is but a short walk to the south-eastern staircase to the tube station (on the corner of Cambridge Heath Road and Roman Road).
Both alternative sites would provide stands for all the bicycles currently chained to railings and pavement fences; and the wide footpath to the library could accommodate more stands as necessary. Furthermore, neither site would involve the cost of demolition, and the available funds would probably more than cover the costs for both sites. As practically all the bicycles belong to tube passengers it should be the responsibility of Transport for London to remove improperly chained bicycles in the vicinity of the tube station.
The provision of the two alternative sites would remove cyclists and their bicycles from one of the busiest pedestrian areas in the Borough; and allow the refurbished and adapted 1960 toilet block to be reopened as a more than adequate and safe refreshment facility and public convenience for people using Museum Gardens, Paradise Gardens and Bethnal Green Gardens (including visitors to the Stairway to Heaven); and tube and bus passengers, local residents, visitors and tourists, especially those staying at all the new hotels in Cambridge Heath Road.
Having allowed these hotels, the Council should at least ensure that, after years of neglect, the heart of Bethnal Green ‘town centre’ is improved to the highest possible standard to complement the Stairway to Heaven and associated improvements in Bethnal Green Gardens, near the south-eastern tube entrance. Yours sincerely, Tom Ridge
|
NEWS FLASH BRIDGE WHARF
EAST END WATERWAY GROUP NEWSLETTER
Last Autumn we sent out a news flash with the Inspector’s 26th October decision to dismiss an appeal against the Councils refusal to grant planning permission for two three story houses at Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road.
Despite this, or as a direct result, there is now another application for development on this protected open space. My own view is that in light of the Inspectors decision should not have been validated by the planners. (See application here)
The attached letter of objection has been written on behalf of the EEWG. As always, their has to bee at least 20 objections for the application to be determined by a committee of Councilors rather than planners acting under delegated powers.
We really need more than 20 to make sure that the application is refused with sufficiently robust reasons to guard against another appeal.
Please send your individual objections, with reference to the character and appearance of the two conservation areas to Mumtaz Shaikh (Mumtaz.Shaikh@towerhamlets.gov.uk) as soon as possible and ideally before 28th August 2012.
This is the deadline for for comments but as a rule they are accepted after that date. Even so, please do your best
Tom Ridge
Attachments:-
Inspector’s 26th October decision
New planning application PA/12/02010
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.
LIMEHOUSE ACCUMULATOR TOWER
URGENT NEWSFLASH – LIMEHOUSE ACCUMULATOR TOWER
Please share with others who are interested in preserving our local architectural heritage.
Can you please attend the Developement Committee meeting at the Town Hall tomorrow at 7.00 pm. To suport the limiting of the proposed Bellway development which includes the Limehouse Accumulator Tower.
By way of explanation see below an email to our patron Jim Fitzpatrick MP.
Tom Ridge
East End Waterway Group
FYI Letter to Nasser Farooq (PDF Download) - re Hydraulic Accumulator Tower
—————————————————————————
Dear Jim,
Development Committee Wednesday , 22nd August item 7.2 Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London (PA/12/00925 ).
Eastend Waterway Group objected to this application but is not named in the report and the points made are not fully or properly addressed. Malcolm Tucker of GLIAS has registered to speak and I have registered to speak on behalf of the Eastend Waterway Group.
A copy of our letter 28 May 2012 was sent to you and the waterway champions. I attach a copy for your information. The EEWG is not objecting to the development but like GLIAS, thinks that proposed block C should be reduced to 4 storeys and that the railway arch in front of the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower must be safe guarded for use and access in connection with the publicly accessible tower.
Regards
Tom Ridge
EAST END WATERWAY GROUP – NEWSFLASH 23rd JULY
EAST END WATERWAY GUIDE
Since sending your copy with the 3 June 2012 Newsflash, I have been making various amendments. My apologies for this, but I was over-keen to have the guide available before the Olympics; and I also had to send a copy to the Planning Inspectorate as part of my “additional comments”. These had to be in by 7 June 2012 in connection with British Rail’s appeal against Tower Hamlets Council refusal to grant planning permission for the demolition of the COAL-DROP VIADUCT at Mile End (see the section on Regent’s Canal in the waterway guide, and my letter on behalf of EEWG, both attached to the 3 June 2012 Newsflash), and its replacement by a speculative student hostel.
Tower Hamlets Council has kindly offered to print the guide, with a map of the six-mile ring and illustrations. It will be a joint publication by Tower Hamlets Council and the East End Waterway Group.
FISH ISLAND AREA ACTION PLAN (FIAAP)
From 1 October 2012, Fish Island and adjoining parts of Bow and Bromley-by-Bow will come under the LONDON
LEGACY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, as the local planning authority. Tower Hamlets Council is aiming to have its FIAAP approved by the Planning Inspectorate in September. To achieve this, a public examination by an Inspector started on 18 July and will end on 25 July 2012, with the Inspector’s report due in September. The January 2012 Newsflash included a copy of my FIAAP submission on behalf of the East End Waterway Group. The submission stated that the action plan is unsound on the grounds of ineffective heritage planning and will remain so until:
- the proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area has beendesignated by the LBTH.
- all the buildings and structures identified as buildings oftownscape merit in the Fish Island CA document (November 2009 – last page) have been added to the Local List.
The May 2012 FIAAP document (download from LBTH here) included a heritage assets map (page 70) which included a boundary for the proposed Conservation Area. Earlier this month, LBTH produced a draft appraisal for the proposed White Post Lane CA (download from LBTH here).
As comments have to be made by 5 pm on 30 July 2012, I have commented on behalf of EEWG. A copy is attached (see links below). Although I have responded on behalf of the Group it would be a great help should others also email their comments and support for the Group’s qualified welcome for the over-due designated of a White Post Lane CA (conservation@towerhamlets.gov.uk).
During the first session of the public examination on 18 July 2012 I had to assure the Inspector that my EEWG comments would be made by the 30 July deadline.
I am also in the programme for the afternoon session on 24 July.
In addition to my written EEWG comments I will be meeting the author of the draft appraisal on 23 July 2012.
Tom Ridge
EEWG
Attatchments
Comments on behalf of EEWG for the proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area (pdf)
Comments on behalf of EEWG for the proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area (Google docs)
White Post Lane Conservation Area Consultation – Have your say on the proposed designation of the Whitepost Lane Conservation Area (on LBTH website)
Fish Island Area Action Plan (FI AAP) and Managing Development – Development Plan Document (MD DPD) Submission and Examination (full documents on LBTH website)
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.
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.