|
Result of September 10th meeting: Councillors again vote to defer their decision.Ballymore is still applying to build large glass blocks inside open market space, reducing the space for stalls and converting the market into a high-rent eating and drinking complex.Since the deferred meeting of June 25th, Ballymore have been negotiating with the Council. Their plans have not changed in any way, but they have come up with the promise of a further £179,000 if the Councillors pass their plans. Ballymore have scrapped the legal obligation to provide subsidised local shops in the market stock market binary options, which was a specific measure designed to keep a local stake in the development. In spite
of wide opposition to the plans, Tower Hamlets planning officers recommend
that Councillors pass all parts of Ballymoreâs scheme. At Wednesdayâ
meeting, Councillors did not address why the local shops measure has
been scrapped, or the value of Sunday market and why it brings people
to the area, or the loss of the important and unique open public The Councilâs
report can be seen at www.
towerhamlets.gov.uk click on: Planning and On June 25th Spitalfields was withdrawn from the meeting agendaOn Wednesday evening before the meeting began the Ballymore plans were withdrawn from the agenda by Council officers, following the receipt of letters from solicitor Richard Buxton on behalf of Spitalfields Market Residents' Association and from the Banglatown Restaurants Association.This meeting followed only two weeks after the last and was to have been the final decision on the plans, with Ballymore pushing for approval. The letter from Richard Buxton was instrumental in the decision to withdraw, and included points relating to the impact of the development on the area, the abandonment of the local shops provision, the proposed 106 agreement, conservation and design. The Banglatown Restaurants Association urged the Council to reject the proposals because of the serious threat to the Brick Lane restaurant zone and consequent job losses. Councillors
must now address these issues fully. There is no date set for the next
meeting and it could be back on the agenda at any time. The councillors agreed to hold a further informal meeting to work out new and better terms of the legal financial agreement (or section 106) which is tied to all parts of the Ballymore applications. Councillor Doros Ullah noted that a 49-name petition from “local people” supporting Ballymoreâs applications contained many addresses of people not local to the area, who would not be affected by the plans in Spitalfields. Before the decision to defer, residents of the Horner Buildings were pleased with the result of the vote taken on permission for Saturday trading. Not one councillor voted in favour of Saturday trading, which they saw as disruptive to residents. Councillor Ghulam Mortuza also said it would “change the local character for no good reason”. The coming
meeting will show whether the Council will further scrutinise and challenge
Ballymore's plans or be swayed by financial "compensation". In January demolition of the western end of the Market took place, despite SMUT's efforts to save it. See below for a statement. NOW
the remaining half of the Market - which the developers still say is
"saved" - is in turn threatened by redevelopment by Ballymore.
The plans mean halving the number of stalls to build glass blocks inside the space, and will change Spitalfields Market into a high-rent eating and drinking complex designed for City workers. At January's planning meeting the council
deferred their decision so that they could look more closely at the
local effects of the development. Councillors suggested setting up a
forum for this discussion, but have not done so - a further example
of their failure What the development means for traders and residents
“Ken Livingstone claims to have ‘retainedâ the market but his backing for the disastrous Spitalfields Development plans will lead to the destruction of part of this thriving community market in favour of yet more office space. There was little question of whether the market was going to be retained. The real questions have always been in what form it would be retained, and who would benefit most.” Darren Johnson, Leader of the GLA Green Party, after the Mayorâs approval of the Foster building, 23/10/02. Issues raised with the Council (LBTH) about the Ballymore plans Some of the points made by Spitalfields Community Association (SCA) and Spitalfields Market Residents' Association: 1. Suggested a list of groups to be invited to "CONSULTATIVE FORUM" AS SUGGESTED BY COUNCILLORS at 2003 January meeting. COUNCIL'S RESPONSE: no forum established. Instead they want a "Town Manager" for "the area". 2. Asked about discrepancy in increase in numbers of A3 (restaurant/bar) premises. At January meeting Ballymore claimed an increase of 4. SCA claims increase will be 21. RESULT: there now seem to be NO restrictions on the number of A3 premises - potentially all the new units could be restaurants and bars. 3. Asked for value of Section 106 relating to Horner Buildings (Section 106 = planning gain, ie a payback to the community, via the Council, for losses incurred by a development). Reminded them that 1997 S106 required a local shop provision on the site. RESULT: Ballymore's plans now leave out local shop provision and replace it with off-site financial incentives, common practice by developers. 4. Inform Council of THREE SEPARATE PETITIONS OPPOSING BALLYMORE'S PLANS: 35 residents (36 residencies in Horner Buildings), 51 businesses in and around Brick Lane, 54 traders in Petticoat Lane. 5. The unknown number of new bars and restaurants impacts
directly on Brick Lane's restaurant trade. Invited LBTH and GVA Grimley
(Ballymore's agent) to undertake more accurate Retail Impact Assessment
of 6. Intended blocks too high. Specifically, the first floor
of one proposed glass block will overlook the first floor of some residents'
flats. Point out that the air conditioning and emissions on roof of
new 7. Serious concerns about noise, nuisance, vibration, pollution and damage to residential amenity. RESPONSE: Ballymore have not adapted plans. 8. Point out importance of protection of floor cobbles as vital part of fabric of Horner Buildings. RESPONSE: no condition attached to this. 9. Suggest proposals not in keeping with conservation areas
as will harm character and appearance of area and residential COUNCIL'S OVERALL RESPONSE:
The Corporation of London enacts the planning permission
granted in November 2002. These plans rest on permission given by Tower
Hamlets in 1997 for the LIFFE building, plans which Tower Hamlets stated
they had a "binding obligation" to pass. While recognising
the fact that the Corporation of London is the owner of the site, the
campaign to prevent demolition of the Market questions the way in which
the Corporation's plans took no account of the character of the surrounding
area, the loss of much-needed open space and the threat to an economically
diverse environment Opposition to the plans was wide and particularly emphasised by a petition of 40,000 collected by SMUT. Arguments for preserving the building as part of any redevelopment were supported in numerous urban planning policy documents written in the past three years. We question the decision to demolish for the following reasons: We question the Mayor's ability to act independently of the Corporation in its planned agenda of office expansion "to rival Canary Wharf". Why is he presiding over a turf war and not thinking about the growth of London as a whole? The Foster Building is the imposition of a In spite of the arguments put forward for the need for
proper consideration of the site in the context of the local area and
its wider importance, none of the authorities was prepared to question
the Corporation's If this is the way the Mayor and the Corporation act
to bring about change in London, we all have to be alert to where it
will happen next. |
||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
