Agenda item

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment relative to Dark House Walk, City Walkway Alteration.

The Transport Planning Manager, reminded Members that this report had been deferred from the 24 May Planning and Transportation Committee meeting. The re-submitted report now included a more detailed plan including dimensions of the walkway area that would remain alongside some proposal alterations.

The Chair welcomed Simon Hart of Pringle Richards Sharratt Limited – the architects acting on behalf of the applicant - to the meeting and asked him to address the Committee on the proposals.

Mr Hart referred to the fact that the existing area of walkway concerned was in a poor state, it was a secluded and segregated slot with a lack of seating provided and where there was evidence of some misuse. He added that the width of walkway here presented a great opportunity to add to and improve this area of river walkway.

Mr Hart went on to state that the applicant had been working closely with the City Corporation’s Open Spaces team and intended to retain a lot of the greenery in the existing location. In addition, seating would be incorporated and most of this would be river facing. Members were informed that the pavilion itself would be set back allowing for a more open and free flowing space.

Mr Hart invited comments and questions from the Committee.

A Member stated that, whilst he was content with the proposals regarding the pavilion, he was concerned about how the external seating area here would be properly managed so that dining furniture was not taken on to the public walkway. Mr Hart responded by stating that a row of timber posts/bollards in front of the seating area would clearly mark out public seating and restaurant furniture.

A Member questioned whether the addition of these bollards might restrict access for the emergency services. Mr Hart assured the Member that this was not the case. He commented that emergency vehicles were already unable to access this area of river walkway but assured Members of the arrangements in place.

A Member questioned why the external seating area could not be managed by way of a tables and chairs licence which would not necessitate the ‘handing over’ of an area of public walkway in this manner. Mr Hart stated that this was an important location and highlighted that anyone operating here was almost certain to want some external space to manage. The Transport Planning Manager responded that the nature of the external, private seating required for dining only was very different to a café style approach where tables and chairs licenses operated quite successfully. The granting of a tables and chairs licence here would mean that the seating becomes a public amenity whereas the restaurant required exclusive use of the furniture on the City walkway. He added that it was also not possible to operate a table and chairs licence on private land and that the use of the proposed timber bollards was therefore felt to be more appropriate.

A Member commented favourably on the proposals but questioned ownership of 10 Lower Thames Street, plans for the future of this building and whether or not these might be disruptive to the erection of a pavilion. Mr Hart clarified that the pavilion would be a timber structure and would not therefore affect any future development of the building. He clarified that he was not aware of any plans for the building at present and that the current owners held a 2,000 year lease over the Wharf.

A Member sought clarification around what appeared to represent a permanent change and loss of control of walkway for commercial use. He agreed that the proposals for the area would enhance it but expressed concern over a loss of control in terms of the management of the area which would then fall to landowners. Mr Hart referred once more to the fact that this was a very generous part of the riverside walkway which was currently not in use. He reiterated that these proposals would alter that. The Comptroller and City Solicitor confirmed that City walkways were not public but granted public rights of access only.

A Member, also currently serving as Chairman of the Licensing Committee, stated that he felt that it was likely that this matter would also, in time, be the subject of a licensing hearing given the location and concerns raised. He added that there were many conditions that could be placed upon a licence to address specific concerns around outside drinking such as the serving of alcohol up to a particular time or only whilst patrons were seated/eating. He therefore encouraged the applicant to engage with the relevant officers as soon as possible on this matter.

A Member commented that planning consent had been granted for a café/restaurant/bar but that she could not find reference in the brief to the request for extra external space for tables and chairs. She went on to question why this could not be amalgamated on the roof of the building. Mr Hart confirmed that, at one stage, plans had incorporated a balcony on the upper level for this purpose but it was felt, after discussions with planning officers, that this would dominate the space and was therefore not appropriate. He reminded Members that the area of walkway requested for this purpose was 2.4m only and concurred that, whilst the official description ought to have made proper reference to the external tables and chairs required, planning permission had been granted on this.

A Member commented that the proposals, which were within his Ward, seemed very encouraging in terms of the vibrancy they could bring to the location. He added that, should these proposals be approved today, the matter would then be considered by the Corporate Asset Sub Committee.

Members proceeded to vote on the recommendation before them and votes were cast as follows:

·         IN FAVOUR –             25 Votes

·         OPPOSED –               2 Votes

·         ABSTENTIONS -        None

RESOLVED – That, the Committee resolve to vary the resolution of the Court of Common Council made on 25 April 1991 by making a resolution in the form appended to this report as Appendices 2A and 2B and delegate to the Transport Planning Manager authority to insert into the resolution an appropriate date for the coming into force of the variation.