Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
62 15/0009/FUL - Slipway, Garret Hostel Lane PDF 77 KB
Minutes:
The Committee received an application for
full planning permission.
The application sought approval to install a bollard and rail fence on the narrow
quay running alongside Garret Hostel Lane slipway and the approach to Garret
Hostel Bridge.
The Committee
received representations in objection to the application from Tom Arnold and
Natasha Dawn.
The representation covered the following issues:
i.
The proposal was an infringement on public access
for both commercial and private boat users.
ii.
The erection of bollards would impede on the access
to the boats.
iii.
The proposal would obstruct disabled access to the
river.
iv.
The slipway was the only place where a wheel chair
user could access the river without having to use a major boat company.
v.
There were no reported incidents of disabled users
being harmed at this access point to the river.
vi.
Approving the application would leave no public
access to the river for disabled users.
vii.
The effects of the proposal had not been thought
through and the reason for refusal not justified.
viii.
The slipway was the only main public access point
to the middle river which had been used for hundreds of years, dating back to
the fourteenth century.
ix.
Goes against 3/9b of the Local Plan and the
proposal could be deemed to be unlawful.
x.
The proposal ignored history and tradition.
xi.
The access statement made no reference to the
access to the river which is the primary purpose of the jetty.
xii.
No evidence had been provided to support the officer’s
concerns over health and safety.
xiii.
Garrett Hostel Bridge was a superior view point for
photos to be taken and questioned if the proposal area was frequently used as a
photographic point.
xiv.
Queried why no health and safety concerns have been
raised regarding the slipway at Jesus Green, Key Side, Silver
Street or by the Anchor public house, all of which have a higher footfall and
the river was deeper, yet there were no railings.
xv.
Unnecessary use of public money.
Natasha
Dawn
xvi.
There were many private users who used this access
point to launch their boats.
xvii.
The proposal would stop private users from accessing
the river from this point.
xviii.
The access statement stated that the proposal would
have no detrimental impact on the existing access, which was incorrect.
xix.
Questioned where would private
users be able to access their boat on the middle river if the
application was approved.
Caroline Golher addressed the Committee in
support of the application but suggested the following amendments.
i.
Should have
conditions to control materials, add several lockable gates and improve paving
to ensure that people can embark.
ii.
Railings should not be attached to wall the bridge
iii.
More work was needed to enable disabled access.
iv.
The design should be improved so that local people could
benefit from the access point to the middle river.
v.
Decreases flexibility of the river and it’s usage. For example there were
organised tours that used this point to disembark and then continue to a tour
of the Universitys’ Gardens.
Councillor Owers addressed the Committee in support of the application.
The Committee:
Resolved (by 6 votes to 1 vote) to grant the
application for planning permission in accordance with the officer
recommendation, for the reasons set out in the officer report, and subject to
the conditions recommended by the officers.