Cheyne Walk Trust London

Cheyne Walk Trust

MOORINGS AT CHELSEA

Updated 18 October 2017

Response below to Directors of Cadogan Pier Ltd

 

THE CHEYNE WALK TRUST                                 

                  

From: David Waddell                                      www.cheynewalktrust.org

 

Chairman          Col. David Waddell                          110 Cheyne Walk

Secretary          Dr. May Maguire                             LONDON SW10 0DJ

Membership     Andrew Thompson                          Tel: 020 7352 9353

Hon. Treasurer  Richard Sharp                          Mail:Chmn@cheynewalktrust.org

 

 

                                                18 October 2017

Dear Mr and Mrs Moffatt,

 

CADOGAN PIER

Thank you for your mail of 12 October on Cadogan Pier proposing a meeting to discuss the present position. No doubt you are well aware of the CWT’s objectives: to protect the historic, heritage and conservation character of Chelsea Riverside as set out in several planning and related guidance documents, including retaining leisure moorings at Cadogan pier. I have discussed your request with the CWT Committee members and we are agreed that before any meeting we need to clarify your position on the points raised in your email and the attached Cadogan Pier Update. We note also that a letter sent to other residents’ associations by Mr Simon Rutter, the COO of CPL, describes the newsletter being circulated by the Cheyne Walk Trust as misrepresenting the position. Please would you advise specifically what matters have been misrepresented?

 

Taking your points in the order that you have raised them:

 

  • Boat and Pier Design: We welcome your stated commitment to the character and state of maintenance of boats at Cadogan Pier. Can you confirm that this will include compliance with the present RBK&C determination of Cadogan Pier as providing moorings for leisure vessels and working boats and the river bus only (with the exception of a resident pier Master’s boat and one agreed office boat) and not for residential vessels or houseboats. Can you also confirm that you accept and will apply the guidance of the RBK&C River Thames Conservation Area Statement September 1983 (RTCS 83) and the London Plan Policy 7.28 and related paragraphs in respect of the Blue Ribbon Network? 
  • Pier Investment: Your investment in the Pier’s visual appearance is welcome as is compliance with the requirements to ensure the safe continuation of the river bus service. As you will be aware the trust has never suggested, as implied in your Cadogan Pier Update, that CPL’s plans pose any threat of reduced river bus services.
  • Old Designs: The Boat Designs depicted in the Newsletter were drawn from CPL publicity material and are the only ones available to us.  Are you able to provide us with illustrations of designs you currently intend or are likely to propose? 
  • Flagship: Whilst this vessel may briefly have been moored on the pier and subsequently on a buoy in the river, we understand that she has never been the subject of a planning application or consent as a permanently moored vessel at Cadogan Pier. We also understand that the boat has for many years been a hulk without engine (and remains so) and therefore de facto is not a leisure vessel. Recently the vessel appears to have been restored purely for residential purposes. Is this correct? The height and scale of the vessel appears to conflict with the RTCS83 and her mooring on the northern side of the pier does detract substantially from the view of the GDII* listed Albert Bridge. Is that location intended to be permanent and subject of a planning application and is it intended to moor other similar large restored hulks on the pier?
  • Protect Existing Usage: The CLEUD application, we understand, seeks to amend the long-established role of the CP moorings as essentially being for ‘leisure’ vessels and to introduce a new and unrecognised vessel termed a ‘Pier Boat’ that in essence is a houseboat and as such not provided for at CP. Rejection of the CLEUD would ensure the continuing established role of CP as the only leisure and working boat moorings with 24 hour access in Chelsea. Do you plan, as reported, to displace existing Leisure Vessels in order to replace them with houseboats?
  • Future Development Plans: You have not specifically included this topic in your mail but have raised it previously. When Committee members of the Trust met you in 2016 you advised that you wished to relocate the River Bus Station further east along the River, closer to Chelsea Bridge and also to extend the Pier in that direction thus providing additional new mooring opportunities. You showed us plans for a significantly larger reception facility including refreshment provision in a new glass building in traditional style. You also said that you would not submit any application in that matter without prior consultation, although you did not mention any intention to submit the CLEUD or give us any prior notice before doing so. You will have noted from the 500 and still increasing number of objections to the CLEUD that residents as well as the Chelsea Society and Battersea Society and established institutions including the Royal Hospital Chelsea and Chelsea Physic Garden are very much opposed to any moves to increase the number of moorings along the river in Chelsea and very specifically to any plans that might introduce large and unsightly houseboats. Are you able to describe in detail or in principle your current intentions in respect of those plans?
  • Licence Dispute: Whilst we are aware that the “CRBA” is in dispute with CPL/CY&BC on the terms of licences, the Trust has not sought to intrude in that matter. We do entirely support the historic character and heritage charm of the riverside communities and would not welcome any measures that might adversely impact their continued boat ownerships and present community status.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Waddell

 

 

PREVIOUS GUIDANCE ON CHEYNE WALK TRUST OBJECTION CLEUD APPLICATION:  AWAITING CONSIDERATION BY RBK&C PLANNING COMMITTEE

Planning Application CL17/02823 Cadogan Pier: Application to grant Certificate of Lawful Established Use Direction (CLEUD) and Permission for Residential Use
V1.2 of 1 august 2017

Dear Members of the Cheyne Walk Trust

You will be aware, from our October 2016 Newsletter and from our last AGM, of your Committee’s concern over the future use of moorings at Cadogan Pier and Chelsea Reach. The owner of Cadogan Pier and the Chelsea Yacht and Boat Company has recently submitted a planning application (CL17/02823) seeking to obtain a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use in order that residential houseboats should be moored at Cadogan Pier. Having advised us that no planning change would be applied for without consulting the Chelsea Society and the Cheyne Walk Trust, we are disappointed that this undertaking has not been observed. The Application on the RBK&C planning website can be found by its number CL17/02823 or under Cadogan Pier.

We are also concerned that this application if agreed will be a preliminary to further plans by the licensee to seek to relocate the present Thames Clipper mooring next to Albert Bridge down-river to the vicinity of Chelsea Bridge and in addition to seek to put in place a further pier extension linking the present pier with such a relocated Thames Clipper mooring.

Fortunately, our Councillors have decided to call-in the application for submission to a full Planning Meeting and therefore it will be possible to submit objections up to the new projected Committee date of in December 2017 (date TBN). We would ask you to submit your objection by Friday 1st December 2017.

Guidance notes below are based on the formal Cheyne Walk Trust submission of objections. These are summarised under SUMMARY on page 6 of this mail and you may wish to draw specifically on those points for your objections. As usual, the total number of objections submitted is likely to be significant and you are welcome say that you strongly endorse the CWT, CRBA and Chelsea Society objections, however it is generally helpful to record your personal views. Please note that since these objections are against an Application for Certification of Lawful Established Use, there will be a distinction between “admissible” evidence (specifically objecting to the substantive validity of the application) and “inadmissible” evidence that provides wider background or context arguments against the application. In the points that follow, the general inadmissible points are set out first and followed by the more specific admissible points.

Note: A shortened form of Objection is below.

Please submit your objections to RBK&C not later than 1ST DECEMBER 2017.

With best regards,

David Waddell
Chairman
Cheyne Walk Trust

Web: cheynewalktrust.org

 

 

 

PLANNING APPLICATION OBJECTION

Application number: CL/17/02823
Site Address: Cadogan Pier, Chelsea Embankment, London, SW3 5RJ
Proposal: Use of the riverbed under and around the Pier by Pier Boats, Working Boats and Home Mooring Boats

OBJECTION I object to the application for the reasons set out in the formal objections submitted by:

The Cheyne Walk Trust: Objection – 1899253
CRBA: Objection – 1903303 and 1903429
The Chelsea Society: Objection – 1932052

West London River Group – Objection 1905401

 

 

Name:

Address:

Date:

Note

Please submit by e-mail to graham.stallwood@rbkc.gov.uk
with copy to: Emily.Walsh@rbkc.gov.uk

Or submit on the RBK&C Planning Portal at [https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/]

 

 

Planning Application CL17/02823 Cadogan Pier: Application to grant CLUED and Permission for Mixed Use

The Cheyne Walk Trust objects to this application for the following reasons:

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

The Trust understands that permanent moorings at Cadogan Pier have only ever been for the use of Leisure Vessels. Specifically, Planning Consent Ref TP/97/0765 dated 30/07/1997 for the Pier Extension states in Informative 6:
o “No permanently moored vessels at the pier shall be utilised for residential sleeping accommodation”
o That consent also refers to further relevant policies, which we understand remain extant, notably STRAT 9, CD1, CD2, DC48, CD 52 and CD 61.
o The Trust was consulted on the Pier extension in 1997 and agreed not to oppose consent on condition that it should provide only for leisure vessels and specifically not extend to residential houseboats.
• Consistent with Planning Consent TP/97/0765, we note that past planning consents for mooring individual vessels have specifically been for ‘Leisure’ vessels committed to being moved from the pier on a regular basis, varying typically from 10 to 30 occasions per year. There is one exception to this condition in respect of Houseboat Kaipaa (PP/07/01621) that has been permitted as residential to provide for a resident Pier-master. However, we understand that there is now no resident Pier-master and that indeed Houseboat Kaipaa is no longer moored at the pier.
• We note also that vessel “Enterprise”, in a mooring approved only for B1 office purposes, has been marketed by Riverhomes and Knight Frank as a residential houseboat. This again is in conflict with both its planning consent (PP/01/0268) and the permitted planning use of Cadogan Pier.
• We understand that the Licensee by virtue of Application TL17/02823 seeks to obtain mixed use status for Cadogan Pier and to permit mooring of existing and additional vessels specifically for residential purposes, thus conflicting with the present purpose and consent for the pier to provide permanent moorings for leisure vessels only. Secondly, it is reported that there is a plan to introduce massive houseboats of significant height above the waterline in direct conflict with extant planning policies for the river in Chelsea. We note that recently an unusually large vessel has been moored at Cadogan Pier, apparently undergoing conversion to provide additional accommodation. It is not apparent that planning consent has been sought for that vessel.
• The Chelsea and Battersea reaches of the River Thames have for very many years been an extremely important element of Chelsea’s most highly regarded and historic features, painted by many famous artists and recognised as a key Conservation area both on land in the Royal Hospital and Chelsea Riverside Conservation Areas and in the river’s own right as the River Thames Conservation Area.  The need to safeguard these areas is clearly set out in the Local Development Framework CD1, CD2, CD4, CD5 and (UDP Extant Policies) at CD 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64. More explicit guidance is set out for Chelsea riverside in the endorsed Thames Conservation Area Proposals Statement of 13 September 1983. In particular, in Appendices 6 to 8, with Appendix 9 specifically covering the policy on treatment of the existing houseboat colony at Chelsea Reach.
• Albert Bridge, Cadogan pier and the whole of the riverside is covered by the Thames Conservation Area, which was designated in 1981, and adjoins the Cheyne and Royal Hospital Conservation Areas.
• We note that on 24 June 2002, planning permission (ref. PP/02/00413/MNW/4044) was granted for
“Erection of extension to existing pier upstream (renewal of planning permission dated 30/07/1997 ref. TP/97/0765).” This included condition 2, requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the drawings, but varied an earlier condition 3. Its condition 3 required that “the design and external appearance of the proposed extension including a schedule of all materials and the details of light fittings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by (the LPA) prior to development commencing”. The reason given was to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.
• Our concern is that the Application if granted will irrevocably alter and damage the historic character of Cadogan Pier by a change in status that will permit the erosion of its purpose as moorings specifically for ‘Leisure Vessels”. The intention behind the change in status sought would appear to be the introduction of large and unsuitable houseboats in conflict with Cadogan Pier’s historic purpose and leading ultimately to the removal of Leisure Vessel moorings with consequent and permanent loss to the River Thames heritage role as a working river.

SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION

• Cadogan Pier is in the curtilage of Albert Bridge, which is a Grade 2* listed building, and the site is located within the Thames Conservation Area (and is covered by the relevant Conservation Area statement). The relevant legal requirements are in s.66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings) Act 1990), that:
“In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses” (s.66(1));

“In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area, of any functions under or by virtue of any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (2), special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.” (s.72(1)).

• These statutory provisions require a local planning authority to “accord considerable importance and weight” to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings as against other material considerations: East Northamptonshire District Council v Secretary guidance on listed buildings and conservation areas.
• The traditional and approved planning use for Cadogan Pier is the mooring of leisure vessels individually consented by the Borough Council for RBK&C as complying with conservation area considerations.
• From perusal of the evidence statements of leisure boat owners attached to the application it is clear that with two exceptions, all the boat-owners have primary residences that are not at Cadogan Pier. No boat owner as far as we are aware is in payment of Council Tax, it follows that none are residents of RBK&C.
• We note also that in the evidence in regard to vessels Wayzegoose and Zwerver, it is claimed that these have been converted to ‘houseboat’, however they both retain their leisure vessel capabilities and have continued in use from time to time as leisure vessels and hence such conversion is irrelevant to the Certification being sought.
• It is stated in respect of Lawful Development Certification on the Planning Portal (Planning Portal-Application Type Guidance V1) ‘Lawful development certificates are not relevant to situations where breaches of listed building or conservation area controls may be alleged’. It therefore follows that an application to recognise as lawful use a planning use specifically controlled by the application of planning consent on conservation area grounds is not a relevant use of such certification.
• The subject Application states without any foundation or justification that at Cadogan Pier new terminology should be introduced including ‘Home Mooring”;” Working Boat”, and “Pier Boat”. Our understanding is that the only authorised permanent moorings on Cadogan Pier, other than Office Vessel Enterprise and the former no longer present Piermaster Houseboat Kaipaa, have been for Leisure Vessels. We object most strongly to any proposed change to that existing status.
• We understand also that the Council for RBK&C has conducted an inquiry into the status of vessels moored at Cadogan Pier by serving Planning Contravention Notices on present boat owners. We wish to be advised of the result of the Council’s inquiries and that the Council is content that the required PCNs have been completed without duress or any risk to the boat owners’ mooring rights.
• The applicant argues the Pier represents a single planning unit, as it is in single ownership, and subject to one river licence, with a mix of uses. That does not however reflect the planning history of the Pier, where individual planning applications have been made for each leisure vessel and also for specific moorings (such as the Piermaster’s vessel). More importantly, each mooring location is likely to have a different impact on the local environment. It is the case that the moorings at the nearby CYBC are considered as individual units. In these circumstances, the change of use of one of the moorings at Cadogan Pier is like the situation in the Church Commissioners v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 71 P&CR 73 case, where the court held that each shop in the single Metrocentre shopping centre building was a separate planning unit.

We consider that the arguments put forward in favour of this application are invalid and in the light of the significant threats to the character of the Cadogan Pier moorings and their historic role as a River Thames leisure facility in Chelsea, this application should be refused.

SUMMARY

Background and Context

• The application conflicts with the understood and past direction by RBK&C on the role and accepted use of Cadogan Pier as a mooring only for leisure vessels
• Agreeing the proposed application for CLEUD will irrevocably damage the character of Chelsea Riverside in conflict with extant planning guidance for the River Thames Conservation Area by eroding the present Leisure Vessel moorings and permitting the potential introduction of unsuitable and oversized mega houseboats to the detriment of the riverside’s heritage character
• Agreeing the application for a CLUED will significantly and adversely damage the heritage character and conservation designation of Chelsea riverside
• The CLUED application should be refused since it is likely to be a prelude to a rash of applications for large and unsuitable houseboats in conflict with present Planning Guidelines and adversely impact the present availability of leisure vessel moorings

Substantive Objections to the Application

• Cadogan Pier is in the curtilage of Albert Bridge, which is a Grade 2* listed building, and the site is located within the Thames Conservation Area (and is covered by the relevant Conservation Area statement).
• The case put forward for certification is not justified since:
• It seeks to introduce categories of vessel not recognised in the context of Planning Applications and Consents for the only vessel type permitted by the Council of RBK&C at Cadogan Pier, namely Leisure Vessels
• Planning rules in this matter relate to maintaining and protecting conservation area concerns and so a Lawful Development Certificate is not applicable
• Cadogan Pier is not a single planning unit since each permanently moored vessel requires an individual planning consent
• Evidence has not shown that all vessels moored at Cadogan Pier have been used as residential for over ten years
• All boat owners except two have declared a primary residential address elsewhere than Cadogan Pier
• No boat owners are paying Council Tax in RBK&C and therefore cannot be considered to be residents
• Claims that some vessels have been converted to houseboats are not substantiated since all have continued in use from time to time as leisure vessels

We consider that the arguments put forward in favour of this application are invalid and in the light of the significant threats to the character of the Cadogan Pier moorings and their historic role as a River Thames leisure facility in Chelsea, this application should be refused.

Copyright © 2013 Cheyne Walk Trust