Agenda item

Use of site in front of Phoenix Wharf for the mooring of a houseboat.

Officer’s recommendation:  Members are invited to decide

whether the original recommendation be agreed

(REFUSAL)

Having declared that he had pre-determined his view on this application, Councillor Naylor withdrew from the Committee for the duration of this item.

The Development Control Officer introduced the item and explained that it had been deferred from a previous meeting in order that the Committee could benefit from legal advice in relation to the consideration of an S191 application and to consider further information submitted by the applicant.

The Development Control Officer reported the receipt (via the addendum) of further information provided on behalf of the applicant since the publication of the agenda:

Statutory Declaration from Vince Locatelli – summarised as follows:

• Moved houseboat from Eel Pie Island to Swan Island to clear Phoenix Wharf frontage for the delivery of several portacabins.  Whilst there maintenance was carried out on the boat. 
• Moved the boat, with Mr Harrison living on it, which he continued to do until he moved into the manager’s flat above the slipway in mid-2006, back to Phoenix Wharf several weeks later.
• In 1986 a friend, John Dawson, moved to the wharf with his Dutch Barge, Seven Belles.  He continued to live there on his boat for the next 4-5 years.  Mr Locatelli remembered that very soon after Mr Dawson moved with his barge, a big luxi motor moored up to the Wharf (described as a houseboat as it bore all the usual signs).  The barge occupied the mooring until after Mr Harrison purchased Phoenix Wharf when it moved to the adjoining land. Mr Locatelli now knows that this barge is Lodestar.
• Mr Locatelli’s son purchased a barge in 2002.  This barge had been built as an office workshop and then stripped of its superstructure and used as a workboat for about 5 years.  Remembers that Mr Harrison had said he was going to build a purpose-made houseboat for his son.  Mr Harrison subsequently bought the hull.
• Mr Harrison’s son arrived to live at Phoenix Wharf in the autumn of 2003 at which time the remembers difficulties of Blaine accessing Liquid Sky which they were both living on.
• During 2003-2006 whilst building the superstructure of GB Vision designed purpose built access and landings to the structure the design of which enables the detachment of GB Vision from its mooring by simply undoing six bolts after which the houseboat can be floated away.  The whole process takes 15-20 minutes. 
• Early 2006 GB Vision moved from slipway and Liquid Sky moved across the mouth of Boatyard Slipway.  GB Vision stayed there until the enforcement notice was served a few months later.
• When protacabins were removed from site, the contents of the Mystery Jets practice portacabin was moved to the lower deck of GB Vision and the site office contents onto the upper deck.  Blaine Harrison used the lower deck for his own accommodation except when touring.  Supplied an Elson chemical toilet for his use prior to GB Vision being towed to Syds Quay.
• GB Vision moved to Syds Quay in 2006 and Liquid Sky moved into the vacant mooring. 
• Liquid Sky occupied by tenant from the Studio building from the middle of 2006 after Mr Harrison had moved up to the manager’s accommodation.  As far as he was aware Blaine continued to live on board GB Vision.
• Set out reasons why he considers GB Vision is a houseboat.
• Comparison of GB vision with floating vessel in the Thorpe Island case shown at the enquiry.

Statutory Declaration from Jason Messervy – summarised as follows:

• Arrived at Phoenix Wharf in July 2005 at which time Henry Harrison was living in Liquid Sky which was moored in front of Phoenix Wharf
• Liquid Sky was moved to the slipway in front of the Boatyard in early 2006 when GB vision was first brought to the site. 
• April 2006 Henry Harrison moved out of Liquid Sky (to the manager’s flat) – Mr Messervy occupied Liquid Sky from July 2006 when it was moored in the slipway.
• September 2006 Liquid Sky was moved from the slipway to the mooring now occupied by GB Vision. Mr Messervy stayed on this mooring until April 2007.  It was then moved back to the slipway to allow GB Vision to return and Mr Messervy stayed living on Liquid Sky until July 2008.

Statutory Declaration from Gabrielle Spriggs summarised as follows:

• When he first started working for Henry Harrison (Oct 2000) he used one of the portacabins as his office.
• Remembers Blaine arriving to live with Henry in 2003.
• Until February 2006 Blaine lived with Henry on Liquid Sky moored in front of Phoenix Wharf and transferred to living on GB Vision when it was first moored at the site. 
• She worked in the office on the upper deck of GB Vision and Blaine lived on the lower deck.  He used the sofa bed for sleeping and also used the boat during the day for practising and composing music.
• He was not there the whole time as he went on tour but his belongings remained on the boat and he did regard GB Vision as being his home.
• When he was on tour she would completely clean wash and tidy everything hence the photograph of 2008.
• Henry continued to live on Liquid Sky in its new position on the slipway during this period and then moved into the Manager’s flat in Phoenix Wharf.
• Blaine also moved in to the flat when GB Vision was taken away from the site but moved back into GB Vision when it returned to the site in 2007.
• Blaine continued to live on GB Vision until the beginning of 2009.  The boat was then let to the Holland family in February 2009 following re-decoration and later to its current occupiers.

The Planning Solicitor provided legal advice on the item. She explained that the application was not one affected by planning policy or material considerations but required a determination as to whether a certificate of lawfulness should be granted for a use which had been established over a 10 year period and was a matter of law and fact. She reminded Members that they were being asked to make a determination based on the evidence submitted and in the light of any relevant case law.

The Committee heard a representation in support of the application from Miss Scott, the agent.

The Committee considered Miss Scott’s request to defer the application due to the fact that the applicant was unable to attend, and to allow ample time to consider the further statutory declarations received. The Committee noted:

(i) That it was not normal practice for the Committee to defer items based on the availability of speakers and that the applicant had been able to make a representation when the item had previously appeared before the Committee.

(ii) That in light of further statements submitted in support of the application and the large amount of evidence to be assessed, and in light of the fact that a legal judgement must be reached, it would be possible to consider referring the case to officers for determination. If the case was referred, the decision would be taken under officer’s delegated authority and the application would not be referred back to the Committee for re-consideration.

The Committee voted on deferring the item to be heard at a later meeting. The Committee agreed that the item would not be deferred to a later meeting. The Committee considered the option of referring the item to officers given the complex legal nature of the application.

It was RESOLVED:

That the application be REFERRED to the Development Control Manager, to be taken as a delegated decision.

Reason: Due to the legal nature and complexity of the application.