Originator of Report: Allison De Marco

PUBLIC ITEM 5 - APPENDIX 2

th Date: 5 August 2010 Proposed development Application Number: 10/90344/FULODA

Site Plan

Location: Olympic Park Delivery Zone 4; at the eastern end of Roach Road where it intersects with Monier Road and within the LB of Tower Hamlets.

Olympic Park Delivery Zone 5; at the eastern end of Wallis Road and within the LB of Hackney.

London Borough: Tower Hamlets and Hackney

Proposal: Full planning application for the construction of two permanent pedestrian and cycle bridges (H10 and H14) for Post-Games Transformation phase.

Applicants: Olympic Delivery Authority

Agent: Arup (planning agent) and Allies & Morrison architects.

1. SUMMARY

1.1 This report considers a full planning application for the construction of two permanent pedestrian and cycle bridges for Post-Games transformation use; Bridge H10 located to the east of Wallis Road in Planning Delivery Zone 5 and Bridge H14 located to the east of Roach Road in Planning Delivery Zone 4.

1.2 The proposed bridges are located at the western extent of the 2007 Site Preparation and Olympic Facilities planning applications site and will provide new connections from the western communities in Hackney Wick and Fish Island across the Lea Navigation/Hackney Cut.

1.3 This report details a ‘slot-in’ application for full planning permission seeking approval for:

o Preparatory works including bulk earthworks for the creation of landform to finished levels, including retaining structures and construction of piling and foundations; o The laying of surface water drainage; o Construction of bridge structure including abutments, retaining walls, bridge decks, parapets and handrails including material details; o Construction of approach ramps including the laying out of hard and soft landscaping including the installation of stairs, rest areas, parapet and handrails and planting of trees, climbers, lawn and meadow grass; o Construction of a lift at the western approach to Bridge H10.

1.4 The proposed bridges will provide key new connections for local residents living in the western communities to the venues and open space within the Post- Games Transformation Olympic Park. It is considered that the design, modulation, grain and scale of the proposed western bridge represent a refined response to context which will provide a pair of well considered and sympathetic new public realm and bridge insertions within Fish Island and Hackney Wick. Within their context the proposed bridges are considered to respect local context, character and communities and create and enhance the visual amenity of each site.

1.5 The assessment and consideration of this application concludes that the timely and detailed development of the PGT works will ensure that the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics and Paralympics will be maximised, in accordance with Section 5(5) b) of the Olympic Act, and become available for public access at the earliest opportunity.

1.6 It is recommended that full planning permission be approved for Bridges H10 and H14 subject to conditions and informatives.

2. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

2.1 The proposed Western Bridges encompass two sites, one within PDZ 4 and the other in PDZ 5. The PDZ 4 application site is located wholly within the administrative boundary of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. The PDZ 5 application site is located wholly within the administrative boundary of the London Borough of Hackney. The application sites cross the River Lea Navigation/Hackney Cut.

Page 2 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

2.2 The Olympic Park site is currently a construction site with infrastructure and building works being undertaken in accordance with the 2007 Site Preparation and Olympic Facilities planning applications (ref: 07/90011/FUMODA and 07/90010/OUMODA respectively).

BRIDGE H10 CONTEXT

2.3 The H10 Bridge is located at the eastern end of Wallis Road.

2.4 Within the LB Hackney LDF proposals map, the western approach of Bridge H10 is located within Priority Employment Area (PEA) and Flood Zone 3a allocations and alongside a Green Corridor which runs along the Lea Navigation. The eastern approach of Bridge H10 borders two allocations, a ‘Strategic Industrial Location’ (Hackney wick SIL) allocation to the north surrounding the IBC and ‘Other Industrial Sites’ (Hackney Wick OIA) allocation to the south surrounding the Multi-Use Sports Venue (MUSV). Within LB Hackney’s Unitary Development Plan, both east and west approaches of the H10 application site are designated as defined employment area. The Lea Navigation is designated a pedestrian and/or cycle facility under the LB Hackney UDP.

2.5 Public Realm Improvements: The LTGDC are delivering a number of public realm enhancements and strategic connection improvement projects across Hackney Wick Fish Island. The LTGDC led Wallis Road project is identified in the Area Action Plan. The LTDGC intend to commence delivery in early December 2010. The material palette has not yet been fixed for the LTGDC Hackney Wick/Fish Island public realm and strategic connections projects and an indicative palette has been provided of granite kerbs, raised parking bays and crossovers in granite blocks, artificial stone paving footways and semi-mature tree planting of potential London Plane trees with grille or surround.

2.6 Hackney Wick Conservation Area: The H10 western approach adjoins the Hackney Wick Conservation Area. The Hackney Wick Conservation Area (HWCA) was designated in November 2009, prior to public consultation. Public consultation was subsequently undertaken early this year between 1 February 2010 - 15 March 2010 on the Conservation Area designation and Hackney Wick Conservation Area Appraisal (2009) which accompanies and supports the designation.

2.7 The HWCA area is located immediately north of Hackney Wick station and forms part of the ‘Hackney Wick group of historic factories’. The Hackney Wick Conservation Area Appraisal considers the historical development of the area and describes the small group of late Victorian industrial buildings which characterise the HWCA. The Appraisal notes that the wider Hackney Wick area suffered substantial damage during the war and the residential area north of the HWCA was completely rebuilt as the current Trowbridge Estate, but that the HWCA is the only remaining part of Hackney Wick where the street pattern has remained relatively unaltered since the late Victorian period.

2.8 Buildings contained within the HWCA are predominantly industrial in character with various industrial buildings and associated yards and open spaces dating from 1860 onwards, several former industrial buildings are used as creative studios some of which incorporate live-work units for artists. The appraisal assesses that there are a number of important early industrial buildings as well as some smaller Victorian or Edwardian buildings within the immediate context of

Page 3 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

the H10 western approach, with most of the late twentieth century buildings comprising large industrial sheds or small garages.

2.9 Four buildings along Wallis Road are described in further detail as constituent buildings of architectural and historic merit within the eastern zone of the HWCA. One of the four buildings, the Central Brooks building, is a locally listed four storey building noted as one of the tallest in the area which acts as a local landmark and can be seen from the passing trains and the station. The building is located approximately 70m to the west of the H10 western approach (Attachment 1: Image 1).

2.10 Another three buildings are identified as buildings of townscape merit and include the Eton Mission Boat House, which houses the Eton Mission Rowing Club (EMRC), and adjoining redundant substation structure.

2.11 The appraisal notes that there are buildings within the HWCA and immediately outside which are of poor architectural quality and have been identified as development sites with the emerging Hackney Wick Masterplan (Phase 1 now adopted). The historic fabric of the area together with views to the river, Olympics site and the grade 2 listed schools should positively inform the form and character of the proposed development.

2.12 The HWCA indentifies a ‘focal point’ on the site of the H10 western approach.

2.13 The boundary of the HWCA is incorrectly shown in various LB Hackney documents pertaining to the Conservation Area and plans and maps now published in the recently adopted Hackney Wick AAP Masterplan: Phase 1 as incorporating the ODA administrative area included on the western side of the Lea Navigation and therefore appears to include the H10 western approach.

2.14 The ODA Planning Functions Order 2006 grants the ODA the power to designate a Conservation Area (and determine any application for listed building or conservation area consent) and as such the LB of Hackney is not able to designate a Conservation Area within the ODA Planning Functions boundary.

2.15 Accordingly, the area included within the western bridges application boundary, within which the H10 western approach is proposed, is not within the HWCA and the Conservation Area appraisal designation of a ‘focal point’ and identification of the substation structure as a ‘building of townscape merit’ are not applicable in the determination of this application.

2.16 The ODA PDT has previously requested that the boundary of the HWCA be redrawn to exclude the area of Wallis Road included within the ODA administrative area but no formal response has been received from LB Hackney.

2.17 Existing Site: The following items are located within the extent of the western bridges boundary and ODA Planning Functions boundary and therefore excluded from the Hackney Wick Conservation Area: A redundant single storey EDF substation which is proposed to be demolished and a single storey timber mono- pitch lean-to structure attached to the Eton Mission Boat House and used by the Rowing Club for storage and a gate and fence structure which runs along the western extent of the CPO boundary.

2.18 In relation to the proposals for Bridge H10 no Conservation Area considerations should apply in determining this planning application insofar as the proposed

Page 4 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

bridge structure is not included within the HWCA and no requirements for Conservation Area Consent are required for any demolition. The report does however consider any impacts of the proposed H10 Bridge on the adjoining Hackney Wick Conservation Area.

2.19 Hackney Wick Phase 1 AAP: The Hackney Wick Phase 1 AAP (adopted September 2010) identifies Wallis Road as being located within an ‘Opportunity Site’ (Areas of Change). Only the four buildings noted above are identified as a ‘Character building to be retained within Opportunity Site’, all remaining buildings along Wallis Road are shown as ‘indicative development plots’.

2.20 The AAP and HWCA appraisal indicate that approximately half of the buildings and/or frontages along Wallis Road are not considered to be of sufficient merit to be retained as part of the masterplan for the area. The buildings included within the ‘indicative development plot’ designation include 115-119 Wallis Road located to the north-west of the H10 western approach and 90 Wallis Road which adjoins the site to the south (Attachment 1: Images 2 & 3).

2.21 The Hackney Wick Phase 1 AAP Masterplan notes the H10 western approach area as an Important Node/Gateway.

2.22 Eton Mission Boat House (127 Wallis Road): The Eton Mission Boat House was constructed in 1934 and is a two storey dark brick masonry structure with gable roof and two storey outrigger. The building is also listed as a building of Townscape Merit within the Hackney Wick Phase 1 AAP Masterplan and noted as a building which should be retained. The building is described within the appraisal as being formerly connected with St Mary’s church, the domestic scaled building is an unexpected survivor in an industrial area and has some historical significance. Although out of character with its neighbours the boat house makes a positive contribution to the canal side. (Attachment 1: Image 4).

2.23 A rowing club, the Eton Mission Rowing Club (EMRC), operates from within the Eton Mission Boat House. The EMRC currently use structures and open space within the CPO/application boundary, including the redundant substation and lean-to structure attached to the Eton Mission Boat House which are used for storage. The open space between Wallis Road and the Lea Navigation is used for storage of a boat trailer.

2.24 90 Wallis Road: Is the adjoining property to the south of the H10 western approach site. The structure is a relatively contemporary four storey blonde brick building with flat roof (Attachment 1: Image 5). The building footprint appears to take up almost the entire development plot and the building has frontages to the west towards the ‘Main Yard’ and the east onto the Lea Navigation.

2.25 The northern 1/3rd of the building is contained within the LDA CPO boundary. The building is identified under the Hackney Wick AAP as an ‘indicative development plot’ and is not identified or assessed within the HWCA Appraisal.

2.26 The building is used as a commercial premises and the primary vehicular and pedestrian entrance is off the ‘Main Yard’ which is accessed from Wallis Road. Fire exist routes from the building are to the front (Main Yard) and rear (Lea Navigation) of the building. A footpath along the eastern frontage along the waterfront and an exit point exists into the H10 site and then thought to Wallis Road (Attachment 1: Image 5).

Page 5 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

2.27 90 Wallis Road is one of a number of attached commercial/industrial structures which make up the ‘Main Yard’ complex, which takes in the properties 86-98 Wallis Road. These appear to accommodate various printing and other commercial uses. The buildings within the complex are all of a similar contemporary commercial/industrial character.

2.28 Eastern Approach: The eastern approach area crosses over the existing Lea Navigation eastern tow path, the decommissioned Olympic Park Outer Perimeter Fence (OPOPF), decommissioned Games phase Loop Road area and existing 42” water mains that run between the security fence and the loop road. (Attachment 1: Image 6).

BRIDGE H14 CONTEXT

2.29 The H14 Bridge is located at the eastern end of Monier Road where it intersects Roach Road.

2.30 Under the LB Tower Hamlets UDP Fish Island and the PDZ 4 area were designated as Industrial Employment Areas. The recently adopted LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy identifies the area around the H14 western landing (Fish Island Mid) as a mixed-use, sustainable community. The Core Strategy seeks to ensure the creation of ‘a joined-up street pattern with new and improved bridges, an enhanced Greenway and towpaths’ in order to make Fish Island a more accessible place. The Core Strategy seeks to promote a mix of uses including new residential, workshops, creative and cultural industries, studios, light- industry and enterprise space and notes that the qualities that characterise the conservation area - medium-rise, mixed-use buildings, with an industrial aesthetic - will set the foundation for new developments.

2.31 The LB Tower Hamlets UDP designates both banks of the Lea Navigation as green chains. UDP Green Chain policies have been retained in the recently adopted Core Strategy.

2.32 Similar to Hackney Wick Fish Island is also typified by industrial buildings from several periods. The area directly around the H14 western landing is dominated by late twentieth century architecture which follows a historic street pattern.

2.33 A characterisation study and assessment of key buildings of the hackney wick and old ford areas undertaken in support of the developing Fish Island Action Plan does not identify any buildings adjoining the H14 site as having high significance or which make a positive contribution to the character of the area. The site is outside the Fish Island Conservation Area which is located to the north of the H14 western approach.

2.34 Existing Site: A standalone brick industrial chimney, the Monier Road chimney, exists within the H14 western approach area. The 2007 Environmental Statement (2007 ES) made an assessment of the ‘historic environment’ within and in the immediate setting of the Olympic Application area. The chimney was identified in the 2007 ES as being a built heritage resource of medium importance. The approved 2007 parameter of Bridge H14 requires the structure’s removal in order to accommodate retaining structures to support bridge approaches and the ES assessed that the demolition of the chimney would result in a change of high magnitude which would have a minor adverse effect. (Attachment 1: Image 7).

Page 6 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

2.35 The brick chimney is proposed to be retained under the current H14 proposals as it is considered to act as a strong and visible marker to the bridge location and preserves the cultural heritage of the area.

2.36 Crown Wharf/OMEGA Works Development (Roach Road): Crown Wharf and OMEGA works are recently completed developments up to 9 storeys in height. The developments have frontages onto Roach Road and the Lea Navigation and extend from the Hertford Union Canal down to the H14 site. The Crown Wharf 2 development adjoins the H14 site to the north.

2.37 Planning Permission for Crown Wharf was granted on 27 March 2007 by LB Tower Hamlets ref: 05/02130 and permitted the redevelopment of the site to provide 98 live/work units and 2255m² of commercial space with landscaping and parking. The 98 live/work units are arranged around a courtyard. (Attachment 1: Image 8).

2.38 The external fabric of the building includes face brick, concrete render, copper and timber cladding.

2.39 The Ground level accommodates retail/commercial frontages onto Roach Road and four ground floor retail units along the southern elevation fronting onto the H14 site that are currently vacant.

2.40 In light of the 2007 OLF permission the Crown Wharf scheme was amended to create an active street frontage on the bridge approaches. The frontage has also been set back to allow for outside sitting in front of cafes/restaurants. It is intended that the development of the H14 site will create a plaza onto which the currently vacant retail units can front and operate.

2.41 4 Roach Road: Adjoining the H14 western approach to the south is a series of single and two-storey masonry industrial scale buildings. A single storey brick café building (The Counter Café) fronting onto Roach Road is included within the ownership of 4 Roach Road. (Attachment 1: Image 9).

2.42 Eastern Approach: The H14 eastern approach area is confined by the retention of the Loop Road in post-Games Transformation. The approach will cross over the existing Lea Navigation eastern tow path and the decommissioned Olympic Park Outer Perimeter Fence (OPOPF).

2.43 Additional context images submitted by the applicant as supporting information are included at Attachment 1.

POST-GAMES TRANSFORMATION

2.44 Proposed bridges H10 and H14 sit within the context of the approved post- Games Transformation phase pedestrian and cycle network, elements of which are contained across the suite of post-Games Transformation applications reported to the Planning Committee in April 2010. The Legacy Transformation Highways application (ref. 09/90417/AODODA), includes retained and modified Loop Road from Games phase and some newly formed junction elements and new Transformation roads and include both on and off carriageway cycle provision and footways.

2.45 The H10 Bridge is additionally the western connection to the primary axial East- West Strategic route through the Olympic Park. The route commences in the

Page 7 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

west at the H10 Bridge, travelling alongside the proposed MUSV Access Road (to the north of the MUSV), crossing Waterden Road at a signalised crossing (as approved under the Waterden Road application) and continuing through the permanent parklands over a reduced width Transformation Bridge F03. The route then continues running to the north and parallel with MR1/Park Street/Frigoscandia Way and then crosses the intersection of Temple Mill Lane and North Avenue and continues on-carriageway over the Lea Valley Line across the Temple Mill Lane Bridge/Stratford City Bridge 1.

3 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Planning permission was granted on 28th September 2007 for the Olympic, Paralympic and Legacy Transformation Planning Application: Facilities and their Legacy Transformation and the Olympic Site Preparation applications (reference 07/90010/OUMODA and 07/90011/FUMODA).

3.2 The application sites of the western bridges submitted for approval are the location of two sets of bridges.

3.3 The first group are temporary Games phase only bridges referred to as T08 and T09. The second group are the permanent H10 and H14 bridges. All 4 bridges Western Bridges T08, T09, H10 and H14 were approved as part of the Olympic Facilities and their Legacy Transformation Planning Application 07/90010/FUMODA.

3.4 Under the Olympic Site Preparation application (07/90011/FUMODA) approval was given for development to be carried out in accordance with the bank profiles shown on approved section drawings.

3.5 Outline Planning Permission was granted for the construction of temporary Bridges T08 and T09 as Games phase only bridges. Permission was given for construction including decks and substructures. Planning permission was granted during Legacy Transformation phase for the demolition and removal of Bridges T08 and T09. Both bridges were intended to be used during Games phase for occasional or emergency vehicular access only.

3.6 Outline Planning Permission was granted for the construction of Bridges H10 and H14 as permanent replacements for Bridges T08 and T09 respectively. Permission was given for construction including decks and substructures. The approved parameters of these bridges are highway bridge parameters.

3.7 The requirement for post-Games transformation pedestrian and cycle bridges across the Lea Navigation is set out in condition LTD.21 of the Olympic and Legacy Facilities planning permission granted in September 2007 (references 07/90010/OUMODA). The condition requires that two bridges providing pedestrian and cycle access (in addition to the Gainsborough school link) be provided as part of post-games transformation development.

3.8 A separate condition LTD.30 requires the implementation of highway bridges at H10, H14 and H16 prior to occupation of the first buildings within the applicable development platform within PDZ 4 and 5.

3.9 The wording of conditions LTD.21 and LTD.30 are set out at Attachment 2.

Page 8 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

3.10 The requirement for Condition LTD.21 arose during the determination of the 2007 OLF permission when concerns were raised by the PDT and Boroughs that there was likely to be a delay between the close of the Games and the implementation of the Legacy Highway bridges at H10, H14 and H16 as part of the LMF development. It was considered that during the intervening period there would be poor connectivity from the western communities into the Olympic Park. The PDT therefore imposed Condition LTD.21 in order to ensure that new pedestrian and cycle western connections into the park were provided for local residents living to the west as soon as practicable upon close of the Games.

3.11 The 2007 ES in assessing the effects of the post-Games Transformation phase arising from the 2007 OLF application determined that the new Western Bridges would have a major beneficial effect on walking and cycling, improving connectivity across the Olympic Park and an improved walking and cycling environment.

3.12 The applicant is seeking to satisfy condition LTD.21 by submitting the H10 and H14 proposals. The requirements of condition LTD.30 for a highway bridge at H10 and H14 will not be discharged by the current bridge proposals. Under the 2007 permission, an applicant seeking to occupy the first building within a development platform in the relevant PDZ 4 and PDZ 5 would firstly need to bring forward bridges in accordance with condition LTD.30.

3.13 As set out in Condition LTD.21, Conditions OD.0.19 (i) to (iv) inclusive and OD.0.59 are also relevant and are provided below:

3.14 The wording of conditions OD.0.19 and OD.0.59 are set out at Attachment 2. in summary condition OD.0.19 sets out the details required for submission in relation to submission of details for bridges. Condition OD0.59 sets out the details required for submission in relation to submission of foundation details for bridges and other structures.

3.15 The Urban Design and Landscape Framework (UDLF) document was approved on 10 April 2008 as a partial discharge of OD.0.9 (full discharge of this condition is dependent on the approval of the Appendix documents). In accordance with condition OD.0.9, the ODA submitted the Streetscape Components, Bridges and Retaining Structures UDLF Appendix documents for approval in July 2008. These documents were reported to Planning Committee on 28 October 2008 where Members resolved to approve the Bridges and Retaining Structures documents subject to conditions and informatives.

3.16 The applicant submitted has submitted a request for an EIA screening opinion for the proposed bridges (ref SCRES/10/00019). PDT issued its Opinion on 02 August 2010. It was concluded that the proposals would not give rise to any new or additional significant environmental effects greater than those which have already been identified in the Environmental Statement submitted with the Olympic Site Preparation and Olympic Facilities applications reference 07/90010/OUMODA and 07/90011/FUMODA. Therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.

Page 9 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

4. APPLICATION PROPOSAL

4.1 This report details a ‘slot-in’ application for full planning permission. for the construction of two temporary Games phase only bridges, T08 and T09 and two permanent pedestrian and cycle bridges; Bridge H10 to the east of Wallis Road and Bridge H14 to the east of Roach Road, including:

o Preparatory works including bulk earthworks for the creation of landform to finished levels, including retaining structures and construction of piling and foundations;

o The laying of surface water drainage;

o Construction of bridge structure including abutments, retaining walls, bridge decks, parapets and handrails including material details;

o Construction of approach ramps including the laying out of hard and soft landscaping including the installation of stairs, rest areas, parapet and handrails and planting of trees, climbers, lawn and meadow grass;

o Construction of a lift at the western approach to Bridge H10.

4.2 The two proposed western bridges are outside the parameters for all four approved bridges, T08, T09, H10 and H14. However it should be noted that only the temporary bridges T08 and T09 are to be superseded. Consequently, a Statement of Superseded Development will be annexed to any planning permission granted for this application which will mean that the application is bound by the terms of the OLF s106 agreement and will specify which elements of development authorised by the OLF consent will not longer be capable of implementation.

4.3 The parameters approved for the permanent Highways Bridges H10 and H14, which require implementation prior to occupation of development platforms in PDZ 4 and 5 as per condition LTD.30, will continue to apply. The PDT has ensured that the Statement of Superseded Development only supersedes elements which relate to the temporary bridges T08 and T09 therefore allowing that the obligation to delivery bridges in accordance with condition LTD.30 continue to apply.

4.4 Proposed parameters are set out at Table 1 below.

4.5 Design: The normal water level of the Lea Navigation and Herford Union Canal is approximately 3m higher than the normal water level of the River Lea, placing a constraint on the depth within which the superstructure of the western bridges can be accommodated. Further, the western communities, including development adjoining the western approaches, are established and significant topographic realignment is not within the context of existing development which surrounds the western approaches and without detrimentally impacting on the operations, access and egress and adjoining development.

4.6 The context and constraints upon the proposed western bridges differs from that of the River Lea, City Mill River and Waterworks bridges which has required an alternate structural solution. In order to reconcile the unique topographic conditions between the Olympic Park and western communities and allow sufficient clearance above waterways the proposed H10 and H14 bridges do not

Page 10 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

sit within either of the structural ‘families’ set out within the UDLF Bridges Appendix and incorporate an above-deck structural solution.

4.7 Tapered box beams are proposed for both bridges. The box beams are secured to abutment walls on opposing corners and taper from maximum parapet height of 1.4m at one end down to deck level at the other end. The box beams are fixed to reinforced concrete abutments walls to form an integral bridge structure. The box beams are proposed to be painted Black Red RAL 3007 (Attachment 3). The effect of travelling between the opposing tapered beams is intended to shift views as one progresses across the bridge.

4.8 The box beams are lined internally by a series of regularly spaced vertical steel flats welded to a top rail to form a simple parapet element with a consistent height of 1.4m across each bridge deck. The steel flats are welded to top and bottom rails to form panels which are connected together and bolted to the deck. The parapets continue beyond the extent of the bridge structure/decks transitioning into guarding elements at the bridge approaches. The parapet and guarding steelwork is painted RAL 9007 (Grey Aluminium).

4.9 Parapet and guarding heights are consistent with the requirements for minimum parapet heights on cycle bridges and is continued as a seamless element beyond the bridge abutments to become a guarding element along the retaining walls along the bridge approaches.

4.10 Externally, the box beams are lined with the stiffening ribs usually contained within the beam. The spacing of the stiffening ribs visually breaks down the plane of steelwork providing a finer scale and a grain to the structure in order to relate with the western communities.

4.11 Bridge Decks are proposed to have a permeable surface comprising resin bound aggregate set into perforated stainless steel trays which are suspended above the waterproofed steel deck. The proposed surfacing for the footbridges is consistent with the approach for other footbridges within the Park. The proposed colour is Sunset Cotswold Gold.

4.12 Bridge H10 is proposed to be 5m wide with a 4.05m pedestrian/cycle deck. The parapets of the core bridge extend to a length of 29.596m on the southern side and 26.196m to the north. Bridge H14 is proposed to be 5m wide with a 4.05 pedestrian/cycle deck. The parapets of the core bridge extend to a length of 34.259m on the southern side and 30.795m.

4.13 Deck thickness is proposed to be 300mm with an additional 175mm make up to finished levels.

4.14 Retaining walls and abutments are in-situ concrete, an illustration of which has been submitted as part of the materials and finishes for approval. The illustration indicates a fair faced vertical patterned finish produced with a form liner. The concrete will have an anti graffiti coating applied.

4.15 In a similar approach to that of the application of vertical stiffening ribs to the exterior of the bridge beams, the vertical pattering of the in-situ concrete is intended to visually break up the planar concrete surface again providing a finer scale and a grain to the structure. The vertical module of the concrete and the parapet post steelwork is consistent across the scheme which geometrically unifies the concrete and steel elements.

Page 11 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

4.16 The H10 western approach incorporates a secure storage space for a boat trailer if required for the EMRC accessed by lockable doors located in the northern wall of the approach stairs.

4.17 The H10 western approach includes a lift between ground level and bridge deck level. The lift is proposed to take the place of a graded accessible route and will comprise a hydraulically operated 16 person lift, glazed through car set within an external shaft. The shaft is proposed to be formed from fabricated and welded structural steel sections with a painted finish and a robust grillage cladding to the sides. The front and back of the shaft are fully glazed to permit maximum visibility for lift users. A lift motor room is incorporated behind the bridge abutment.

4.18 The applicant has stated that the lift car and shaft are intended to be permanently lit for safety and security and monitoring systems and equipment will be incorporated into the design for passenger safety as well as lift management.

4.19 The H10 eastern approach crosses over the existing Thames Water 42” water mains and has been designed in consultation with Thames Water in order to allow continued maintenance access to the pipes.

4.20 Canal fronting abutment walls are proposed to have vertical planting fixed to the walls, which is proposed to the eastern walls at H10 and H14 and western wall at H14. The proposed means of fixing along east facing canal walls is by steel cable structure. The green screen proposed along the west facing wall at H14 is proposed to be attached to the wall with galvanised steel screen with mesh infill.

4.21 Towpath head heights are maintained at a 2.5m minimum clearance.

Page 12 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

KEY PARAMETERS COMPARISON TABLE: APPROVED TEMPORARY & PERMANENT 2007 OLF BRIDGES: PROPOSED BRIDGES H10 & H14 BRIDGE H10 Element Parameters of 2007 T08 Bridge Parameters of 2007 H10 Bridge Dimensions of proposed Dimensions of proposed H10 Bridge H10 Bridge (structure over water main) Deck Gradient 1:12 (Maximum steepness) 1:8.5 (Maximum steepness) 1:100 1:100 Deck Width 12m (minimum) – 12m (minimum) – 5.15m (gross) 4.6m (gross) 22m (maximum) 21m (maximum) 4.0m (net) 4.0m (net) Deck Length 21m (minimum) – 24m (minimum) – 33m 15m (minimum) – 29m (maximum) 61m (maximum) 20m (maximum) Deck Structure Depth 1m (minimum) – 1m (minimum) – 0.6m (minimum) – 1.2m (minimum) – 3m (maximum) 3m (maximum) 0.65m (maximum) 1.5m (maximum) Height Above Water 1.3m (minimum) – 3m (minimum) – 3.1m (minimum) – N/A Level 1.6m (maximum) 4.5m (maximum) 3.4m (maximum) Height Above Towpath 0.7m (minimum not met due to 2.4m (minimum) – 2.5m (minimum) N/A closure of towpath during Games) 3.4m (maximum) Deck Parapet Heights 1.1m (minimum) – 1.15m (minimum) – 1.4m 1.4m 2m (maximum) 2m (maximum) Lamp Standard Height 12m (maximum) 12m (maximum) Details to be submitted BRIDGE H14 Element Parameters of 2007 T09 Bridge Parameters of 2007 H14 Bridge Dimensions of proposed H14 Bridge Deck Gradient 1:12 (Maximum steepness) 1:12 (Maximum steepness) 1:100 Deck Width 10m (minimum) – 12m (minimum) – 5.15m (gross) 15m (maximum) 17m (maximum) 4.0m (net) Deck Length 26m (minimum) – 36m (minimum) – 36.5m 36m (maximum) 76m (maximum) Deck Structure Depth 1m (minimum) – 1m (minimum) – 0.6m (minimum) – 3m (maximum) 3m (maximum) 0.65m (maximum) Height Above Water 1.2m (minimum) – 3m (minimum) – 3.1m (minimum) – Level 1.6m (maximum) 4.5m (maximum) 3.4m (maximum) Height Above Towpath 0.7m (minimum not met due to 2.4m (minimum) – 2.5m (minimum) closure of towpath during Games) 3.4m (maximum) Deck Parapet Heights 1.1m (minimum) – 1.15m (minimum) – 1.4m 2m (maximum) 1.4m (maximum) Lamp Standard Height 12m (maximum) 12m (maximum) Details to be submitted

Page 13 of 103 Public Item 5/PDC/23APRIL2013/Appendix2/FINAL NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

4.22 With the exception of the H10 western approach, the bridge approaches consist of direct stair connections up to bridge deck level with accessible graded routes providing an alternate option to the stair route. Graded routes are DDA compliant and include level landings and rest areas with seating.

4.23 The surface treatment of the graded pathways is proposed to be resin bonded surface dressing to match the bridge deck treatment. Stairs are proposed to be smooth finished pre-cast concrete with an etched slip resistant treat surface and inset contrast nosings. Where stairs are over 2m wide (at the H10 and H14 western approaches and H10 eastern approach) they contain a 900mm high central handrail. Handrails are proposed to be stainless steel.

4.24 The H10 eastern approach and H14 western approach are designed as integral elements within a gently sloping soft landscaped pocket park, each with a graded route which weaves through the soft landscaped area. The design intention is to provide high quality settings for the accessible routes which open the park into the western communities.

4.25 The H14 eastern approach incorporates a ramp which extends 88m to the north of the bridge deck at a gradient of 1:21. Directly to the east of the bridge deck stair access is provided to Post-Games Transformation Loop Road level. A further staircase to the south of the deck provides access to the tow path. The ramp provides access to Loop Road level and further to the north meets tow path level.

4.26 The H14 western approach is proposed to create a plaza onto which the south facing Crown Wharf ground floor retail units can operate, enhancing access for the units which are currently constrained by the H14 northern site boundary wall.

4.27 Wheeling channels are proposed between the stair flight and the dwarf wall at the H14 western approach and between the stair flight and the southern boundary wall at the H10 western approach. The channels are intended to enable cyclists to push bikes up and down the stairs on the direct routes.

4.28 Lighting is currently shown indicatively as recessed lighting within the bridge beam and as park and public realm consistent lighting within bridge approach areas. Lighting is not however sought for approval as part of the application.

4.29 Although the form and character of the bridges is unique, they share common elements with the wider family of Olympic Park footbridges. Including consistency of painted steel consistent with the L01 steelwork finish and aggregate surfacing to decks and approaches.

4.30 Soft landscaping details are not submitted for approval at this time. An indication of the proposed species has been included as supporting information. The applicant states that planting will be an extension of the varieties of planting through the Olympic Park, selected for the specific aspects and conditions of the sites. Tree species, lawn and meadow grass areas will continue the themes of the landscape stitches in the Park.

4.31 The retaining walls facing east onto the canal will be planted with native flowering climbers. Graded approach paths thread between a formal grids of trees under planted with lawn or meadow grass.

4.32 The proposed development has been designed with regard to the approved drawing referenced in Conditions SP.0.27 and OD.0.32 ‘Protection of trees and habitats’ and LTD.1.8 ‘Protection of trees and habitats’ of the SP and OLF Permissions. The proposed development also complies with the latest tree plan (OLY-GLBILL- DWG-STW-SPC-IND- 001 Rev 06) approved by PDT on 5th November 2009 (ref: 09/90279/AODODA). The proposed Western Bridges will not impact on any safeguarded trees or habitat as outlined in the approved plan.

4.33 Sustainability and Re-use: The applicant has noted that it is possible for the bridges to be separated from their concrete abutments and re-used in another location. ‘In the event that the bridges are to be relocated in the future, they can be separated from the supporting concrete abutments relatively easily. The bridges would then need to be dismantled into manageable segments, transported to their new locations and reconnected to the new concrete abutments’.

4.34 Construction Programme: Works are proposed to commence on the bridges mid-2011 in order to allow the western approaches and bridge decks to be completed prior to Games phase, thereby minimising the scope of works required to be completed during post- Games Transformation. The eastern approaches cannot be completed pre-Games due to the location of the OPOPF and Games phase Loop Road and will be completed post- Games.

4.35 Remediation and Foundations: H10 and H14 are partially located within sub-zones 4 and 5. Although the application is submitted as a slot-in application regard has been given to the requirements of Conditions SP.0.33 ‘Site Specific Remediation Strategy’ (SSRS) and SP.0.34 ‘Remediation Method Statement’ of the SP Permission.

4.36 Bridge H10 and H14 Bridge Abutment Position Papers have been submitted in relation to the western approach areas of each bridge. The SSRS for PDZs 4 and 5 do not cover the western approach areas and the papers seek to set out the remediation position in the absence of an SSRS. The papers conclude that there will be no unacceptable risk to human health as a result of the proposals, providing there is a presence of >0.6m of suitable fill and/or the presence of hardstanding. Any areas not covered by hard standing are proposed to include suitable fill material compliant with the human health criteria and the controlled waters criteria provided in the Paper and in agreed SSRSs for PDZs 4 and 5.

4.37 A piling method statement has been submitted in support of the planning application indicating that Continuous Flight Auger piles are proposed.

4.38 Amended documents: Following discussions with Officers and responses from stakeholders, detailed elements of the scheme have been amended and amended Remediation Position Papers have been submitted in relation to the western approaches at H10 and H14.

4.39 The following bodies and organisations have been re-consulted: CABE, LB Hackney (Planning and Urban Design), LB Tower Hamlets, LTGDC, LFEPA, British Waterways, Metropolitan Police, Eton Mission Rowing Club, 4 Roach Road (owner and architect) and London Cycling Campaign.

5. POLICIES AND GUIDANCE

5.1 London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act 2006 Section 5 (5) of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 sets out the matters to which the Olympic Delivery Authority in discharging its planning functions shall have regard, in particular:- (a) To the desirability of making proper preparation for the London Olympics, (b) To the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics from things done in preparation for them, (c) To the terms of any planning permission already granted in connection with preparation for the London Olympics,

(d) To any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (which may, in particular, refer to other documents), and (e) To the development plan for any area in respect of which an order is made under section 149 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c. 65) by virtue of subsection (1) above, construed in accordance with section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c. 5).

5.2 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out the system for identification, protection and control of development relating to historic buildings and Conservation Areas. The relevant statutory duties relating to Conservation Areas are those relating to works adjacent to and in the setting of Conservation Areas. Section 72 of the Act states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. ‘Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment’ provides guidance for decision making in relation to development which may impact on ‘Heritage Assets’. ‘Heritage Assets’ are defined as including buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes positively identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. Heritage assets include designated heritage assets (World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) and assets identified by the local planning authority during the process of decision-making or through the plan-making process (including local listing).

5.3 National Planning Policy National planning guidance is set out in the Government's Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and more recently Planning Policy Statements (PPSs). These documents represent material considerations for all planning applications. The following guidance is relevant to the proposal:

Planning Policy Statement PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

This national guidance sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. The Statement includes comment on design and states that good design should:  address the connections between people and places by considering the needs of people to access jobs and key services;  be integrated into the existing urban form and the natural and built environments;  be an integral part of the processes for ensuring successful, safe and inclusive villages, towns and cities;  create an environment where everyone can access and benefit from the full range of opportunities available to members of society; and  Consider the direct and indirect impacts on the natural environment.

PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment The Government’s overarching aim is that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring. To achieve this, the Government’s objectives for planning for the historic environment are:

 to deliver sustainable development by ensuring that policies and decisions concerning the historic environment recognise that heritage assets are a non- renewable resource.  to conserve England’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance by ensuring that decisions are based on the nature, extent and level of that significance, investigated to a degree proportionate to the importance of the heritage

asset, and consideration of the historic environment is integrated into planning policies, promoting place-shaping.  to contribute to our knowledge and understanding of our past by ensuring that opportunities are taken to capture evidence from the historic environment and to make this publicly available, particularly where a heritage asset is to be lost.

LPAs should take into account; the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and of utilising their positive role in place-shaping; and the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets and the historic environment generally can make to the establishment and maintenance of sustainable communities. Where the loss of the whole or a material part of a heritage asset’s significance is justified, LPAs should require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset before it is lost, using planning conditions or obligations as appropriate.

Planning Policy Guidance PPG13 – Transport This national guidance has the objective of integrating planning and transport at all levels and promotes sustainable transport choices. The guidance promotes accessibility to jobs, shopping and leisure facilities by means of public transport, walking and cycling.

It is considered that the application is in accordance with national policy guidance.

PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk Flood risk should be taken into account at all stages of the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. Risk should be reduced by safeguarding land from development that is required for current and future flood management; reducing risk to and from new development by layout and design incorporating sustainable drainage systems (SUDS); using opportunities to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding including making the most of the benefits of green infrastructure for flood storage, conveyance and SUDS.

It is considered that the application is in accordance with national policy guidance.

5.4 London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) The London Plan was formally adopted in 2004 and consolidated with alterations in 2008 and is the strategic development plan for Greater London. The following London Plan policies are of particular relevance:

Policy 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London The Mayor will and strategic partners should support:  High levels of growth in the Thames Gateway by substantial new and improved transport infrastructure.  Access improvements to and within town centres.  Improved, sustainable transport between suburban centres, particularly by enhanced bus services, walking and cycling and by greater integration between bus, rail and underground services.  Enhanced bus services, pedestrian facilities and local means of transport to improve accessibility to jobs for the residents of deprived areas.

Policy 3C.20 Improving conditions for walking UDP policies should:

 ensure that Thames-side developments incorporate provision for a riverside walkway in accordance with Countryside Agency standards  ensure that the pedestrian environment is accessible to disabled people  take account of measures set out in the TfL Walking Plan for London  Improve the safety and convenience of pedestrian routes to school.

Policy 3C.21 Improving conditions for cycling UDP policies should:

 identify and implement high quality, direct, cycling routes, where possible segregated from motorised traffic, giving access to public transport nodes, town centres and key land uses  ensure that routes are segregated from pedestrians as far as practicable, but are not isolated  identify, complete and promote the relevant sections of the London Cycle Network Plus, and other cycling routes take account of measures identified in the TfL Cycling Action Plan  encourage provision of sufficient, secure cycle parking facilities within developments.

4B.1 – Design principles for a compact city The Mayor will, and boroughs should seek to ensure that developments;  Maximise the potential of sites  Create or enhance the public realm  Provide or enhance mix of uses  Are accessible, useable and permeable for all users  Are sustainable, durable and adaptable  Are safe for occupants and passers – by  Respect the local context, character and communities  Are practical and legible  Are attractive to look at and, where appropriate, inspire, excite and delight  Respect the natural environment  Respect London’s built heritage.

These principles should be used in assessing planning applications and in drawing up area planning frameworks and UDP policies, Urban design statements showing how they have been incorporated should be submitted with proposals to illustrate their design impacts.

4B.3 – Enhancing the quality of the public realm

The Mayor will work with strategic partners to develop a coherent and strategic approach to the public realm. The public realm should be accessible, usable for all, address the needs of London’s diverse population and provide facilities such as public toilets.

4B.5 – Creating an inclusive environment

All development should meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion. Development proposals should include an access statement showing how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the development and how inclusion will be maintained and managed.

4C.11 - Increasing access alongside and to the Blue Ribbon Network

5C.1 - Strategic priorities for East London

This policy states that one of the strategic policies for east London is to ‘promote and plan for the Olympic bid and, if successful, enable the necessary development for a successful, sustainable Olympics in 2012.

5.5 The London Plan; Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Consultation Draft replacement plan (October 2009) On the 12th of October a draft replacement London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) was published for consultation. The replacement plan sets out a strategic spatial planning strategy for London up to the year 2031. It includes a particular focus on East London for new development and positive regeneration, built in part on the legacy of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The Examination in Public (EiP) of the Replacement London Plan commenced on the 28th June and will conclude on the 22nd October 2010.

As the draft Policies have not yet been the subject of an EiP they have limited weight as material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The weight that can be attributed to draft policies is dependant on their stage of preparation. Planning Policy Statement 1: The Planning System General Principles states that limited weight can be applied to policies in an emerging plan, where the plan is at a consultation stage. The following draft policies are relevant:

Policy 2.4 – The 2012 Games and their legacy The Mayor will work with partners to develop and implement a viable and sustainable legacy for the Olympic and Paralympic Games to deliver fundamental economic, social and environmental change within east London, and to close the deprivation gap between the Olympic host boroughs and the rest of London. The Mayor’s priorities for the Olympic Park and the surrounding areas will be set out in his Olympic Legacy Strategic Planning Guidance, which will clarify and emphasise the need for a planned approach to regeneration and change, embed exemplary design and environmental quality, and help meet existing and new housing needs – particularly for families. It will also consider social and community infrastructure requirements, set out how the areas around the Olympic Park can benefit from, and be fully integrated with, emerging legacy proposals, and promote the further managed release of appropriate industrial sites for mixed use development while still retaining key industrial land, particularly within established Strategic Industrial Locations. The Mayor will and boroughs should; ensure transport projects contribute to the delivery of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; establish new and enhanced north-south and east-west walking and cycling connections within and to the Olympic Park; promote the Olympic Park and venues as international visitor destinations for sport, recreation and tourism; and other listed aspects in their LDF preparation and planning decisions.

Policy 7.5 – Public realm London’s public spaces should be secure, accessible, easy to understand and maintain, and incorporate the highest quality landscaping, planting, furniture and surfaces. New development should make the public realm comprehensible at a human scale, using gateways, focal points and landmarks to help people find their way. Landscape treatment, furniture and infrastructure should be of the highest quality, have a clear purpose, maintain uncluttered spaces and should contribute to the easy movement of people through the space. Opportunities for the integration of public art should be considered, and opportunities for greening, such as through the planting of trees and other soft landscaping wherever possible, should be maximised. Treatment of the public realm should be informed by the history of the place. New development should incorporate local social infrastructure such as public toilets, drinking water fountains and seating, where appropriate. It should also reinforce the connection between public spaces and existing local features such as heritage landmarks, the Blue Ribbon Network and parks.

5.6 London Borough of Hackney Unitary Development Plan (Adopted 1995) (saved from 27 September 2007 in accordance with the direction from the Secretary of State)

EQ1 – Development Requirements The Council will normally permit developments which are appropriate in terms of the layout, visual integrity and established scale, height, massing, rhythm, materials and detailing; retain positive townscape features; provide safe and convenient access; provide adequate sunlight and daylight, do not harm the amenity of neighbours and maximise energy conservation.

EQ9 – Development and the River Lee Navigation Floodplain In areas at risk of flooding the Council will, where appropriate, require flood protection measures

EQ12 Protection of Conservation Areas The Council will only normally permit development proposals within, adjacent to, or affecting a Conservation Area which would preserve or enhance its character or appearance.

The impact of new development which are adjacent to or nearby Conservation Areas can only be assess on a case by case basis having regard to the nature of the proposal and the character of the particular Conservation Area.

EQ31 – Trees Protecting and enhancing the public amenity value of trees: making tree preservation orders where appropriate; discouraging the removal of mature healthy trees; encouraging tree planting on development sites; implementing and encouraging others to implement tree planting schemes across the Borough.

EQ43 – Development of contaminated land Proposals for the development of contaminated land must include appropriate measures to protect future users of the land, the public, new structures and services, wildlife, vegetation, ground water and surface water courses

EQ44 – Water Pollution Development that would lead to deterioration in the quality of underground or surface water will not be permitted.

EQ48 – Designing out crime Developments to create environments that discourage crime and fear of crime both in overall layout and detailed design.

TR19 – Planning Standards The Council will seek to ensure that all developments are satisfactory in terms of: access, layout and circulation; visibility splays; sight lines; off-street operational parking and servicing; visual screening; disabled parking; safe circulation; level access at pedestrian crossings.

OS1 – Enhancing Metropolitan Open Land Supports proposals which will enhance the appearance and attractiveness of Metropolitan Open Land for leisure activities.

OS2 – Open Spaces and Parks Sites shown on the proposals map for the provision of new or extended open spaces and parks will be safeguarded.

OS3 – Loss of Open Space and Parks Development involving the loss of open space and parks will not normally be permitted.

OS4 – Protection of Character of Open Space and Parks Open landscape quality of parks and open spaces will be protected by requiring any proposal involving the loss or fragmentation of such areas to (a) help achieve the balance between active and passive recreation and be in accordance with the function of the particular open space or park (b) provide a facility which is available to the public and meets a recreational or leisure need for which no other site is suitable.

OS5 – Development affecting Open Space and Parks The Council will require proposals for development in or adjacent to open spaces and parks to: respect its character and surroundings; avoid nuisance, inconvenience or other loss of amenity to users; retain, improve or provide safe and convenient public access.

OS6 – Green Chains and Links Protect and enhance the areas identified as green chains and links. Where appropriate, development schemes will should facilitate the creation of green links and enhance adjoining green chains.

OS9 – Recreational Footpaths, Towing Paths, Cycle ways and Bridleways Protect and enhance existing routes to and through open spaces and places of interest. Where opportunities arise, the Council will expect routes to be linked to form a wider network.

OS12 – Protection of Open Water Areas The Council will not normally permit development which results in the loss of open water areas.

OS13 – Access and Use of Water Areas Promotes public access to water-based and water related leisure activities the potential of open water areas for leisure and/or nature conservation pursuits

OS14 – Areas of Nature Conservation Importance Proposals map identifies sites of nature conservation importance, with further designations being considered. The Council will seek to designate one or more of these as statutory nature reserves.

OS16 – Development and Areas of Nature Conservation Importance Presumption against development within areas of nature conservation importance. Proposals for development within or adjacent to such areas should consider their ecological importance, their protection, enhancement and proper management.

OS17 – Wildlife Habitats Supports proposals which provide or enhance a range of wildlife habitats.

5.7 London Borough of Hackney Local Development Framework Development Plan Document, Core Strategy (Proposed Submission Document) June 2009. The Examination in Public of the LB Hackney Core Strategy took place in July and the inspectors report has been received. The Strategy has been found sound subject to changes set out in the inspectors report. The Core Strategy and LB Hackney UDP both form material considerations in the assessment of this application. The following policies are relevant to the proposal:

Core Strategy Policy 5 – Hackney Wick New Community The Council will direct significant investment and employment led mixed development to Hackney Wick which will take account of strategic industrial and priority employment designations and Olympic Legacy opportunities. Development will need to contribute to improved connectivity to the area by public transport, walking and cycling.

Core Strategy Policy 6 – Transport The Council will encourage patterns and forms of development that reduce the need to travel, particularly by car, and will ensure that development results in the highest standard of environment and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

Core Strategy Policy 12 – Health and Environment The Council will encourage development that contributes to an urban and natural environment that enables all Hackney residents regardless of age, family type and ability to lead a healthier and active lifestyle in which regular physical activity plays a greater role and the physical environment contributes more to tackling childhood obesity.

Core Strategy Policy 24 – Design All development should seek to enrich and enhance Hackney’s built environment and create a sense of place and local distinctiveness that is attractive and accessible. This will be achieved through:

 ensuring good and optimum arrangement of the site in terms of form, mass and scale, including usable amenity space where appropriate and consideration of biodiversity

 adopting a rigorous design and impact approach to assessing the heights and bulk of buildings in relation to existing surroundings and views

 identifying with the architectural, historic quality and character of the surrounding environment.

 enhancing of the area between the public and private domains including boundary treatment and access for all

 enhancing of the Public Realm and ensuring good connection into existing routes, movement patterns and streetscape

 reducing in crime and the perception of crime by promoting social inclusion,

 reducing barriers to movement and applying the principles of ‘Secure By Design’

Core Strategy Policy 26 – Open Space Network All open and green spaces should be well-managed and enhanced to improve quality, capacity and public accessibility, to support a diverse and multi-functional network of open spaces. Where appropriate, new open spaces will be created which are publicly accessible and linked to other open spaces to enhance the borough's green infrastructure.

Core Strategy Policy 27 – Biodiversity The Council will protect, conserve and enhance nature conservation areas for their biodiversity value, and develop a local habitat network contributing to the wider Green Grid. Development will be encouraged to include measures that contribute to the borough’s natural environment and biodiversity.

Core Strategy Policy 28 – Water and Waterways The natural habitat and setting of the waterways and their riparian areas will be protected and enhanced. Where appropriate, public access, continuous green links and towpaths along the waterfront should be maintained, improved and extended for the purposes of nature conservation, leisure, recreation, education and economic activity.

Core Strategy Policy 29 – Resource efficiency and reducing carbon dioxide emissions Hackney will address climate change at a local level through the inclusion of mitigation and adaptation measures to reduce CO2 emissions. This will be achieved by: ensuring that building design is to a high standard, adhering to the principles of sustainable design and construction; and the inclusion of measures to reduce resource consumption in all residential development, in line with the Mayor of London's Energy Hierarchy;

Core Strategy Policy 30 – Low carbon energy, renewable technologies and district heating

As part of the shift to a low-carbon Hackney and to tackle climate change, opportunities to generate energy from non-fossil fuel and/or low carbon sources will be encouraged throughout the borough. Applications for new or replacement street appliances to incorporate off-grid solar power, or to offset CO2 by other means will be encouraged.

Core Strategy Policy 31 – Flood Risk All development proposals in Hackney must contribute to the long-term flood management targets of the Thames Catchment Flood Management Plan and demonstrate an overall reduction in flood risk, including the use of SUDS. Proposals for new development should ensure that all forms of flood risk are fully assessed and measures taken to reduce flood risk.

Core Strategy Policy 33 – Promoting Sustainable Transport Hackney is committed to prioritising sustainable transport, walking and cycling over private car use, and providing safe and convenient access to rail and bus travel. Car parking will be controlled in line with regional policy and the local parking standards in the emerging Sustainable Transport SPD.

5.8 London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (Adopted 1998) (saved from 27 September 2007 in accordance with the direction from the Secretary of State) The LB of Tower Hamlets have formally adopted their Core Strategy. However a number of retained saved LB Tower Hamlets UDP policies will remain saved and used for the purposes of development decisions until they are replaced by subsequent policies within future Development Plan Documents (DPD) such as the Development Management DPD, Sites and Placemaking DPD and Proposals Map.

The Industrial Employment Area policies which applied to the LB Hackney UDP Industrial Employment Area designation which covers the H14 site have been removed and are superseded by Core Strategy policies S02 and S06. However, Green Chain and Flood Protection Area policies which apply to the site have been retained.

The following saved policies in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (1998) continue to be relevant:

DEV 63 - Green Chains and Walkways The council designates the sites shown on the proposals map and the schedules as green chains within these areas, improved access including links with adjacent pedestrian routes, enhancement of their recreation potential, and the development of their value as natural habitats for wild animal and plant life will be sought. Strategic Guidance recognised the value of Green Chains in London. The Council is similarly concerned to see the principle established in Tower Hamlets and adjoining boroughs.

The Green Chains will include Victoria and Mile End Parks; the canals and the rivers; the Thames Footpath, and the Northern Outfall Sewer. Green Chains provide valuable links between open spaces both within and outside the Borough. They play a useful role in the urban environment by providing extended pathways for the public and wildlife corridors in natural surroundings.

U2 - Development in Areas at Risk From Flooding The council will consult with the Environment Agency and Thames Water utilities on all applications for new development or the intensification of existing uses in the areas shown on the proposals map as being at risk from flooding

5.9 London Borough of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (adopted September 2010): Following the Core Strategy examination in public the Strategy was found sound and was formally adopted by LB Tower Hamlets on 15 September 2010.

Delivering our Regional Role:

SO1 – Sitting successfully in a regenerated east London, Tower Hamlets will contribute to the regional role of London and the Thames Gateway by:

1. Fulfilling a gateway role in the Thames Gateway; 2. Optimising the use of land to deliver the growth agenda and targets defined in the London Plan; 3. Ensure growth is supported by appropriate and sustainable infrastructure; 4. Fulfil environmental responsibilities; 5. Working in partnership to deliver a long-term and proactive approach to regeneration.

S02 – Tower Hamlets will maximise the benefits and opportunities offered by 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and its Legacy by:

 Working collaboratively with the ODA and relevant Authorities;  Regenerating Fish Island to facilitate a better connected place;  Delivering High Street 2012 as a series of linked physical improvement projects;  Assisting in the creation of the Lea River Park to link the Olympic Legacy area and Lea Valley Regional Park with the Thames;  Taking advantage of visitors to the Borough;  Significant investment in Victoria Park as a green space of regional significance;  Supporting communities participating in sports and activities linked to the Olympics;  Stimulating economic regeneration.

Achieving Wider Sustainability:

S03 – Tower Hamlets will achieve environmental, social and economic development simultaneously

Refocusing on Our Town Centres:

S06 - To promote areas outside of town centres for primarily residential and supporting uses that do not need the higher levels of accessibility that town centres require.

Making Connected Places:

SO19 – Deliver an accessible, efficient, high quality, sustainable and integrated transport network to reach destinations within and outside the Borough.

Creating Attractive and Safe Streets and Spaces:

SO20 – Deliver safe, attractive, accessible and well designed network of streets and spaces that make it easy and enjoyable for people to move around on foot and bicycle.

SO21 – Create streets, spaces and places which promote social interaction and inclusion, and where people value, enjoy and feel safe and comfortable.

Delivering Place Making:

SO25 – Deliver successful place making in Tower Hamlets to create locally distinctive, well designed, healthy and great places which interconnect with, respond and integrate into the wider London area.

5.10 Guidance Hackney Wick Area Action Plan (Phase 1) - Masterplan The Hackney Wick Phase 1 Area Action Plan was adopted (by the Council at its meeting of 15th September) as interim guidance which will be reviewed and taken forward as a formal area action plan in due course:

The Hackney Wick AAP sets out the Council’s plans and proposals for land use, physical development and environmental improvements in Hackney Wick. The AAP identifies three character areas in Hackney Wick, the H10 bridge will link the ‘Hackney Wick Hub’ character area with the ‘Creative Media City’ character area.

‘Hackney Wick Hub’ is located to the north of the rail station is intended to be the new heart of Hackney Wick. A new station and enhanced public realm will create a quality gateway to the area. The hub will include restaurants, cafes and shops to serve new and existing communities in the surrounding area, particularly the extensive working population of the Creative Media City. The ‘Creative Media City’ will be well connected to Hackney Wick Hub via improved and new bridges across the Canal and includes the Legacy IBC/MPC and MUSV area which will have an employment and leisure mixed use focus.

Walking and Cycling Actions: The Phase 1 AAP proposes a number of significant infrastructure interventions dedicated to pedestrians and cyclists, those which are relevant to the 2007 OLF application include:

The introduction of a pedestrian and cycle bridge across the Lee Navigation at the eastern end of Wallis Road, providing access to the Olympic Park and the Creative Media City (to be delivered for pre-Olympics however, only available for public use from May 2013);

The Gainsborough Bridge, a pedestrian and cycle bridge linking Gainsborough School and local residents to the Gainsborough playing fields park, Olympic Park playing fields and other legacy uses (constructed and available for use from December 2013);

The opening up of a footpath on the western side of the Lee Navigation from the railway bridge to the Eastway;

Implementation Plan: The implementation plan includes the following two projects which refer to the application site:

- Pedestrian bridge across the Lea Navigation at Gainsborough School: As part of the Olympic legacy a new pedestrian and cycle bridge is to be delivered to connect the residential areas West of the Lea Navigation with the Olympic legacy. Phasing: Medium (delivery 2013 / 2014) Lead Partner: OPLC. Possible Funding Source: OPLC.

- Wallis Road Bridge (H10): To deliver a new pedestrian and cycle bridge linking Wallis Road across the Lea Navigation with the new vehicular network on the East side of the Lea Navigation. Phasing: Short Lead Partner: ODA. Possible Funding Source: ODA

5.9.4 OITAA Guidance: Transformation Streets (October 2009 – Rev 07) The Transformation Streets OITAA Technical Guide is intended to enable the design and adoption of high quality streets which require only a reasonable level of maintenance. This follows on from the Games phase Streetscape components principle that Materials and components should be designed to be adoptable by the local highway authorities. The OITAA Standards set parameters for the geometry of the street network, including cycle and footway width and materiality.

5.9.5 LB Hackney Guidance – Local Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document: DRAFT Public Realm Design Management and Maintenance Guide (September 2009)

Public consultation of the document commenced in September 2009 and concluded in November 2009. The document is comprised of two volumes; the first is intended as a Supplementary Planning Document in the LB Hackney Local Development Framework and as such it is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

Volume 1 includes the Public Realm Toolkit (Section 01-03): The ‘toolkit’ provides more detailed guidance for the physical and material design of Hackney’s public realm. It provides a palette of materials and products that are the expected standard for the borough, as well as advice on the design and layout of streets and public spaces. Section 04 of Volume One set out a Management & Maintenance Guide. The guide sets out the procedures and standards for the management and maintenance of the public realm in the borough. It also establishes the terms of reference for a “Public Realm Review Group” that formalises the Council’s existing arrangements for the ongoing monitoring of public realm issues.

Volume 2 provides a toolkit for the design, management and maintenance of the borough’s public realm, taking forward the principles established in Volume 1.

The ODA PDT provided comments on the draft document on 23rd October 2009. ODA PDT’s comments acknowledged that whilst the series of public realm typologies identified within the document were considered to be helpful and appropriate that further definition of the occasions when it might be appropriate to accept bespoke public realm treatment might be helpful. Officers noted that further guidance on the criteria of how ‘special locations’ would be identified would assist in interpreting the document and that the future development of exceptions cases and their recording within future iterations of the guidance would be welcomed.

The ODA PDT’s response also noted that

As a significant element of the Olympic Park is within the London Borough of Hackney, some consideration of how this guidance might be applied to the public realm within the Legacy Olympic Park is encouraged. It would also be helpful to understand how the Council might seek the implementation of this public realm guidance within the Legacy Olympic Park, for example whether it would be seen as comprising a location within which specific exceptions to the standard approaches set out in the draft guide would be appropriate given the specific design context of the Olympic Park. One important element of consideration in this respect would be the desirability to achieve a consistency in public realm design, maintenance and management across the Olympic Park area.

5.9.6 LB Tower Hamlets Guidance –Street Design Guide/ Urban Design Guide The integrated townscape management principles and best practice urban design guidelines advocated in “Streets for All” (English Heritage, 2000) and “Paving the Way” (CABE, 2002) have been fully incorporated into the framework of Tower Hamlets' Street Design Guide, which develops these at a more focussed level.

 The purpose of the guide is to make the streets of Tower Hamlets more attractive in a way that reflects the Borough's inherent character and qualities, while being safe, accessible and enjoyable for all. Attractive and well maintained streets will help in attracting business investment and new residents to the Borough, bringing jobs, services and a new civic spirit whilst improving amenity and creating inclusive access for existing local residents and businesses who are the ultimate beneficiaries of this guide.

6. CONSULTATIONS

Pre-application consultation 6.1 The ODA as applicant carried out pre-application consultation with adjoining landowners, stakeholders and the public prior to the submission of the application. The pre-application community and stakeholder engagement followed on from the earlier consultation process undertaken for the post-Games Transformation phase applications in late 2009. At that stage, the proposed H10 and H14 bridges were shown indicatively in relation to the proposed Transformation phase pedestrian and cycle network as western connections linking Hackney Wick and Fish Island with the proposed ‘MUSV Stitch’ and ‘PDZ 4 Stitch’ respectively.

6.2 The Western Bridges pre-application subsequently focused on members of the public most likely to use the proposed bridges regularly and those who were considered by the applicant to be potentially impacted by the development. The public pre-application consultation period ran from 1 July to 16 July and included:

o Letter and information leaflet distributed to 1,927 residents and business within vicinity of the application site; o A drop-in session in the ‘Counter Café’ on Roach Road, Tower Hamlets and a drop-in session at the Gainsborough School Fete, Hackney. o Information posted on the London 2012 website.

6.3 Targeted consultation was also undertaken with adjoining landowners whose access and egress to properties might be affected, the Eton Mission Rowing Club with a meeting held on 11 May 2010 and with the managers of OMEGA works, Crown Wharf Property, and with residents who had contacted the ODA specifically to request information on the Western Bridges.

6.4 The responses received are summarised by Arup at pages 35 to 38 of the submitted Planning Statement which also sets out how the applicant sought to address comments made at pre-application stage. Arup state that: o ‘Positive comments were received regarding the intention to create new connections and on the design of the bridges’; o The owner of 117 Wallis Road (property to the north of the H10 western approach) questions if the proposed would impact on access arrangements for the property; o A tenant at 90a Wallace Road (property to the south of the H10 western approach) raised concerns relating to retaining tenancy and occupation of 90a Wallis Road; and o Residents questioned the phasing of the proposed bridges and whether they would be open for Games phase.

6.5 Pre-application drawings and a description of the proposed bridge schemes were sent to: LB Hackney; LB Tower Hamlets, Environment Agency, British Waterways, London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, Lea Valley Regional Park, Natural England, English Heritage, London Wildlife Trust, Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade, Olympic Access Panel, Thames Water, Active Travel Advisory Group, London Cycling Campaign (LCC).

6.6 LB Tower Hamlets provided a formal pre-application response to the applicant which was forwarded to the ODA PDT.

6.7 The scheme was also presented to the Joint Co-ordination Group at PDT’s offices, attended by the host borough and other stakeholders and a pre-application design review panel with CABE was also held.

Application consultation 6.8 As part of the statutory consultation process 6 site notices were posted at: Hackney Wick Station, Wallis Road (east and west), Lea Navigation Towpath (at White Post Lane and eastern approach of H14) and Roach Road (where it intersects with Monier Road).

6.9 Statutory notices were published in the applicable host Borough newspapers (Hackney Today and East End Life) and 453 neighbour letters were sent within Hackney and Tower Hamlets.

6.10 Objections from 2 adjoining landowners at 127 Wallis Road (Eton Mission Rowing Club) and 4 Roach Road have been received and are set out below.

Stakeholder consultation 6.11 The following statutory and non-statutory organisations were consulted. Responses were received from those shown in bold;

 ODA Built Environment Access  Metropolitan Police Panel (the applicant presented  Natural England - London the proposals to BEAP as part of Region their pre-application engagement  London Wildlife Trust on 17 March and 05 May. The  OITAA contents of the minutes of the 05  British Telecom May BEAP meeting are set out  SUSTRANS below).  London Cycling Campaign  British Waterways (Head Office)  CABE  Walk London (Capital Ring)  EDF Energy (Strategic Network  LB Hackney: Development) - Planning,  English Heritage – GLAAS - Environmental Health,  Environment Agency - 2012 Unit,  Greater London Authority - Transportation and  Lea Valley Regional Park - Urban Design and Authority Conservation departments  LDA c/o Olympic Park Legacy  LB Tower Hamlets Company - Planning,  London Fire and Emergency - Environmental Health Planning Authority - 2012 Unit  London Thames Gateway - Transport Development Corporation  LB Newham  Institute for Sustainability - Planning  National Grid  LB Waltham Forest:  Thames Water - Planning  Transport for London

6.12 Amended information consultation: Following discussions with Officers and responses from stakeholders, detailed elements of the scheme have been amended and amended Remediation Position Papers have been submitted in relation to the western approaches at H10 and H14.

6.13 The scope of the changes is considered to be relatively minor and do not materially affect the scheme. However, the following bodies and organisations have been re-consulted: CABE, LB Hackney (Planning and Urban Design), LB Tower Hamlets, LTGDC, LFEPA, British Waterways, Metropolitan Police, Eton Mission Rowing Club, 4 Roach Road (owner and architect) and London Cycling Campaign. Where re-consultation comments have been received prior to the publishing of this report they are included below. Any further comments received will be reported at the Committee meeting.

6.14 Consultation has been undertaken with the host Boroughs and relevant statutory and stakeholder organisations. Responses are summarised below.

6.15 ‘No objection/comment’ responses have been received from: National Grid, LB Waltham Forest, Thames Water and Natural England.

6.16 ODA BEAP The applicant presented the proposals to the BEAP on 5th May. At a previous meeting on the 17th March 2010 both bridges were presented but no specific comments which relate to the bridges were noted apart from compliance with the Inclusive Design Strategy and Standards. The meeting of the 5th May focused on H10 and the lift.

The presentation focused on the accessibility to Bridge H10 where the applicant explained that the original plan for the bridge approaches was to build a graded route with rest areas however, due to the restricted land available at the western approach that a lift was now proposed. The BEAP’s comments are set out below:

• Concerns were raised that unsupervised lifts can lead to vandalism or used as a public toilet, with examples of the lift at Jubilee Bridge (Charing X) used as a toilet or frequently out of order. • The BEAP suggested looking at other lifts to see if there are successful lifts in comparable locations. • A question was raised about how busy the bridge might be, and asked if people will feel safe using a lift in the area. It was suggested that the skyline lift in New York may be the nearest example of a comparable lift. • If the lift is unsupervised in a quiet area then it may be that CCTV, which could be linked up to the park operations could help people to feel safe. It was acknowledged that once the Games are over and with Westfield shopping facilities built the bridge may be used more frequently as it connects to the residential areas. The provision of a cycle wheeling channel on the bridge steps would likely ensure that cyclists would use the bridge providing some comfort to sole bridge users. • A member pointed out that self-cleaning toilets are available, perhaps the possibility of a self-cleaning lift, or even providing a toilet near to the lift to encourage people to use the appropriate facilities might provide a better solution

Members at the meeting agreed to contact colleagues from their organisations for ideas on similar lifts that are used around the country.

Applicant Response: o The applicant has noted that there are similar examples of unsupervised lifts including lifts at Popular DLR station, which have limited supervision. Officer Comment: o As set out at Section 7 below, and recognised in the BEAP’s comments it is considered that the relatively modest current footfall levels along Wallis Road cannot be used as an indicative gauge of future footfall levels during post-Games and Legacy phases. The combination of Legacy Venues, including the MUSV and opening of Westfield Zone 1 will create new attractions within and beyond the Olympic Park which will encourage use of access points from the Western Communities, including those proposed at H10 and H14. The H10 Bridge is additionally the western connection to the primary axial East-West Strategic route through the Olympic Park, which connects Hackney Wick with Temple Mill Lane in Leyton. o The OPLC have confirmed in their letter, as set out at 6.20 below, the company will take on responsibility for the management and maintenance of the H10 lift. The details of how this will be done are proposed to form part of an application to discharge planning condition LTD.5 (“Venue and Public Realm Management”) of

the 2007 planning permission which will be submitted as part of the legacy application. o However, officers consider that a modified form of 2007 OLF condition LTD.5 should be applied in order to specifically require submission of management and maintenance details in relation to the lift, confirmation of the proposed ‘opening hours’ of the lift and consideration of the feasibility of linking the lift by audio and CCTV to a centrally monitored location linked up to the park operations enabling call outs in the case of failure and emergencies.

6.17 British Waterways Lighting: Full underbridge lighting is not necessary, but towpath and towpath abutment lighting should be included. Low level task lighting would be sufficient. The lighting should be low level and cover the towpath and abutment. BW agree that the area around the bridges should not be lit. However, BW are concerned that if this is left to the detailed design stage it could be too late to incorporate. BW would therefore request that the principle of the proposed lighting be agreed at this stage.

Applicant Response: EA have advised that areas outside the bridge should not be lit. It is anticipated that these details will come forward as discharge of condition application. The detailed lighting is not included within this submission and as outlined in the suggested draft conditions submitted. The lighting however has been considered in the design and bridge deck lighting will comprise recessed LED luminaires set flush into the inner face of the box beams and running parallel to the sloping top of the beam. These luminaires will shine through the space between the parapet posts and will illuminate the deck surface. The lighting of the landscaped areas will be to match the columns proposed in the Olympic Park garden areas.

Officer Response: Although indicative details have been submitted in respect of lighting, specifically illustrating and suggesting recessed lighting within the bridge beam, a condition requiring submission of lighting details is recommended. Officers consider that the trigger suggested by the applicant is too late and agree that details should be submitted early in order to ensure integral lighting is included within bridge and retaining structures. The bridge lighting principles set out within the approved UDLF: Bridges Appendix support the principle of integral lighting describing the integral parapet lighting installed within posts which is characteristic of permanent parkwide footbridges. Although the western bridges are excluded from the approved UDLF: Bridges Appendix it is considered that the principle of integral lighting within the bridge structures should be carried across to the western bridges.

Grass Verges underneath bridge decks and surrounds: The grass verges should not be continuous under the bridges; the soft verges should be resurfaced rather than left to wear away due to the desire lines of towpath users. The soft edge (at the H14 eastern approach) will be likely to be worn away to create a muddy patch by the new pedestrian desire line. A barrier or change in tactile surfacing would draw attention to potential conflict between towpath users. The soft edge (at the H14 eastern approach) should be resurfaced to widen the towpath at here to 3m, in line with the surrounding works.

Applicant Response: Noted

Officer Comment: The Olympic Site Preparation application (07/90011/FUMODA) indicates that approval was given for tow path base to be implemented on the western bank of the Lea Navigation at the location of the western bridges. It is considered reasonable that, within the extent of the western bridges application boundary, a tow path sub-base should be implemented for the entire width of the tow path removing all soft verges which would be undesirable underneath the bridge decks due to maintenance issues. A condition is recommended accordingly. As the application boundary line is drawn tightly around the bridge decks and western approaches this would represent a relatively minor removal of soft landscaping.

Existing dwarf wall and fence alongside H14: BW would request that a condition be attached to the planning permission for the wall and fence to be removed.

Applicant Response: These are existing elements that do not fall within the redline boundary of this application. The request is noted and should be discussed with the ODA in co-ordination meetings regarding the works.

Officer Comment: A dwarf wall and fence are located between the tow path and OPOPF along this section of canal within PDZ 4. The fence is shown on submitted plans of the existing site condition around the eastern approach of H14. The extent of the wall and fence within the western bridges application boundary is minimal. Condition PGT.78 of PGT permission (ref: 09/90410/FUMODA) requires that a Scope Gap Appearance Scheme be submitted to the LPA prior to the 30 December 2011. PDZ 4 – Lea Navigation Cut Eastern Bank is specifically identified as a scope gap area within the wording of the condition. The condition on the approved PGT permission is considered sufficient to ensure that details can be submitted and considered in a coordinated manner which deals with the entirety of the eastern bank which is beyond the scope of this application and application boundary.

Detail originally submitted indicating vertical planting/steel blades fixed to abutment walls at the H10 western approach, eastern retaining wall fronting the waterway: BW continue to be concerned that the area will be accessible from the waterway and that the proposed steel blades to be fixed to the abutment walls could be pulled off and used as weapons, etc.

Applicant Response: This is a private area with a lockable gate for maintenance access/fire escape only. The type of vertical system for planting to grow up is to be considered further at the detailed design stage. Amended plans now only refers to ‘vertical planting fixed to the wall’ and details of the tension wire planting system proposed is submitted and shown on drawing 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DDE-4008.

Officer Comment: The area of concern will only be accessible for fire egress purposes relating to 90 Wallis Road and will be secured by a gate and amended plans have removed the ‘blade’ element.

Tow Path Widths: The clearance height over the towpath is acceptable, but there don’t appear to be details of the minimum towpath widths for both bridges. This should be 3m wide in accordance with the Olympic cycling and walking towpath improvements that British Waterways are carrying out in this area in coordination with the ODA.

Applicant Response: The tow path width on H10 West is 3.86m minimum and the minimum distance between the bridge abutment and the river edge for H14 East is 2.70m. There is limited space to allow for widening of the towpath at H14 given the proximity of the Loop Road to the Bridge abutment. This width complies with the 2.5m design standard previously discussed between BW and the ODA.

Officer Comment: At H10: The clearance allowed for a potential future western tow path is 3.867m wide and the width allowance for the eastern tow path is 3.938m. At H14: The clearance allowed for a potential future western tow path is 1.7m wide and the width allowance for the eastern tow path is 2.7m. The 2007 Olympic Park Site Preparation permission indicates that the towpath is to be widened to a minimum of 4m along both banks of the Lea Navigation.

It is considered that the allowances at the H10 bridge are essentially in compliance with the 4m requirement and the difference between the proposed width and required is negligible. The width provided exceeds the requirements of BW.

In terms of the allowances at the H14 bridge, BW have only request a width of 3m. The eastern approach arrangements allow for a tow path width of 2.7m. The eastern approach is constrained by the location of the approved retained Loop Road and it is considered that the difference between the width proposed and the width requested by BW is minimal and the tow path clearance cannot be reasonably widened.

The western approach allows for clearance of 1.7m for maintenance purposes. The LB Tower Hamlets UDP designates both banks of the Lea Navigation as green chains. UDP Green Chain policies have been retained in the recently adopted Core Strategy. The designation requires that the LPA seek improved access including links with adjacent pedestrian routes. Unlike LB Hackney, who have queried the potential tow path width along the western bank, LB Tower Hamlets have not raised any concerns in relation to potential for tow path clearance at H14 and it is noted that new development constructed to the south of the subject site allows minimal setbacks.

Officers have requested that the applicant consider whether the western abutment eastern wall can be further setback from the Lea Navigation to increase the width at this location. The applicant’s response will be reported by update.

Planting: BW request further information on how the plants beneath the bridge will be maintained, as they will not receive rain water.

Applicant Response: Planting will only be installed in locations that will receive the required sunlight and watering.

H10 Eastern Approach additional stairs: BW request that stairs should be included to the south of the H10 eastern approach linking deck level with tow path. BW request that stairs be included as part of this application.

Applicant Response: The applicant is not proposing stairs in this location. The location indicated falls outside of the application boundary and will be subject to separate Legacy development proposals. This does not preclude a future application for stairs in this location.

Officer Reponses: A 4m staircase is proposed to the north of the bridge leading from tow path level up to deck level at the eastern approach/MUSV PGT Stitch. The stair and compliant ramp access have been designed as part of a comprehensive and sensitively considered landscaped solution which will connect the landscaped PGT ‘stitch’ which runs to the north of MUSV with the Lea Navigation east bank waterfront. A set of additional stairs to the south of the bridge deck is considered to unnecessarily duplicate the provision provided to the north and would not be accommodated within such a generous landscaped setting as the current northern proposals. It is considered that additional stairs as requested by BW are not required and would provide limited additional connectivity value in relation to the current proposal.

H14 eastern approach ramp: The long continuous concrete retaining wall is an unacceptable detail. BW recommend that a steel frame be used, or several open arches opened up in the ramp, to improve connectivity and connect ‘vistas’ to the Park. The bridge has been aligned on a Park ‘stitch’ to improve connectivity but the ramp creates a barrier that cuts off the towpath and views at water level. BW remain concerned about this detail, and feel that there should be a more permeable option, such as ‘windows’ installed at a suitable height, or a mirrored wall.

Applicant Response: This design is intended as an interim measure while the Loop Road remains in place during Legacy Transformation. The longer term objective will involve a direct route eastwards into the park and access to the towpath designed around the proposed legacy development which can be expected to come forward with a Canal side frontage in this location. The height under the ramps is relatively low and below eye level

at the highest point when viewed from the Olympic Park. There would be insufficient headroom to allow access through to the towpath so there would also be security and maintenance issues that would have to be resolved if the areas under the bridge were to be ‘open’. These would likely have to be fenced off to prevent public access/accumulation of rubbish etc, which would further add to the cost. There is a significant level difference between the towpath and Loop Road verge. Opening windows as suggested would result in towpath users gaining sight of the feet of those on the Loop Road. This would not open up the vistas of the Park desired or sightlines to the water. It would introduce further cost to the structure and create a void area which would require additional maintenance/management.

H14 eastern approach stairs to tow path: The proposed stairs provide a good connection, but as with our previous comments, the stairs perpendicular to the towpath link behind a slightly hidden corner. There should be a change in surface or other indicator for towpath users that draws their attention to this. Would a different colour surfacing help to highlight this?

Applicant Response: The stairs are preceded by ribbed tactile paving and the applicant is confident of the appropriateness of the proposed design.

6.18 CABE Summary The pedestrian and cycle bridges proposed to connect Hackney Wick and Fish Island to the Olympic Park after the Games are well-considered and sophisticated pieces of contextual design which will have their own distinct character.

The proposals successfully work with the constraints and opportunities to generate the design which is a successful synthesis of a series of simple moves. In particular, CABE admire the dynamic structural solution, robust construction and the simple palette of materials that are appropriate to their context.

Landscape These bridges will set a high quality precedent for landscape interventions along the river that knit the existing communities into the Olympic Park after the Games. In particular, CABE support the generosity of space provided for pedestrians and cyclists at the bridge landings.

CABE think the temporary use of the flank wall of the retained industrial building to define the H10 approach is successful. In terms of creating a place, it is perhaps more successful than the long term landscape solution. However, CABE support the work done to anticipate the potential for a passive route in future in the geometry of the current proposals.

Given the management and maintenance implications, CABE question whether it is necessary to plant the wall of the retained building. CABE think it could work equally well as a well designed wall with a low maintenance textured finish; printed or patterned concrete, for example.

The appearance of the bridges viewed from the water needs to be considered, including how the two bridges will be differentiated from each other. CABE suggest that the British Waterways requirements for signage be considered in the colour scheme and design of the bridges at this stage. CABE are pleased lighting has been treated as an integrated part of the design and suggest that the strategy is tested in night time views.

Future context CABE recognise that there is a requirement for road bridges in these locations in the long term. However, CABE support the decision to provide the best possible permanent pedestrian and cycle bridges in the medium term, rather than a compromised or temporary

solution. In this case, CABE think the unknown future is too distant to meaningfully inform current decision making. If these bridges are proven to be the optimum routes for roads in Legacy then it would be regrettable if these well-designed bridges went to waste; the potential to disassemble and re-use them elsewhere should be considered.

Officer Comment: o Officers have also made comments in relation to the feasibility of a north facing ‘planted wall’ attached to the flank wall at 90A Wallis Road. The applicant has submitted amended plans which remove the proposed north facing planted wall at 90A Wallis Road. The amended plans now indicate a screen wall, painted perforated metal panels. A condition is recommended in order to secure details of the appearance and final design o Signage is not included within the scope of the application. A condition securing signage details in coordination with the post-Games Transformation wayfinding strategy required pursuant to Condition PGT.83 of Planning Application ref: 09/904110/FUMODA is recommended. o A separate wayfinding condition specifically addressing CABE’s comments in relation to the appearance of the bridges as wayfinding tools along the waterway is also recommended. o It is noted that although integral lighting is shown indicatively on the submitted drawings, that the applicant has not sought approval for lighting at this stage. A condition securing lighting details is been recommended.

Applicant Response: o Lighting has been considered in the design and bridge deck lighting will comprise recessed LED luminaires set flush into the inner face of the box beams and running parallel to the sloping top of the beam. These luminaires will shine through the space between the parapet posts and will illuminate the deck surface. The lighting of the landscaped areas will be to match the columns proposed in the Olympic Park garden areas.

6.19 Environment Agency Has requested that a condition on surface water drainage be imposed and that the Agency be consulted on such a submission.

The Flood Risk Assessment recommends that a lift is not installed on the western bank of H10 or, if this can not be avoided, the lift sill level should be a minimum of 6.75m AOD. The EA understands that this is not possible without steps, which would make it more inaccessible, or large ground level alterations. In order to avoid unnecessary flood damages, the EA would recommend that sensitive mechanisms and electrical circuitry are raised above 6.75m AOD.

Officer Comment: o A condition is recommended in relation to Surface Water Drainage based on condition SP.0.22 of permission ref. 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.23 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA and modified to reflect the EA’s comments . o The EA recognises that in order to ensure that the bridge is accessible and the lift remains step free that the sill level of the lift cannot be significantly raised. The applicant has submitted amended plans illustrating the floor level of the lift plant room has now been raised in response to the EA’s concerns.

6.20 Greater London Authority Has confirmed that the proposals do not raise any strategic planning issues that were not assessed as part of the main Olympic application. The GLA Access Officer has, however suggested two conditions.

- Access to the lift should be maintained at all times. (It is noted that there is a boat house trailer storage area adjacent to the lift, which may give rise to trailers blocking the entrance to the lift). - The lift should be maintained and available for use at all times (Experience of lifts in similar locations is that they are not repaired in a timely manner and remain closed for long period of time).

Officer Comment: o The proposed external lift at the H10 western approach is not unique within the context of the Olympic Park and Stratford City permissions. Two other locations within the Olympic Park and Stratford City sites contain external lifts sited within the context of parklands and public realm, the lifts which provide access to the Town Centre Link and the lift located to the north-west of the Aquatics Venue. o Condition LTD.5 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA requires submission of the overall arrangements for the long term management, funding, public use and maintenance of all retained venues, open space and public realm within the Site, including details of any restrictions on proposed opening hours of the land to which the public has access within the Site. It is considered that a modified form of Condition LTD.5 which specifically requires submission of management and maintenance details in relation to the lift and confirmation of the proposed ‘opening hours’ of the lift is reasonable. The condition will include that the applicant provide details considering the feasibility of linking the lift to a centrally monitored location enabling call outs in the case of failure. o The OPLC have confirmed that they will be taking responsibility for the lift and intend to provide detailed pursuant to condition LTD.5. The condition will also incorporate the requirements for submission of measures in relation to security and safety as set out below.

6.21 Lea Valley Regional Park Authority a) It is requested that a condition be added to any approval to ensure the implementation of the climbing planting along the bridge approaches, as set out on page 10 of the submitted Planning Statement. b) the lighting components conform with the Lighting Strategy contained within the Post Games Transformation Parklands and Public Realm submission. c) A condition requires that pedestrian and cycle access along the towpath to be maintained at all times during construction.

Applicant Response: a) The planting will be included as part of a general condition on landscaping and the approval of their location which is detailed on the drawings; b) Lighting elements will be in keeping with the strategy, a condition will require full details to be brought forward; c) Towpath access arrangements will be a matter for discussion between the ODA and BW and the construction methods will be subject to contractor procurement. Temporary localised re-routing of the pedestrian and cycle routes on the towpath may be required at some stages of the construction.

6.22 Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) Has written to support the proposals and their correspondence is included at Attachment 4. The OPLC has confirmed the following:

o The Company has no objection in principle for the Eton Mission Rowing Club to use the space under the stairs at H10 for boat trailer storage. The terms of this will need to be agreed in due course and the OPLC are happy to meet with the Rowing Club to discuss this. o The Company will take on responsibly for the management and maintenance of the H10 lift. The details of how this will be done will form part of the application to discharge planning condition LTD.5 (“Venue and Public Realm Management”) of

the 2007 planning permission which will be submitted as part of the Legacy application. o The implementation of H10 and H14 does not compromise the Company’s ability to bring forward legacy development in PDZ 4 and 5. Indeed, the provision of pedestrian and cycleway bridges as set out in these applications will be essential to support the planned opening of the Park for public use in 2013/14, enabling access to the venues, and any interim uses within these zones during the early Legacy phase. o The Company recognises that the 2007 planning permission included a planning condition (LTD.30) that requires that H10, H14 and H16 to be brought forward as highway bridges in Legacy. The development triggers for these bridges and the timescales associated with them can be tested with PDT further once the Legacy application has been submitted. However, the OPLC are clear that the current proposals for H10 and H14 do not prejudice our ability to deliver highway bridges across the River Lea Navigation, as and when these are required.

Officer Comment: o The OPLC’s response suggests that the trigger for condition LTD.30 may be reviewed/tested once the Legacy application has been submitted. Based on information submitted with the 2007 OLF planning application and 2010 post- Games Transformation suite of applications officers do not believe that there is any justification at this point to delay the existing LTD.30 trigger which requires that highway connections be brought forward prior to occupation of the first building within either of the relevant Development Platforms in PDZ 4 or 5. o Condition 1 of the Legacy Highways application (ref: 09/9017/AODODA) requires that details of the L03 Highways Link Scheme (being the road link between Waterden Road and the Olympic Park Southern Loop Road passing over and including Bridge L03) be submitted by 31 December 2011. The connection with the retained Southern Loop Road occurs at the location of the eastern approach of Bridge H14. o It is considered that comprehensive and coordinated redevelopment of PDZ 4 and 5, including implementation of the L03 Highways Link, would require consideration and integration of all required highway infrastructure as part of the masterplan for the development platforms and the PDT does not consider, based on current information, that highways infrastructure can be disaggregated from proposals for surrounding development on these platforms or triggers set out in the 2007 OLF or 2010 PGT suite of applications delayed.

6.23 London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority The Brigade is satisfied with the proposals.

Please Note: The fire exist routes from the buildings in Main Yard (the buildings between the proposed H10 Bridge and the Hackney Wick Railway Line) are to the front and rear of the buildings. The routes to the rear of the buildings along the waterfront to Prince Edward Road must be maintained both during the construction and operation of the Bridge or alterative arrangements agreed with the owners and occupiers of the buildings.

Re-consultation: The LFEPA reiterated the comments set out above.

Officer Comment: o The details submitted in relation to the H10 western approach incorporate a proposed fence with doors at the bridge landing underneath the H10 deck which is intended to allow maintenance access and fire escape from the rear of the buildings in Main Yard along the waterfront. o An informative is recommended setting out the LFEPA’s advice that routes must be maintained during construction and operation of the bridge or alternative arrangements agreed.

6.24 London Thames Gateway Development Corporation Has commented on bridge H10 and the direct interface with LTGDC project works. The two main comments are:

1. LTGDC would prefer to see the lift moved to the southern side of the structure adjacent to the building at 90 Wallis Road to create a more open path to the river to improve the desire line and visibility to the river and the Olympic Park and conversely to Hackney Wick; and

2. LTGDC would wish Allies & Morrison to work with LTGDC, LBH and Pell Frishmann on the materials palette and soft landscaping to ensure a joined up approach to the LTGDC led public realm improvements on the Wallis Road ‘Park to Park’ link and to ensure a continuous route into the Olympic park. For instance modular paving and tree species should be the same or complementary.

Re-consultation: The LTGDC reiterated the comments set out above.

Officer Comments: o Location of the Lift: Officers have sought to enhance the openness of the new pocket park area fronting onto the waterway, as far as can be accommodated within the constraints of the site, by seeking a minor rationalisation to the geometry of the proposed stair at the H10 western approach. o However, there are constraints on the location of the lift in terms of the requirement to accommodate a storage area beneath the bridge’s western landing in order to assist the operation of the EMRC adjoining the site to the north. Furthermore the LBH DRP supported the concept that the lift shaft could act as a visual marker at the end of Wallis Road signalling the bridge connection into the park. As below: The panel accept the provision of the lift is necessary to provide DDA compliant access. They recognise that the lift structure would work as a landmark when approaching the bridge; as such it should be highlighted and celebrated as a grander gesture than currently proposed, maybe even locating it on axis with the bridge. o The lift structure is proposed to incorporate glazing along its eastern and western walls to allow sightlines through from the bridge deck into Hackney Wick and from Hackney Wick into the park. o The orientation of the bridge deck, location and design of the lift structure and layout of the approach has been carefully considered by Allies and Morrison in the development of the scheme. The Design and Access Statement describes the design rationale which has informed the orientation of the bridges with the western approach roads as a: principle move to ensure direct and visible connection into the park. The bridge decks are reached on the western side by a direct stair link on the same alignment to reinforce the legibility and the sense of connection.

o Materials: The LTGDC have provided an indicative material palette for the LTGDC led public realm improvements as set out at Section 2. o The drawings submitted include a proposed material palette including granite setts for surfacing material at street level within the western approaches. A condition requiring further details in relation to materials is recommended and the wording requires that regard should be had to how these materials will be coordinated with those of the proposed LTGDC public realm improvements within western approach areas. o The materials are in accordance with the materials as set out in the Olympic Park UDLF Transformation Streetscape Components Appendix, with the addition of granite setts to coordinate with the western approaches. The purpose of the UDLF is to ensure a coordinated approach across all projects within the Olympic Park and it is considered that the western bridge materials are in accordance with the principles of the document.

6.25 Institute for Sustainability The Institute for Sustainability is working with Hackney Council, the UDC and Cofeley to ensure that any highway bridges installed in the vicinity of the Olympic Park include provision for taking heating and cooling pipes so that future extensions of the Olympic heat network are not slowed down by having to install infrastructure to get the pipes across the waterways. We believe the most suitable would be the White Post Lane Bridge but any highway bridge is likely to be sufficiently robust to take the pipes.

Officer Comments: o Officers have queried whether the Institute for Sustainability is satisfied with the current arrangement of the western bridges. The Institute has responded that it was more a question of the pedestrian and footbridges not being strong enough to take the pipes. If it that were possible it would be very helpful since the more ‘pipe ready’ bridges there are the easier it will be to get the network extended. o The bridges are constrained vertically by minimum height requirements in relation to the waterway and tow path. This has necessitated the pursuit of an above-deck structural solution with a box beam proposed above the deck rather than below as is typical of the parkwide pedestrian and cycle bridges. o The applicant has indicated that typical park bridge box girders are approx 1.5m high. For every 1m rise in deck height a minimum of 23m in graded route is added. Consequently providing box girders beneath the western bridge would radically alter the design by doubling up on structure required and further require additional area for graded routes or additional lift height to reach bridge deck level. o It is noted that there is currently no adopted Fish Island AAP and that the recently adopted Hackney Wick AAP notes that the investigation of ‘CHP opportunities within the Hackney Wick area by undertaking a detailed feasibility analysis of decentralised energy within the Hackney Wick area and development implementation strategy’ (HW AAP Project No. 27) is a short to long term project. o The HW AAP notes that there are a number of constraints toward connecting the Hackney Wick development to the Olympic Park Kings Yard energy centre including: ‘physical constraints of laying the infrastructure, associated costs, sufficient and appropriate supply and demand of energy and ongoing management and that these issues will need to be examined. The Council will be working closely with developers and other key stakeholders to determine and implement the optimum energy strategy for Hackney Wick’. o Taking into consideration the number of constraints identified within the HW AAP in relation to connecting Hackney Wick to the Kings Yard CCHP, the fact that no Energy Strategy has yet been determined for Hackney Wick and that no development briefs have been developed at this time for key sites within the AAP to investigate development capacity within the AAP area (HW AAP Project No. 28) it is considered that passive provision for utilities within the currently proposed LTD.21 compliant western bridge is not considered to be reasonable given the further constraints this would place on the geometry of the bridges. o The bridges are brought forward in order to satisfy the requirements of Condition LTD.21. Condition LTD.30 requires Highway Bridges in these locations, which would be the appropriate structures to accommodate the utility provision considered above by the Institute for Sustainability. OPLC is aware of the issue and has confirmed that the issue of pipe network extension from the energy centre beyond the Olympic park will be reviewed as part of the LMF proposals, including the need for new or amended infrastructure to accommodate the network. PDT agrees that the consideration of the LMF proposals is the appropriate point at which to ensure that suitable connections are being made.

6.26 Metropolitan Police The MPS recognises that these bridges are important links in the future legacy development of the Olympic Park and the Hackney Wick/Fish Island regeneration and as such it is important that the local community and other users feel safe and secure when using them.

The applicant acknowledges that in pre-consultation with the Metropolitan Police concerns were raised around the positioning of the lift entrance on Bridge H10 and to sightlines to afford good surveillance opportunity to support safety and security. Unfortunately due to site constraints it has not been possible to adjust the design to meet the police concerns.

The MPS is concerned that both bridges, more so in the case of H10, are being constructed a long time ahead of neighbouring developments and that surrounding site conditions will not support a safe and secure environment. It is highly unlikely that there is going to be the level of footfall and activity to support the Design and Access statement claim of good surveillance to promote a sense of security.

In the case of Bridge H10 the Metropolitan Police have strong reservations over the positioning and size of the lift which seems out of scale to its likely use. Based on existing crime levels and type in the area the MPS is concerned that the bridge and lift will become crime generators and attract increased levels of anti social behaviour. The lift will provide shelter to local youth during winter months.

Similar concerns were raised in relation to a recent nearby bridge development by both police and local community prior to construction. The bridge which crosses the Regents Canal joining Mile End Park to Meath Gardens is now the subject of community concerns around perceived increases in crime and anti social behaviour. As a result joint community police and neighbourhood meetings have been arranged to address these issues.

1. Designing out crime and producing safe and crime free communities and developments is a principle objective of PPS1. In particular it requires the creation of safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion. 2. London Plan Policy 4B.6 “Ensure developments are comfortable and secure for users.

The MPS does not object to these developments but would ask that a condition being imposed requiring the bridge operators, believed to be the Olympic Park Legacy Company, to demonstrate what measures or mitigations they would introduce to address security and safety issues. This could be by the introduction of a security management plan or technical solutions; I would envisage that as the surrounding areas are developed the requirement for additional measures would scale down.

This is particularly important given that within the Design Statement there is a clear aspiration for this development to be for community use:

It is noted that the LB Hackney Crime Prevention Design Advisor has additionally provided comments which refer to those provided by the ODA and are substantially identical.

Officer Comment: o Safety and security considerations are considered and assessed in full at Section 7 of the report below, however it is noted that the Metropolitan Police have not objected to the development, but have requested that a condition be imposed requiring that the bridge operators demonstrate what measure or mitigations will be introduced. The Metropolitan Police note that they would envisage that any such measures could be reduced as surrounding areas are developed. A modified form of Condition LTD.5 specifically requiring submission of security and safety measures in conjunction with the requirements of LTD.5 is recommended.

6.27 London Cycling Campaign (Head Office) The attached comments are submitted on behalf of the London Cycling Campaign:

o Improved permeability across the Lea Navigation in the areas of the Olympic Park as very important and therefore welcome the building of these 2 new bridges at these strategic points. o It is disappointing that space constraints do not allow for cyclable ramps to be used throughout. This seriously detracts from their usefulness as cycling routes. Until they can be improved the obvious main cycle link is White Post Lane over the old, narrow road bridge. It makes no sense for this to be a motor vehicle rat run between Bethnal Green, Hackney and Stratford. It should have a mode filter (bollards) allowing pedestrians and cyclists only. o In order to become significant cycle links H10 and HO 14 should be able to accommodate the future addition of cyclable ramps should the opportunity arise, including for access to the towpath. In the meantime any stairs should have a cycle wheeling ramp (which the LCC understand is included) and lifts should be large enough to accommodate several cyclists and their bikes. o H14 would be improved by a continuous unstepped ramp, albeit steeper than in the present plans, with the shallow diversion retained for wheelchair users. o The parapet should not be so high as to prevent views from the bridges. A feeling of enclosure should be avoided. In other contexts 1.25 m is considered acceptable height for a parapet. o The bridges and access ramps should be wide enough to accommodate 2 way cycle and pedestrian traffic, at a minimum of 3m. o The improvements in the area will rightfully realise the potential of the area for cycling and walking. Therefore the aspiration of British Waterways to increase the width of the towpath to 2.5 metres appears too conservative. The bridges should allow for towpaths to be widened to 4 m.

Applicant Response: o An application for upgrade works to the White Post Lane Bridge is to be brought forward in the near future. It will be a shared cycle, highway and pedestrian bridge. o The proposed stairs will have a cycling wheeling ramp and the lift can accommodate cycle users. o The bridges are 4m in width and subject to the detailed design of the proposed amendment at H10 stair access will exceed 3m in width. o Parapet heights on cycle bridges across the park have been 1.4m as is required by standards. o The towpath is proposed to be widened to 3.86m at H10 and 2.7m at H14.

6.28 LB Hackney: Planning LB Hackney considered the proposals at their Planning Sub-Committee of the 1st September 2010. The draft minutes of that meeting indicate that Members queried why a swing bridge was not being proposed, as they felt it was the best option for the location and that they also raised concern about the proposal to provide a lift instead of a ramp as it could create maintenance and anti-social issues. Members concluded that the ODA should go back to the British Waterways Board and investigate the possibility of providing a swing bridge, as they were not satisfied that the current proposal was suitable for cyclists. The Chair requested that these comments form part of an additional observation to the ODA.

The resolution is recorded as: The London Borough of Hackney raised an objection to the proposals in the transformation phase, for the following reasons:

Reason 1: Officers conclude that the bridge does not meet the requirement to be a pedestrian and cycle bridge. There is recognition that it is unlikely that the ramp will form part of the structure approved through this current planning process; however, this should only be considered as a short-term solution and should be conditioned as such. Officers would like guarantees to be put in place to enable a high quality landscape ramp access be brought forward during the 2012-14 transformation period following the Games, similar

40 to that proposed for the Monier Road bridge in Fish Island. This will necessitate continuation of the LDA’s (or other bodies’) negotiations with owners/occupants of 90 Wallis Road and reservation of adequate funding to resolve these issues and construct the ramp.

Reason 2: The bridge is the 'main' access route from Hackney Wick to Olympic Park and there are very limited linkages between the park and Hackney Wick. It is of concern that the design of the bridge fails to exploit the limited opportunities to provide a strong arrival experience and a welcoming visual effect as a main entrance to the park. It also fails to provide a well- considered spatial arrangement and visual linkages to create a more active interface between Olympic Park and Hackney Wick.

Reason 3: Whilst members were keen to see a cycling and pedestrian bridge built at this location, concerns were raised regarding the compromises that had been made, indeed it was not accepted that this was a cyclist bridge as cyclists could not cycle over it, but had to dismount. Other concerns included the management and maintenance of the lift and the probability of anti-social behaviour associated with the isolated lift.

Members understood that the 2007 permission specified the height of the bridge and that the British Waterways Board (BWB) preferred fixed bridges, but asked that the ODA go back to the BWB and ask if a swing bridge would be a better solution, if it was feasible, given the particular circumstances.

INFORMATIVES The following Informatives should be added:

NS1 The Council’s objections can be addressed through guarantees to enable a high quality ramp access for cyclists to be implemented in the transformation period following the Games. This will require the appropriate bodies (ODA, LDA and/or OPLC) to continue negotiations with owners/occupants of 90 Wallis Road and reserve adequate funds to resolve these issues and construct the ramp. Only then can this be considered to be a fully compliant pedestrian and cycle bridge. In addition a commitment and subsequent agreement to ongoing ownership, management and maintenance of the bridge is agreed between all parties.

NS2 It is recommended that the ODA design team presents to the Council’s design review panel responding to their views and takes measures to address the design concerns raised in this report.

NS3 In addition, officers recommend that commitments are asked for to ensure the potential for a western towpath is safeguarded, the construction programme is aligned with other public realm programmes west of the Lee Navigation, future utilities connections, particularly to the CCHP facility, can be delivered and the inclusion of the bridge structure as Metropolitan Open Land is fully justified.

It should be noted that although excluded from the Committee’s resolution, the officer’s Committee Report concluded that:

Officers are supportive of the principle of the bridge and the connectivity it will provide. It is essential that a bridge is delivered and operational for the opening of the park and MUSV in May 2013. However officers have some concerns with several more detailed aspects of the proposals.

Officer Response Reason 1: LB Hackney seek a western approach similar to that proposed at H14 be brought forward during post-Games Transformation and that negotiations be undertaken to acquire additional land beyond the existing CPO boundary

41 in order to allow such a scheme to proceed. LBH seek that this scheme be implemented during post-Games Transformation.

The applicant has noted that the ODA does not have land acquisition powers. They state that: The LDA and LTGDC as bodies that do are generally supportive of the current proposal and therefore do not believe that additional public expense is required.

It is further noted that: LB Hackney have the power to instigate CPO proceedings if they so wished.

In terms of LB Hackney’s request that a ‘high quality landscape ramp access’ solution similar to that proposed at H14 be pursued, it is considered that as the geometry of the area of land available for the western approaches of Bridges H10 and H14 differ considerably, especially in terms of total length, that similar schemes cannot realistically be provided at each approach. The CPO boundary at Bridge H14 has a maximum length of approximately 60m between its western extent at Roach Road and eastern extent at the Lea Navigation. This allows sufficient length for a compliant graded route (minimum 1:21) within a gentle sloping park area, with the ramp arranged in an almost east-west linear manner in a way which avoids pedestrians and cyclists doubling back on themselves and maintains a sense of forward motion. The CPO boundary at Bridge H10 is approximately half the length of that of the H14 approach has a maximum length of approximately 28m between its western extent at Wallis/Prince Edward Road and eastern extent at the Lea Navigation. It is the location of the highway at the western extent of the H10 approach and the requirement to ensure adequate access and egress from existing premises, including those which originally objected to the 2007 OLF planning application at 115-119 Wallis Road, which form the more significant constraints on the possibility of a successful graded approach at H10 similar to that proposed at H14. In order to progress a scheme similar to that of the H14 western approach a section of Wallis Road would need to be acquired which would be to the detriment of existing commercial premises to the north and south of Wallis Road and contrary to Condition OD.0.19 (iv) which requires that proposed for bridges at the perimeter of the site should ensure that adequate access to and egress from existing premises be retained or provided.

The alternative is to acquire land to the south of the H10 western landing, which would still not provide a ramp solution similar to that of the H14 approach, but require a compressed ramp which requires that pedestrians and cyclists double back on themselves five times and travel over 70m. A potential indicative solution requiring a compressed ramp is shown at Attachment 4. It is considered that the indicative ramp solution is still unlikely to be a more desirable option for wheelchair or cycle users than the proposed lift which would appear to provide a more direct, easier and quicker means of accessing the bridge deck from street level.

Officer Response Reason 2: CABE have responded that the bridges are well-considered and sophisticated pieces of contextual design which will have their own distinct character and they support the robust construction and the simple palette of materials that are appropriate to their context. Hackney DRP have commented that the proposed lift structure would work as a landmark when approaching the bridge and encouraged the applicant to highlight and celebrate the lift further. It is considered that the lift by virtue of its form, location and proposed materials provides a significant visual marker to the H10 Olympic Park entry from Wallis Road. The proposed use of glazed ends to the east and west ends also maintains visibility.

The spatial arrangement of the western approach has been amended in order to provide a rationalised staircase and landings addressing the concerns of the LBH DRP and amended plans submitted.

Officer Response Reason 3: Assessment of the feasibility of a lifting bridge is set out below at Section 7. Alternative solutions have been considered by the applicant in

42 developing the proposed scheme. The applicant has sought the views of BW in relation to the potential of lifting bridge structure and this is not considered an appropriate solution by BW, PDT officers or the applicant given the maintenance, management and failure risks associated with a mechanical bridge. It is considered that such a solution would shift the maintenance and management issues associated with the H10 lift to that of a moveable bridge.

LB Hackney have raised concerns in relation to the inadequacy of the lift for the use of cyclists and stated that the bridge is therefore not fit for purpose as a cyclist bridge as they cannot cycle over it without dismounting. This is considered to be a more extreme view than that of the London Cycling Campaign who although noting disappointment that the space constraints do not allow for cycle friendly ramps therefore detracting from their use as cycle routes, do allow for the possibility of alternative interim measures including a cycle wheeling channel and larger capacity lifts.

A 1:21 gradient ramp in this location would require a significant amount of land in a compact site and would still be unlikely to satisfy cyclists as noted by the London Cycling Campaign’s concerns in relation to the H14 ramp where they raise concerns about the relatively gentle ‘zig zag’ nature of the ramp and seek a straighter, steeper ramp.

Officer Response Reason NS1: It is considered that LB Hackney’s requirement that the applicant continue negotiations with 90 Wallis Road, secure additional funds and acquire additional land outside the 2007 OLF application and CPO boundary considerably exceeds the remit of matters to which the Olympic Delivery Authority is required to have regard in discharging its planning functions under the London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act 2006. The Act requires that the ODA have regard to the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics from things done in preparation for them and to the terms of any planning permission already granted in connection with preparation for the London Olympics.

LB Hackney’s request would go beyond the requirements and scope of the 2007 OLF permission in order to deliver a ramp of limited practical benefit beyond the lift solution currently proposed. As set out above acquisition of the entirety of 90 Wallis Road alone would result in a compressed ramp with its own constraints, namely the requirement that pedestrians and cyclists are required to travel over 70m and double back on themselves 5 times.

It is considered unlikely that cyclists would choose such a route in preference to a lift or wheeling channel and furthermore it is considered that such a ramp would present a greater obstacle to less mobile persons than a lift which is a more convenient and faster solution.

A condition has been recommended in relation to management and maintenance and the OPLC have confirmed that they will have responsibly for the lift structure. .

Officer Response Reason NS2: The applicant has presented to the LB Hackney DRP and the panel has accepted the provision of the lift is necessary to provide DDA compliant access and recognise that the lift structure would work as a landmark when approaching the bridge; as such it should be highlighted and celebrated as a grander gesture than currently proposed. The comments of the panel in relation to the staircase and landing arrangement have been taking into consideration and amendments made to rationalise the approach.

Officer Response Reason NS3: As considered above, taking into account the number of constraints identified within the HW AAP in relation to connecting Hackney Wick to the Kings Yard CCHP, the fact that no Energy Strategy has yet been determined for Hackney Wick and that no development briefs have been developed at this time for key sites within the AAP to investigate development capacity within the AAP area (HW AAP Project No.

28) it is considered that passive provision for utilities within the currently proposed LTD.21 compliant western bridge is not considered to be reasonable given the further constraints this would place on the geometry of the bridges.

The bridges are brought forward in order to satisfy the requirements of Condition LTD.21. Condition LTD.30 requires Highway Bridges in these locations, which would be the appropriate structures to accommodate the utility provision considered above by the Institute for Sustainability. OPLC is aware of the issue and has confirmed that the issue of pipe network extension from the energy centre beyond the Olympic park will be reviewed as part of the LMF proposals, including the need for new or amended infrastructure to accommodate the network. PDT agrees that the consideration of the LMF proposals is the appropriate point at which to ensure that suitable connections are being made.

Condition LTD.22 of the 2007 OLF planning permission requires that at the conclusion of post-Games Transformation that 102 ha of open space shall have been provided and be available for public use and that this open space shall be designed to meet the criteria in the London Plan for designation as Metropolitan Open Land and be available for public use as public open space for amenity and recreational purposes. The western bridges incorporate landscaped approaches and the applicant has including the following elements as contributing towards the OLF site-wide total: soft landscaping, ramps, terraces, steps, water and the bridges. All elements are considered to be justifiable in contributing towards the site wide total and is consistent with the approach adopted across the park.

6.29 LB Hackney: Urban Design and Conservation departments

Hackney Design Review Panel Report: 2nd September o The panel concluded that the underlying concept of providing a ‘diagonal green/open aspect relating across opposing corners’ between the Olympics side and Hackney Wick side, is creating unnecessary problems and resulting in north-facing, terraced, unusable green space on Hackney Wick with no outlook, purpose or visual benefit, which is likely to be under-used and overshadowed. o The current arrangement on the Hackney Wick side presents a fragmented and ‘divided’ public realm; one associated with the lift entrance and the other with the steps and green space. Generous mid-landing spaces have been provided along the steps; however they are of no particular advantage. The top landing is the more valuable space. There are too many ‘elements’ in the composition of design, structure and public realm and thus it is not consistent with the scale of the project. The overall composition should be simplified and resolved to few simple, grand and strong moves. For example, create an efficient stair against the wall, wrap the stair around the lift, create a more generous arrival space, make access to lift easier and clearer and to create a ‘green link’ with the park, then one or two larger trees in a larger space would be more appropriate than three smaller trees defining a narrow route. o The panel strongly recommend that the spaces are more efficiently consolidated and linked together to create a generous and usable public open space and sequence of arrival. The applicants could locate the stair case along the adjoining building wall; which would provide an opportunity to create a more meaningful open space adjacent to the boat club and from the highway. It is recognised that this arrangement may not allow the future provision of ramped access with the removal of the adjoining building as the panel think this is unlikely to happen, so the bridge needs to be well designed for its existing context as it is likely to stay for a long time. o The ‘direct link’ has inadvertently dominated the design of the bridge, which appears to have lost its elegance and simplicity. The panel are concerned about the elevational proportioning (taper and integration of handrails) detailing and finishing of the bridge design, for instance the junction of the ribbed steel, ribbed concrete and metal balustrade appeared visually unresolved even if geometrically coordinated. o The panel think that whilst it’s appropriate to have an associated green space on the Olympic side, they are unconvinced with the underlying intent of ‘drawing’ the Olympics park onto Hackney Wick. As such they suggest that Hackney Wick treatment and detailing

should echo the ‘edgy’, artistic and robust character with a piece of artwork or painted wall mural as more fitting to Hackney Wick than a green wall.

The panel accept the provision of the lift is necessary to provide DDA compliant access. They recognise that the lift structure would work as a landmark when approaching the bridge; as such it should be highlighted and celebrated as a grander gesture than currently proposed, maybe even locating it on axis with the bridge.

Officer Response: Matters relating to design principles are considered at Section 7 below.

6.30 LB Tower Hamlets (Planning) The Council SUPPORTS the principle of the H14 Bridge connection physically linking Tower Hamlets communities to Olympic Park and further a field to the major centre at Stratford City.

However, the Council remains concerned that proposed nature and design of the H14 Bridge will have only partial benefit for Tower Hamlets residents in legacy post 2012.

i. Nature of Dual Modal Bridge: The Council supports the principle of new connections from the Olympic Park to Tower Hamlets communities over the River Lea Navigation and therefore both the principle of the two bridges (H10 and H14) is welcomed. Specifically Officers support the proposed H14 Bridge connecting the new Olympic Park’s western boundary to Monier Road in Fish Island prior to the commencement of the Games and permanently in legacy post 2012.

The Council does however object to H14's bridge downgrade to a 'dual modal' bridge (i.e. only walking and cycling) as opposed to 'multi modal' bridge, as expressed in our comments to the ODA in the recently approved Parks Legacy and Transformation applications at 27th April 2010 ODA committee, letter dated 25th June 2010 and at a meeting 30th July 2010.

While we note the applicants response to addressing this issue on page 2 of the letter dated 4th August 2010, the response still provide insufficient comfort, in terms of future delivery and fulfilling statutory obligations to deliver a multi modal bridge in legacy.

The proposed bridge only partially 'future proofs' opportunities for growth in Fish Island in terms of public bus transport connections, and arguably hinders development potential and density because the bridge is not comprehensibly connecting residents to the new Olympic park open space. The area currently suffers from a noticeable deficiency in public transport provision, and therefore without public transport provision the area will continues to be a ‘poor’ Public Transport Access Transport (PTAL) location.

It is also unrealistic to expect future development on the Planning Delivery Zone 4 (PDZ4) parcels of land, as required by Condition LTD 30 of the 2007 permission, to be able to afford and deliver an upgraded replacement multimodal bridge and indeed delivery of the new connections (i.e. H16) across the River Lea Navigation in legacy. This infrastructure should be delivered now.

Mitigation: To condition and obligate through the Section 106 agreement to investigate a detailed feasibility of a multi modal bridge post 2012 and prior to 2015.

ii. Design and layout of Eastern Approach to/from Loop Road: Officers question the need for the long ramp, which appears to be approximately 90-100m in length from the bridge to the Loop Road, thus creating a physical barrier between the Olympic Park and the towpath. It also performs as a long exhausting route for less able users like persons in wheelchairs and parents with young children and pushchairs accessing the wider park including Stadium Island.

The current proposed design will require these users to also double back on themselves covering an additional distance of 150 metres to get to the ‘stitch entry’ point of the Park, as opposed to the mere 40 metres covered by able bodied pedestrians. Additionally direct access to the canal towpath by less able body users will also require a 150 metre detour heading north from the bridge. This is considered wholly unacceptable and the solution in this case would be to install a new lift access on the eastern side of the proposed Bridge H10 in Hackney, in addition to the ramp access, which should be predominantly for cycle users. To date the planning application has not addressed this issue sufficiently.

Mitigation: The installations of a new elevated lift on the eastern bridge landing for less able users and allow for more direct access. iii. Safety Concerns at Proposed Crossing Points: The onward 'indicative' crossing points do not seem to be appropriately located for pedestrian desire lines and the current proposed location is unacceptable and may create issues of road safety and an illegible crossing environment. These crossings should be placed directly opposite the points of access from the bridge, i.e. the two main entrances to the bridge from the ramp and the steps over the loop road to prevent illegal crossing of the loop road.

As communicated in our objection to the ODA regarding planning applications for Transformation and Parkland Landscape proposals and Loop Road application in April 2010, the now approved dog leg ‘stitch’ path on PDZ 4 is misaligned further exacerbating an illegible and confused desire line to and from Stadium Island from the bridge.

Mitigation: A highways condition is sought to ensure direct and safe access across the road from entry points to/from the bridge on the eastern landing approach and at the and along pedestrian desire lines. iv. Poor Visual Appearance of the H14 Bridge: Officers raised concern that the poor visual appearance during the pre-application period. While the drawings submitted to support this application provide for more visual detail, which is supported in the applicant’s justification outlining the hierarchy for bridges in the Olympic Park, the design remains architecturally uninspiring and is very functional with a bland appearance.

Given that the Olympic Games is a ‘once in a lifetime opportunity’ it is disappointing to see that important pieces of infrastructure like bridges are being denied architectural quality and innovation.

The applicant confirmed that the bridges architecture had been ‘fixed’ and this implies pre- determination without the opportunity to consider design input from the local community and a wide range of groups including schools via competition. As a result, the bridges are deficient of high quality design and lack local character and identity.

Mitigation: To condition and/or obligate through the S106 agreement that the local community, artists and schools groups in Tower Hamlets are consulted on all new public art and further design of the H14 bridge and landscaping on the western landing approach. v. Absence of H16 Bridge from Proposals: The Council is concerned that obligations set out in the 2007 planning permission under condition LTD 30 will not be fulfilled with regard to delivering H16 Bridge connection, which was agreed and approved to be located at the end of Stour Road over the River Lea Navigation to link to the Olympic Park.

It is very disappointing that the identified land on the western side of the River Lea Navigation at Stour Road was not safeguarded for the future delivery of Bridge H16 and

46 without due consultation with the Borough. It appears the land has since been transferred to a new owner at the Omega Works site as part of land relocation package and therefore highly unlikely to come forward in terms of delivery due to financial, legal and planning constraints.

This absence of H16 bridge from these proposals highlights the perceived erosion of Olympic legacy commitments set out and obliged by the 2007 permission. As a result, the Council does not consider this obligation to be discharged by the Olympic Development Authority and seeks alternative mitigation to ensure this commitment to a connection to this part of the Borough is fulfilled post 2012.

Mitigation:To condition and obligate via a Section S106 agreement provision for an alternative connection from Olympic Park to Tower Hamlets to mitigate the loss of obligations set out in the 2007 permission via condition LTD 30.

Matters to be Supported i. Design and layout of Western Approach to/from Monier Road: Notwithstanding the nature of the connection, the Council supports the design rationale and layout of western side landing approach in Fish Island, which seeks to protect the existing historical chimneystack thereby safeguarding industrial heritage interest and a locally significant landmark. Furthermore the concept of opening up the northern side of the approach creates active frontage onto the existing ground floor retail units will hopefully animate the landscaped area and crucially provide surveillance and overlooking in terms of crime prevention. These design elements are welcomed.

The direct access to River Lea Navigation towpath from the pedestrian steps on east side is also supported.

Other Matters i. Lighting: There does not seem to be a detailed locations or strategy for lighting on the two approaches on either side and/or on the bridge. Please confirm the location and type of lighting. This is important to ensure personal safety, security of people using the bridge (especially during winter months) and also the glare impact on adjacent residential properties on the western side.

Mitigation: Condition to require detail of lighting strategy for the H14 bridge and approaches. ii. Cycling: The Council supports the extension to the network to/from the Park and requests a planning condition to detail likely signage for pedestrian and cyclist, which should link to the wider cycle network and onwards in both directions from the bridge. The proposed use of a permanent map/information points is supported and should be located on the bridge approaches to allow for easier navigation for visitors to/from the Park especially onward journeys to Tower Hamlets (i.e. Victoria Park).

Council cycle officers have requested to have automatic cycle counters for monitoring to be installed at the bridge and advise that they do not pose much cost to the project, i.e. inexpensive to install. Please condition appropriately. iii. Management and Maintenance: Please clarify whether the new proposed footbridge and the footway is planned to be adopted by the Council n legacy (post Summer 2012) as a highway structure supporting the public highway?

If it is not to be adopted then the footbridge should be designed, as a minimum, to be in accordance with all current bridge design guides. If it is to be adopted then the Council will require an 'Approval in Principal' submission from the developer in accordance with

BD2/05, as part of the submission LB Tower Hamlets will require a copy of all design calculations, plus a full set of engineering drawings and a copy of any geotechnical report.

In addition the Council will also require construction details of the new footpath/ramps and stairs which leads up to the bridge structure, plus any new proposed lighting columns. Site works will need to be supervised by the Council’s Engineering staff and furthermore a 'Commuted sum' figure will need to be agreed between both the developer and the Council to help pay for any future maintenance works. All costs incurred by Council staff while approving/checking or supervising works on site will be meet by the developer.

Applicant Response: ii) Design and layout of Eastern Approach to/from Loop Road: The ramp access is required for its full length to accommodate the level difference between the bridge deck, Loop Road and Canal towpath. Separately to this application the ODA is to investigate options for modifying the stitch alignment at its western end to best align with the crossing point chosen. The crossing point accommodate these alignments.

Whilst it is proposed to respond to the extent of the ramp access with the installation of a lift this would need to serve three levels to reach the tow path, loop road and the bridge deck, and it is not clear that space is available to accommodate this structure and the alternative opening directions required.

While a lift is proposed at Bridge H10 this is a matter of necessity as it is not possible to provide a graded route of any nature within the site. This is not the case at Bridge H14 where a suitable route can be provided. The Loop Road while proposed to be in place in Legacy Transformation it is required by LTD.20 (of the 2007 OLF permission) to be realigned before the Stadium has been reopened for two years, presenting the opportunity at this point to consider design the eastern approach to H14. A lift is not the preferable solution given the cost, maintenance and security issues associated with this. The constraints at H10 necessitated a lift and the design in that instance has responded to this positively. iii) Safety Concerns at Proposed Crossing Points: As set out above the details of this road crossing are not included for approval in this application and these issues will be considered in during the further design of those elements. iv) Poor Visual Appearance of the H14 Bridge: The ODA strongly believes that a high quality design has been proposed. The quality of all materials and finishes as well as the standard of detailing is entirely commensurate with that of permanent footbridges in the Olympic Park. This has been recognised by CABE who have written a letter of support to the design rationale. The bridge architects are those responsible for bridges across the Olympic Park and a similar high standard of design and palette of materials has been used. H14 has been architecturally designed in its entirety and it is not proposed to redesign the western approach in light of further public consultation. ODA Arts and Culture team have defined their strategy and develop proposals through consultation with the local community and local artists. v) Absence of H16 Bridge from Proposals: Bridge H16 does not form part of this proposal but its implementation remains a condition of the 2007 OLF Permission. The applicant is not aware of the land ownership to which LB Tower Hamlets refer and the land included within the CPO to allow for this bridge remains in the ownership of LDA/OPLC. Other Matters: i)It is anticipated that a condition will be added to allow the lighting details to come forward. ii) Way finding measures will be considered by OPLC on a Park wide basis and do not form part of this application.

iii) The bridge will pass to the ownership of OPLC, adoption by the Borough is not currently proposed, but if this is proposed at a later date OPLC will undertake these negotiations. As required by LTD.21 and OD.0.19 both bridges have been designed to adoptable standards.

LB Tower Hamlets (EHO) Environmental Health Officer technical comments have been received requesting: o That officers be notified if the remediation action plan assumption that the development will incorporate hard-standing and fill material of >0.6m is altered; and o Requesting a sign off letter from the Environment Agency prior to recommending discharge from the relevant planning condition.

Officer Comment: It is considered the LB Tower Hamlets’ request can be added as an informative to any planning permission.

6.31 LB Newham LB Newham has provided informal comments. LB Newham’s comments can be summarised as follows: o LB Newham accepts that the provision of highway bridges will be linked to the legacy development but from scrutiny of the planning submission for the pedestrian bridges there is no mention of the bridges being planned or constructed in a way which facilitates the later construction of/conversion to highway bridges. For example the abutments/piles could be designed to carry highway loadings and set out to accommodate highway geometry but for the time being only carry the pedestrian deck. o Although this application and the resultant pedestrian/cycle bridges might satisfy condition LTD 21, there appears to be nothing about the construction, alignment/width or arrangements at either end that would indicate future consideration of providing a highway bridge. The only conclusion you can come to is that to provide highway bridges would require demolition of any pedestrian/cycle bridges constructed in accordance with this application. o LB Newham request information on how these proposals will be converted/adapted, or even confirmation of whether there is any intention in the first place to provide a highway bridge in legacy.

Applicant Response: In response to the comments of LB Newham and CABE, the ODA can advise that the bridge materials can be reused as follows.

At a future time the steel bridges can be separated from their concrete abutments and re- used in another location. In the event that the bridges are to be relocated in the future, they can be separated from the supporting concrete abutments relatively easily. The bridges would then need to be dismantled into manageable segments, transported to their new locations and reconnected to the new concrete abutments. A precise re-use strategy can’t be developed when a destination and relocation site is unknown.

6.32 4 Roach Road

Objects to the planning application.

4 separate items of correspondence have been received from the owner and architect acting on behalf of the owner of 4 Roach Road; 1 objection letter from the owner of 4 Roach Road, 1 letter of objection from the architect and 1 email of clarification from the architect. Another email sent from the architect was directed to and forwarded from LB Tower Hamlets to the PDT. The issues raised in correspondence forwarded by LB Tower Hamlets reiterate those set out in the architect’s other two emails direct to the PDT as set out below, which seek to integrate the bridge space with the proposed redevelopment at 4 Roach Road.

The correspondence received from 4 Roach Road is included at Attachment 4.

The matters set out within correspondence received from 4 Roach Road is summarised below:

o The owner of 4 Roach Road intends to redevelop the site and has employed an architect to design the proposals. It is noted that no applications have been made to LB Tower Hamlets in relation to these proposals at the time of writing this report. o The owner states that the scheme at 4 Roach Road will propose mixed use development including a new bar/restaurant, shop unit and and retention of the counter café on the upper floors. The owner also states that residential use with some office space will also be included within the scheme. o The primary objection is in relation to the Bridge H14 western approach adjoining the common boundary between the application site and 4 Roach Road and the impact the structure and boundary wall will have on 4 Roach Road. o The owner and architect of the proposed scheme at 4 Roach Road also raise the following issues and objects on the following grounds:

1. In initial negotiations for the compulsory purchase of the northern section of 4 Roach Road (now the H14 application site), a boundary wall of 1.9m high brickwork was proposed. The scheme does not show a southern elevation towards 4 Roach Road, but the drawings for the other side show that the wall has now increased to 4m, is of concrete and extends at this height for the entire length of the boundary. 2. There are no southern elevation towards 4 Roach Road; 3. The wall height is double than what was originally discussed with the ODA and is of concrete rather than brick; 4. The presence of this wall will detract from the amenity of these areas and in the case of the café (Counter Café, currently in existence) will result is a virtually unusable space. The daylight and sunlight at ground floor level will be severely reduced. 5. The wall is unsightly; 6. The wall forms a barrier between any open space to be formed on my site and the bridge; 7. There are no details of how any water pressure from the earth works will be dealt with. 8. The H10 western approach is less intrusive than the ramp proposed at H14 and includes a lift.

o The owner of 4 Roach Road seeks that the ramp be re-positioned away from 4 Roach Road so that the height of the wall can be reduced, therefore giving the possibility of opening up the open spaces between both sites. o The correspondence concludes that the application has ignored the amenity of the adjoining owner and should therefore be withdrawn or rejected.

Applicant Response; o The applicant states that they have undertaken extended discussions regarding the nature of the scheme and how it would be possible to align with the proposals for the site at 4 Roach Road, meeting with the owner’s then architects, David Mercer of DVM Architects, on the 21st December 2009 and on the 12th of January 2010. The applicant states that discussions included the agreement in relation to the wall construction along the common boundary and that agreement was reached that a retaining structure for part of the length of the boundary would be acceptable and would not have a detrimental effect on the development of 4 Roach Road. These two meetings agreed the approach for the integration of the two schemes and informed the applicant’s design development.

o The ODA have responded that the outcomes of these discussions were:

- Implementation of the 1.9m brick wall agreed as part of the CPO is not beneficial to either development; - The ODA works should match the adjoining ground level of 4 Roach Road; - Development at 4 Roach Road has the potential to connect to the landscaped ramp approach to the bridge at the first floor level to the east of the site, and at ground level at the bottom of the ramp to the west of the site; in both cases connecting 4 Roach Road to the Olympic Park and negating the need for a permanent wall along the entire length of the site; - Until such point as the development on 4 Roach Road comes forward a ‘green screen’ with solid backing would form the boundary between the two properties which could be removed should the proposal at 4 Roach Road benefit from its removal.

It was taken in good faith that these agreements would be taken forward and the development at 4 Roach Road progressed accordingly; and the ODA was therefore surprised to receive recent correspondence to the contrary.

o The ODA notes that the new proposals at 4 Roach had not previously been shared with the ODA and are not yet the subject to a formal planning application but that the ODA welcomes further discussion on these details. o The concrete retaining wall facing the river is 3.14m at the south-eastern corner. The maximum height of the wall at existing ground levels facing the property of No.4 Roach Road is 2.2m. There is a fall to the waterside which accounts for the difference between the 2.2m and 3.14m. This 2.2m then slopes down to the west until the conclusion of the ramped access. This comprises the permanent elements and allows a future substantial development of the No.4 Roach Road side to relate to these levels. o On top of the concrete retaining wall is the proposed green screen which has an additional height of 1.4m at the river end and continues at a constant level. This has always been intended as a temporary element prior to the development of the No.4 Roach Road site being brought forward. o The proposal is not felt to have a negative impact on the amenity of the sites existing arrangement and can be suitably adapted to accommodate a future arrangement. o The concrete finish facing No.4 Roach Road will be a plain smooth concrete. The ODA notes that the proposed scheme includes a landscaping strip adjacent to the retaining wall and that a tension steel planting system is possible in this location.

6.33 Eton Mission Rowing Club (EMRC)

Objects to the planning application.

The letter received from the EMRC is included at Attachment 4.

The matters set out within the EMRC’s letter are summarised below:

o Although the EMRC are generally supportive of the Olympic and Legacy Developments and have no particular adverse comment on the bridge concept and design their main concerns is the precise location and the “change of use” of the land around the bridge and the adverse effect this will have on EMRC operations.

o The EMRC have concerns in relation to the timing of the application prior to coming to agreement with the EMRC on legal and practical considerations and believe that the application is premature as discussions between the applicant and EMRC are still ongoing.

o Impact on Operations: The EMRC believe that are in which they currently operate, which includes use of structures within the CPO boundary for storage, is

the minimum amount of space required for any rowing club to operate in a safe and secure environment. They state that any significant reduction in this space would prevent the EMRC from continuing to operate from the existing site in a safe and secure environment.

o Public Open Space: The EMRC object to opening the site as public open space which would compromise club operations and that only in the future if a much larger area is opened up along the river bank adjacent to the EMRC would there be some scope for shared areas.

o Conservation Area: The EMRC state that they believe the bridge location is within a Conservation Area where ancillary spaces to be acquired are essential in supporting the current use of the existing boathouse and the proposed bridge is not in keeping with the principles of which the conservation area was established.

o Security: The club state that the removal of the existing fence within the planning application and CPO boundary will put the buildings and contents use by the club at higher risk of theft, vandalism and graffiti.

o Boat Trailer: The boat trailer currently stored on the application site is stored at no rental cost. The EMRC seek a replacement storage area for their boat trailer.

o 90/Wallis Road/Fire Escape: The EMRC note that the proposal to route fire escape access under the bridge deck and through the public open space area between the bridge landing and EMRC is a further constraint on the operation of the rowing club and would severely limit their ability to expand their facilities in future.

Applicant Response: o Application Timing: The timing of this application has been to allow the substantive engineering works required for the Bridge to be undertaken prior to games in order that they can be completed quickly during the Legacy Transformation phase and opened thereafter. It is intended to bring forward some elements of the final details subsequent this application such as landscaping and lighting.

o While this application does not include the gated access under discussion between the LDA and the Rowing Club the design does not preclude the introduction of this subject to agreement and a further planning application. The ODA will continue to work with the Rowing Club during detailed design as set out in the attached letter and bring forward any alterations required.

o As a point of clarity, the ODA understands that the land affected by this application is in the LDA’s ownership which will, in due course, transfer to the ownership of the Olympic Park Legacy Company (OPLC). Whilst the ODA is keen to accommodate the Rowing Club as far as possible in the matters you raise, this will have to be with the landowner’s agreement. The practicalities of access arrangements, the future use of the lean-to, payment of rent, and the ability of the public to access the waterfront are for discussion between the Club and the LDA/OPLC and are separate from the physical proposals in the application. The ODA understands that there are discussions under way between the LDA and the Rowing Club regarding the CPO compensation, which will cover all the issues noted below.

o Health and Safety: The ODA has instructed its design team to take all practicable steps to produce a design that allows the Club to manoeuvre its boats between the boathouse, the water, and Wallis Road. In discussion with the LDA and OPLC, it has been agreed that the ODA will incorporate a gate between the lift lobby and boathouse lean-to to allow the waterside to be secured, subject to planning

approval and agreement between yourselves and the LDA/OPLC on its terms of use.

o Security: As noted above a gate will be incorporated into the proposal and access arrangements will be agreed by yourselves and the LDA/OPLC.

o Boat Trailer: The ODA intends to include a storage area within the bridge structure. As you note, the storage area is located within the land ownership of the LDA. They have indicated a willingness in-principle to discuss the terms of its use and access arrangements with you.

o 90 Wallis Road/Fire Escape: Given the constraints within the site to accommodate both the bridge approach and all the operational requirements of the boat club, there is no practical alternative for an escape route other than to the north of the bridge. The ODA understands that this was the previous arrangement and that, with the land that the escape route crosses now in the ownership of the LDA there is no objection to the arrangement continuing. It is intended that the design of the gate noted above will be such as to permit emergency egress when the gate is locked.

o Future Requirements: The ODA notes that the construction site for the bridge is very constrained and therefore when a contractor is appointed, a full review of construction methodology will be undertaken. If, at this point, it becomes clear that the lean-to will need to be removed to allow adequate working space, the ODA will replace that structure on a broadly like for like basis. It is worth noting for clarity that the lean-to is within the land ownership of the LDA and the ODA assumes that all issues of access and rent, loss of land interest and rights, and compensation are for the Rowing Club to discuss with the LDA. The ODA understand that the Club hopes to improve its facilities but, given the land ownership boundaries, the ODA urges the EMRC to discuss them initially with the LDA/OPLC.

Officer Comments: o Conservation Area: As described at Section 2 the ODA Planning Functions Order 2006 grants the ODA the power to designate a Conservation Area (and determine any application for listed building or conservation area consent) and as such the LB of Hackney is not able to designate a Conservation Area within the ODA Planning Functions boundary. Accordingly, the area included within the application boundary, within which the H10 western approach is proposed to be sited, is not within the Hackney Wick Conservation Area. o The Hackney Wick Conservation Area Appraisal provides a brief description of the Eton Mission Rowing Club building as one of four buildings along Wallis Road which are considered to be of architectural or historical merit and should be retained as part of the Hackney Wick Hub AAP: Phase 1 Masterplan, but makes no specific mention of the detached electricity kiosk structure. The blonde brick redundant EDF substation structure appears to be a relatively modern and nondescript insertion, which is not in keeping with the EMRC building and it cannot be considered that the structure exhibits any obvious architectural or historic merit which would make it apparent why it is identified as a building of townscape merit to be retained. The structure currently acts as a visual obstruction preventing direct views at street level towards the Lea Navigation and the Olympic Park from Wallis Road which would appear to be contrary to the stated objectives of the adopted Hackney Wick AAP and HWCA to preserve and enhance view paths eastward. o The proposed layout of the H10 western approach, including the proposed demolition of the substation structure, would remove an unsympathetic structure which currently precludes views towards the river and Olympic Park. The scale and grain of the proposed H10 western approach is in keeping with the domestic scale of the EMRC and would not alter or detrimentally impact the uniquely preserved street pattern which has remained relatively unaltered since the late Victorian

period and which is considered to be characteristic of the eastern zone of the HWCA. The maximum height of the lift structure is below that of the ridge height of the EMRC and cannot be considered to be overly dominant or detrimentally reduce the visual contribution of the EMRC in its role as a building of townscape merit. o The EMRC’s letter states that the area around the Boathouse is “Ancillary Spaces”. This appears to be an incorrect reading of the Draft Appraisal Map, the area to the south of the EMRC is not shown as Ancillary Space.

o LDA/Eversheds correspondence to the EMRC: The PDT’s legal advisers have confirmed that the commitment by the LDA to work with the Eton Mission Rowing Club (EMRC) and provide assistance in finding a suitable relocation site does not amount to a legally binding commitment upon the ODA or a commitment by the ODA to find a like for like replacement and it is considered that little or no material weight can be attached to the LDA/Eversheds letter. However, the impact of the bridge on the operations of the EMRC is a relevant material planning consideration and is considered in detail at Section 7.

7. CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSMENT

7.1 PDT officers have assessed the proposed Western Bridges planning application against the following key issues:

 Principle of the Development  Design Principles and relationship with UDLF: Bridges Appendix  Appearance within the context of the western communities including impact on the existing character of the streetscape and adjoining HWCA  General Arrangements of the H10 Western Approach  H14 Eastern Approach  Consideration of alternative bridge solutions and structures including lifting bridges  Impact on adjoining landowners and residential amenity - H14: 4 Roach Road - H14: Crown Wharf Properties/Omega Works - H10: EMRC  Interface with LTGDC public realm enhancement works  Safety and Security  Inclusive Access  Flood Risk  Sustainability & Potential adaptability of the bridges for highway use  Foundations and Remediation

7.2 Principle of Development

7.3 Proposed Bridges H10 and H14 are outside the parameters originally approved in the Olympic and Legacy Facilities planning permission 07/90010/OUMODA. The changes are set out at Table 1.

7.4 In terms of compliance with the relevant conditions of the OLF permission,, the details submitted are considered to comply with the requirements set out at LTD.21 which requires that two pedestrian and cycle bridges over the Lee navigation are made available for use in the post Games transformation phase. The bridges would allow sufficient room for boats or vessels to pass safely beneath. Upon implementation of the bridges and their opening prior to any retained venues, public opens space or the IBC/MPC the entirety of this condition will be satisfied.

7.5 Regarding the design details submitted, these are considered to satisfy the matters as set out under conditions OD.0.19 and OD.0.59. The assessment of the appearance and acceptability of these details is provided in the Design and other technical consideration sections below.

7.6 Condition 5.2 separately requires the implementation and availability of a Bridge at F13 (Gainsborough Bridge) by 31 December 2013. This bridge will be subject to a separate submission by the OPLC.

7.7 Condition LTD.30: Is the mechanism by which permanent Legacy Bridges will be brought forward. The requirements of condition LTD.30 are not sought for approval under the matters set out under this submission and therefore remain an obligation restricting occupation of any building within the development platforms in PDZ 4 and 5. It is noted that the trigger does not restrict the opening of venues, which are not located within ‘development platforms’ under the 2007 OLF permission.

7.8 The approved parameters of the LTD.30 bridges will not be superseded by the bridges proposed under this application and the requirements of Condition LTD.30 will remain unmet, requiring discharge in future. Condition LTD.30 is the means by which earlier bridges will be replaced by complying highway bridges as LMF development comes forward. As such, there is no need for time limiting conditions on any permission relating to the current proposals as condition LTD.30 compliant bridges will bring about their eventual replacement.

7.9 The original sequence of western bridges under OLF 2007 assumed three distinct bridge phases at these locations.

1. Outline Planning Permission was granted under 2007 OLF for the construction of temporary Bridges T08 and T09 as Games phase only bridges. Permission was given for construction including decks and substructures.

2. It was assumed that Games phase implemented Bridges T08 and T09 would then either be adapted or replaced by interim bridges which would allow for new pedestrian and cycle connections to be made from the western communities into the park for post-Games Transformation phase complying with Condition LTD.21 and providing enhanced connectivity across the park.

3. In due course as LMF came forward the immediate western connections approved pursuant to Condition LTD.21 would be replaced by those required by LTD.30.

7.10 It is noted that the 2007 OLF approved Site Wide 2013 Legacy Highways Layout does not show highway links at Bridges H10 and H14 during post-Games Transformation phase.

7.11 Whilst the comments of LB Tower Hamlets regarding the delivery of Legacy bridges are acknowledged, the position with respect to delivery of multi-modal bridges in Legacy at H10, H14 and H16 is unchanged by these applications and as such, there is no need in planning terms to seek to secure provision again. The letter from the OPLC in support of the application states that the Legacy Company will bring forward its proposals for multimodal bridges across the Lea navigation as part of the Legacy masterplan applications.

7.12 Current Proposals: The current bridges are sited in the same location and are considered to provide a consistent post-Games Transformation connectivity function across the Lea Navigation as that intended under the original 2007 OLF approval. The main parameter changes are due to the fact that the Games phase bridges (T08 and T09) are not required to be implemented.

7.13 The primary parameter where the current bridges under consideration deviate from the approved 2007 OLF parameters is deck width. The proposed bridges are 8m less than the minimum set out under 2007 OLF. The geometry of the temporary bridges (with wide decks) was informed by Games phase crowd modelling and are, therefore significantly oversized for post-Games Transformation footfall levels.

7.14 The 4m wide proposed deck widths of the western bridges are compliant with Transport for London’s standards for shared cycle/pedestrian bridges and also with that of the F03 deck width, which is the next bridge to the east of proposed bridge H10. The proposed deck width deviation is considered to allow for adequate clearance for shared pedestrian and cycle use in post-Games Transformation and is considered to accord with the London Plan Policy 3C.3, Policy 3C.20, Policy 3C.21, LB Hackney Core Strategy Policy 5 – Hackney Wick New Community and Core Strategy Policy 33 – Promoting Sustainable Transport.

7.15 Table 1 indicates that the parameters of the approved H10 and H14 OLF bridges allows for bridges with a maximum deck and bridge approach gradients of 1:8.5 and 1:12. In particular, a deck/bridge approach in excess of 1:21 would be required in order to achieve a graded bridge deck within the 2007 OLF boundary for the western approach of Bridge H10. This would be inconsistent with the applicant and LPA’s aspirations for a fully accessible public realm and would be contrary to the aims and objectives of London Plan Policy 4B.1 which seeks to ensure that developments are accessible, useable and permeable for all users.

7.16 As set out below the proposed alternative design which includes a lift solution at the western approach of H10, providing access between street and bridge deck level is, supported by officers in preference to either a steeper deck, which would be inconsistent with the requirements of OD.0.12. The alternative is a compact indirect ramp solution which is supported by LB Hackney in their objection. However, as assessed below it is considered this would not facilitate the requirements for accessible and useable development or create an truly inclusive environment as required by London Plan Policy 4B.1 and Policy 4B.5

7.17 The integration of a unique above-deck tapered box beam structural solution to reduce deck depths and allow sufficient clearance and head height above the Lea Navigation is considered to elegantly resolve the numerous spatial constraints which are unique to the western bridges.

7.18 The application for planning permission has been accompanied by supporting documentation with respect to likely environmental impact, navigation impact and flood risk. The bridges are assessed as not resulting in any greater impact than that previously assessed at the 2007 OLF planning application, nor would they generate any new or additional likely significant environmental effects that were not previously assessed. The Environment Agency has not raised any objection to the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application.

7.19 A Statement of Superseded Development will be annexed to any planning permission granted for this application which will mean that the application is bound by the terms of the OLF s106 agreement and will specify which elements of development authorised by the OLF consent will not longer be capable of implementation.

7.20 The LB Hackney LDF proposals map and LB Hackney’s Unitary Development Plan indentify the east and western approaches located within a Priority Employment Area (PEA), ‘Strategic Industrial Location’ (Hackney wick SIL) and ‘Other Industrial Sites’ (Hackney Wick OIA) allocation to the south surrounding the MUSV. Under the LB Tower Hamlets UDP the H14 site is designated as Industrial Employment Areas. The recently adopted LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy identifies the area around the H14 western landing (Fish Island Mid) as a mixed-use, sustainable community. The western bridges

could potentially be seen to represent the loss of a minor portion of employment and mixed use land. However, the principle of the construction of bridges in these locations has already been approved under the 2007 OLF planning permission and the loss of employment and mixed-use land within the application boundary therefore already established. In addition, the consideration of the Olympic masterplan applications made clear that the provision of significant new employment floorspace within the Olympic Park was such to mitigate the loss of designated employment land and this has not subsequently changed.

7.21 The assessment and consideration of this application concludes that the timely and detailed development of the PGT works will ensure that the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics and Paralympics will be maximised, in accordance with Section 5(5) b) of the Olympic Act, and become available for public access at the earliest opportunity.

7.22 Design Principles and relationship with UDLF: Bridges Appendix: Page 4 of the approved Urban Design and Landscape Framework (UDLF) Bridges Appendix notes that details of the Lea Navigation Bridges (H10, H14 and H16) are not included within the document and will come forward as part of legacy transformation planning condition LTD.21.

7.23 However, it is considered that the design principles and intent as set out within the document are applicable in terms of ensuring that:

 permanent bridges to be designed to a higher standard;  seamless integration between the built form and the surrounding landscape;  include abutment designs which are consistent with general landscape;  abutments should be stepped or sloped and where possible should accommodate planting; public seating; and areas for informal activity; and  a common language should be developed for the range of bridge types and the language should be flexible involving finishes and common detail.

7.24 This approach is supported by CABE’s comments which state that although they recognise that there is a requirement for road bridges in these locations in the long term that they support the decision to provide the best possible permanent bridges in the medium term rather that a compromised temporary solution.

7.25 With respect to the overarching principles it is considered that with the exception of a difference of opinion between the applicant and officers in relation to the colour of the proposed in-situ concrete abutment and retaining structures, that the western bridges are consistent with the requirements for high standard permanent bridges and provide seamless integration between built form and surrounding landscape as required by the Bridges Appendix.

7.26 The principles set out within the Appendix document describe typical bridge typologies, details and abutment and wingwall typologies. The UDLF Bridges Appendix sets out two main ‘families’ of Olympic Park bridge, those of a box girder typology which is typically located across waterways and a plate girder typology which is typically located over railway or used for highways infrastructure. Both ‘families’ incorporate a below-deck structural solution which in the case of the box girder bridges also accommodate utilities.

7.27 The normal water level of the Lea Navigation and Herford Union Canal is approximately 3m higher than the normal water level of the River Lea, placing a constraint on the depth within which the superstructure of the western bridges can be accommodated. Further, the western communities, including development adjoining the western approaches, are established and significant topographic realignment is not within the context of existing development which surrounds the western approaches and without detrimentally impacting on the operations, access and egress and adjoining development. The context

and constraints upon the proposed western bridges differs from that of the River Lea, City Mill River and Waterworks bridges which has required an alternative structural solution. In order to reconcile the unique topographic conditions between the Olympic Park and western communities and allow sufficient clearance above waterways the proposed H10 and H14 bridges do not sit within either of the structural ‘families’ set out within the UDLF Bridges Appendix and incorporate an above-deck structural solution.

7.28 The bridges are required to mediate between the established built environment with historic street pattern to the west and the newly developed Olympic Park with large scale venues and substantial parklands and public realm. Within this context, it is appropriate that a unique aesthetic and form be pursued for the western bridges which interface between the two differing contexts.

7.29 The box beams are secured to abutment walls on opposing corners and taper from the parapet height at one end down to deck level at the other end. Although the effect of travelling between the opposing tapered beams is not easily read in elevation or plan it is considered that in reality this would provide a dynamic spatial experience when travelling over the bridge structures with transparency along one side of the bridge increasing whilst decreasing along the other, shifting views as one progresses across the bridge.

7.30 The shift between parapet solidity and transparency is considered to be an appropriate response within the solid masonry context of Fish Island and Hackney Wick, within which the palette of bespoke UDLF compliant 1400mm pedestrian/cycle stainless steel mesh- infill parapet would seem visually incongruous.

7.31 The box beams are lined internally by a series of regularly spaced vertical steel flats welded to a top rail to form a simple parapet element with a consistent height of 1400mm across each bridge deck. The height is consistent with the requirements for minimum parapet heights on cycle bridges and is continued as a seamless element beyond the bridge abutments to become a guarding element along the retaining walls along the bridge approaches. Externally, the beams are lined with the stiffening ribs usually contained within the beam. The spacing of the stiffening ribs visually breaks down the plane of steelwork providing a finer scale and a grain to the structure in order to relate with the western communities.

7.32 Lighting is currently shown indicatively as recessed lighting within the bridge beam and as park and public realm consistent lighting within bridge approach areas. Lighting is not however, sought for approval as part of the application. A condition requiring submission of lighting details is recommended. Officers consider that the trigger should ensure that details are submitted early in order to ensure integral lighting is included within bridge and retaining structures. The bridge lighting principles set out within the approved UDLF: Bridges Appendix, support the principle of integral parapet lighting installed within posts which is characteristic of permanent parkwide footbridges. Although the western bridges are excluded from the approved UDLF: Bridges Appendix it is considered that the principle of integral lighting within the bridge structures should be carried across to the western bridges.

7.33 Although the form and character of the bridges is unique, they share common elements with the wider family of Olympic Park footbridges. Including consistency of painted steel consistent with the L01 steelwork finish and aggregate surfacing to decks and approaches.

7.34 LB Tower Hamlets has have raised concerns that the bridges have a poor visual appearance and that the design remains architecturally uninspiring and is very functional lacking high quality design and local character and identity, but do support the design rationale and layout of western side landing approach in Fish Island. LB Hackney have raised concerns that the H10 bridge fails to create a strong arrival experience and welcoming visual effect as a main entrance to the park.

7.35 The bridges are not designed to be overt and conspicuous gateway structures. The bridges are two in a family of over 15 new bridges which will be retained for post-Games Transformation and are required to share common materials and architectural characteristic in order to knit into a shared aesthetic of parkwide bridges.

7.36 The settings of the bridges within gently sloping park areas at the H10 eastern approach and H14 western approach contributes to the creation of a high quality public realm and also sets the graded approached within a landscaped context which seeks to thread the routes between proposed soft landscaping which includes a formal grid of tree planting.

7.37 LB Tower Hamlets do support the design rationale and layout of the H14 western approach in Fish Island, “which seeks to protect the existing historical chimneystack thereby safeguarding industrial heritage interest and a locally significant landmark. Furthermore the concept of opening up the northern side of the approach creates active frontage onto the existing ground floor retail units will hopefully animate the landscaped area and crucially provide surveillance and overlooking in terms of crime prevention. These design elements are welcomed”.

7.38 CABE have commented that the ‘bridges will set a high quality precedent for landscape interventions along the river that knit the existing communities into the Olympic Park after the Games. In particular, we support the generosity of space provided for pedestrians and cyclists at the bridge landings’.

7.39 Where existing or approved constraints exists at the H10 western approach and H14 eastern approach they are further considered below.

7.40 The potential to create an arrival experience at the H10 approaches has been assessed within the context of the influence of the structures within the Hackney Wick Conservation Area and the site’s geometry. The LPA is required to assess the proposed impact that any development would have upon the adjoining HWCA and has a duty to ensure that development either preserves or enhances the character of the Conservation Area as outlined under Policy EQ12 (Protection of Conservation Areas) of the LBH UDP and Policy 24 (Design) of the developing LBH Core Strategy. The Hackney Wick AAP further requires that the height and massing of new development should be sensitive to historic buildings identified within the HWCA and that the massing and scale of new development should be comparable to that of identified historic items.

7.41 The EMRC building has been identified as a building of townscape merit and is only one of 4 items along Wallis Road which are required to be retained under the HWCA appraisal and HW AAP. As noted within the HWCA Appraisal, the structure is anomalous in terms of its domestic scale within an industrial landscape. The development proposed at the H10 western approach has a comparable scale to that of the EMRC building and cannot be considered to overdominate or reduce the contribution of the EMRC building to the townscape. However, by virtue of its contemporary materiality and use of the two storey glazed and sheet metal lift structure as a marker indicating entry to the park, the approach will provide a subtle gateway function which has been supported by the LB Hackney design panel.

7.42 The eastern approach at H14 is horizontally constrained by the southern Loop Road and the design solution developed at the other bridge approaches is not possible in this location. However, amended plans have been received which show the inclusion of vertical planting along the western ramp retaining wall which is considered to be in accordance with the UDLF: Bridges Appendix design principle that abutments should where possible accommodate planting.

7.43 Retaining walls and abutments are in-situ concrete, an illustration of which has been submitted as part of the materials and finishes for approval. The illustration indicates a fair faced vertical patterned finish produced with a form liner. In a similar approach to that of

the application of vertical stiffening ribs to the exterior of the bridge beams, the vertical pattering of the in-situ concrete is intended to visually break up the planar concrete surface, again providing a finer scale and a grain to the structure. The vertical module of the concrete and the parapet post steelwork is consistent across the scheme which geometrically unifies the concrete and steel elements.

7.44 Whilst the use of concrete is not considered unacceptable in principle, officers have queried whether a much darker colour can be applied to the concrete in order to ground the bridges within the established context of the western communities and reduce the likelihood of staining or any imperfections in the mixing and placing of the in-situ concrete.

7.45 The applicant has provided a response indicating that an alternate darker concrete finish “would require a dedicated single sourced materials at a premium cost, extensive trails, and a high level of quality control with significant risk of disappointment”. The applicant notes that the “visual variations inherent in all in-situ concrete are exacerbated with dark colour pigments and that colour consistency required for an architectural application is unproven expensive and high risk”. The applicant therefore, continues to propose the fair faced finish as indicated in the submitted material which they consider will add texture and shadowing which they note is endorsed by CABE.

7.46 A condition is recommended in relation to the submission of details and samples of various materials and junctions between elements including details and samples of bridge abutments and retaining walls in which the applicant will be expected to provide sufficient details and evidence that a fair faced in-situ concrete proposed will provide a high quality finish.

7.47 It is considered that the modulation, grain and scale of the proposed western bridge represent a refined response to context which will provide a sympathetic design solution. CABE support the design, materials and detailing of the bridges stating that they are well- considered and sophisticated pieces of contextual design. Within their context the proposed bridges are considered to respect local context, character and communities and create and enhance the visual amenity of the site in accordance with London Plan policy 4B.1, LB Hackney UDP Policy EQ1, EQ12, Core Stagey Policy 24, LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy S025 and the requirements of PPS 5.

7.48 Whilst the comments of LBTH about the external appearance of the bridge have been carefully considered, Officers are of the opinion that the approach that the applicant has taken to the design of bridge H14 is acceptable and wholly appropriate to context. The applicant team has undertaken a comprehensive pre-application engagement process on the design of the bridge and Allies and Morrison has subsequently amended the scheme in light of comments received from the Hackney design panel and from the architect for/occupiers of 4 Roach Road. The fact that there has not been a competition or direct community arts involvement in the design of the H14 bridge does not in this case, equate to a poor quality of appearance.

7.49 Towpath head heights maintains a 2.5m minimum clearance and it is considered that the clearance heights are acceptable and inline with the outline planning permission and British Waterways requirements. The bridges are assessed as allowing sufficient room for boats or vessels to pass safely beneath in accordance with the requirements of OD.0.19 and LTD.21.

7.50 Appearance including impact on the existing character of the streetscape and neighbouring Hackney Wick Conservation Area: The proposed layout of the H10 western approach, including the proposed demolition of the substation structure, would remove an unsympathetic structure which currently precludes views towards the river and Olympic Park.

7.51 The scale and grain of the proposed H10 western approach is in keeping with the domestic scale of the EMRC and would not alter or detrimentally impact the uniquely preserved street pattern which has remained relatively unaltered since the late Victorian period and which is considered to be characteristic of the eastern zone of the HWCA. The maximum height of the lift structure is below that of the ridge height of the EMRC and cannot be considered to be overly dominant or detrimentally reduce the visual contribution of the EMRC in its role as a building of townscape merit within the HWCA.

7.52 The streetscape frontage of the H10 western approach is less than 12m when viewed from an approach from within the HWCA along Wallis Road. The western elevation of the approach will be read as being primarily consisting of a glazed lift enclosure allowing views of the Olympic Park structures beyond including the MUSV, staircase and screenwall along the southern boundary of the western approach structure.

7.53 Within the context of the larger scale industrial buildings within the HWCA, including the four storey Central Brooks building along Wallis Road, four storey building at 90 Wallis Road and new development to the east across the Lea Navigation including the MUSV, Bridge H10 is considered to represent a relatively modest scaled intervention which adheres to the building height, scale and massing principles set out within the Hackney Wick AAP.

7.54 By removing the redundant substation the proposed layout of the western approach will retain a view corridor from Wallis Road towards the Olympic Park, the scale of the lift structure itself is relatively modest and glimpses of new development within the Olympic Park including the MUSV will continue to be visible from Wallis Road.

7.55 Due to the difference in ground level between Olympic Park and established western communities as described above and any new bridge structure across the Lea Navigation which complied with the minimum clearance requirements of British Waterways would present some obstruction to clear view paths at street level into the Olympic Park. The lift incorporates clear glazing which preserves views of key building features within the Olympic Park including the MUSV, which although not identified in the Hackney Wick AAP or HWCA Appraisal is considered to provide a significant landmark when viewed from Wallis Road (Attachment 5).

7.56 Although the surrounding character of development with Hackney Wick and Fish Island is of historic value providing pockets of development reflective of the industrial heritage of the area, with the exception of the industrial chimney at H14, the subject sites themselves cannot currently be considered to contain any significant individual building or landscape elements which significantly enhance or preserve the character of the area.

7.57 The adoption of modern architectural language is considered an appropriate design response which appropriately differentiates the contemporary fabric of the bridge insertions from those building elements within the broader area which do exhibit genuine heritage significance. The proposed western approach of each bridge is considered to represent a discernible improvement both on the visual amenity of the subject sites and in physical amenity terms by proposing enhancements to the public realm in the form of two new landscape interventions which will open up small sections of the previously inaccessible waterfront to the public within Hackney Wick and Fish Island.

7.58 It is considered that the development will markedly enhance the character of both streetscapes along Wallis Road and Roach Road in comparison the existing conditions and are in accordance with Policy EQ12 (Protection of Conservation Areas) of the LBH UDP and Policy 24 (Design) of the developing LBH Core Strategy and London Plan Policies 4B.1 and 4B.3.

7.59 General Arrangements of the H10 Western Approach: LB Hackney and LB Hackney Design Panel have commented on the general arrangements and arrival experience of the

H10 Western Approach. LB Hackney have stated that although they acknowledge that a ramp structure will not form part of the structure approved under the current planning application that the current arrangements should only be considered a short term solution and conditioned accordingly.

7.60 As set out above, the current proposals seek to address the requirements of Condition LTD.21 which seeks to ensure adequate access to the venues and open space for local residents in the western communities from the point that any retained venues, public opens space or the IBC/MPC are brought back into use. Condition LTD.30 is the means by which earlier bridges will be replaced by complying Highway Bridges as LMF development comes forward. As such, there is no need for time limiting conditions on this permission as condition LTD.30 compliant bridges will bring forward to eventually replace the current bridges.

7.61 LB Hackney seeks that a western approach similar to that proposed at H14 be brought forward during post-Games Transformation and that negotiations be undertaken to acquire additional land beyond the existing CPO boundary in order to allow such a scheme to proceed. LBH seek that this scheme be implemented during post-Games Transformation.

7.62 In terms of LB Hackney’s request that a ‘high quality landscape ramp access’ solution similar to that proposed at H14 be pursued, it is considered that as the geometry of the area of land available for the western approaches of Bridges H10 and H14 differ considerably, especially in terms of total length, that similar schemes cannot realistically be provided at each approach. The CPO boundary at Bridge H14 has a maximum length of approximately 60m between its western extent at Roach Road and eastern extent at the Lea Navigation. This allows sufficient length for a compliant graded route (minimum 1:21) within a gentle sloping park area, with the ramp arranged in an almost east-west linear manner in a way which avoids pedestrians and cyclists doubling back on themselves and maintains a sense of forward motion. The CPO boundary at Bridge H10 is approximately half the length of that of the H14 approach has a maximum length of approximately 28m between its western extent at Wallis/Prince Edward Road and eastern extent at the Lea Navigation. It is the location of the highway at the western extent of the H10 approach and the requirement to ensure adequate access and egress from existing premises, including those which originally objected to the 2007 OLF planning application at 115-119 Wallis Road, which form the more significant constraints on the possibility of a successful graded approach at H10 similar to that proposed at H14. In order to progress a scheme similar to that of the H14 western approach a section of Wallis Road would need to be acquired which would be to the detriment of existing commercial premises to the north and south of Wallis Road and contrary to Condition OD.0.19 (iv) which requires that proposed for bridges at the perimeter of the site should ensure that adequate access to and egress from existing premises be retained or provided.

7.63 The alternative is to acquire land to the south of the H10 western landing, which would still not provide a ramped solution similar to that of the H14 approach, but require a compressed ramp which requires that pedestrians and cyclists double back on themselves five times and travel over 70m. A potential indicative solution requiring additional land acquisition is shown at Attachment 5. It is considered that the indicative ramp solution is still unlikely to be a more desirable option for wheelchair or cycle users than the proposed lift which would appear to provide a more direct, easier and quicker means of accessing the bridge deck from street level.

7.64 The proposed general arrangements are considered to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists and less mobile users in an accessible and inclusive manner in accordance with London Plan Policy 3C.3, Policy 3C.20, Policy 3C.21, 4B.1 and 4B.5 and LB Hackney Core Strategy Policy 5 – Hackney Wick New Community and Core Strategy Policy 33 – Promoting Sustainable Transport.

7.65 H14 Eastern Approach: LB Tower Hamlets have objected to the general arrangements of the eastern approach, stating that the ramp appears to be “approximately 90-100m in length from the bridge to the Loop Road, thus creating a physical barrier between the Olympic Park and the towpath”.

7.66 LB Tower Hamlets’ interpretation of the submitted plans appears to be incorrect, the ramp is a long structure overall (maximum length of 88m from bridge deck to Tow Path level) and PDT Officers have raised concerns in relation to the appearance of the structure on the visual amenity of the Green Link along the Lea Navigation and the interface with the Olympic Park. However, the actual distance from bridge deck to Loop Road level is 45.4m, which is less than half the distance compared to that stated by LB Tower Hamlets in their representation (90-100m). The incorrect reading appears to be due to confusion between the Loop Road and Tow Path exit points.

7.67 Based on the amended plans and current alignment of the PGT PDZ 4 ‘Stitch’, in order to access the stitch from the H14 bridge deck the total distance which would be travelled is either 20m for a pedestrian using the proposed stairs or 67m for a cyclist or less mobile pedestrian using the proposed ramp.

7.68 The LB Tower Hamlets objections states that the ramp access and route to the stitch would “perform as a long exhausting route for less able users like persons in wheelchairs and parents with young children and pushchairs accessing the wider park including Stadium Island and that the current proposed design will require these users to also double back on themselves covering an additional distance of 150 metres.”

7.69 As set out above, the measurements and assumptions used in the objection letter are incorrect and the distance of travel for ramp users (cyclists and less mobile persons) is currently not considered to be unacceptable or present an overly onerous route. However, it is considered that the distance that cyclist and less mobile pedestrians travel could be easily reduced by amendment to the existing PDZ 4 stitch to bring the alignment closer to the ramp exit. PDT Officers have requested that the applicant amend the location of the PDZ 4 stitch in order to align the entry more closely with the ramp exit, thereby reducing the requirement for pedestrians or cyclists to ‘double back’ on themselves. Such an amendment would reduce the distance cyclist or less mobile pedestrians would need to travel by 15m but inversely increase the distance that the majority of pedestrians would need to travel from the stairs by the same amount. This is considered reasonable and a condition is recommended accordingly.

7.70 LB Tower Hamlets have requested that a lift be installed at the eastern approach to the H14 Bridge. The applicant has noted that a fixed non-mechanical ramp solution is always preferred ahead of a lift due to the maintenance, management and failure issues noted elsewhere in this report. Responses received in relation to the western bridges indicate that a lift is not supported as a first preference solution. The eastern approach of H14, unlike the H10 western approach, is physically capable of accommodating ramps and stairs to provide access between bridge, Loop Road and Tow Path levels. Although it is considered that the ramp as proposed is constrained, it cannot be considered that this necessitates a lift solution.

7.71 The ramp width of the eastern approach is up to 1.864m. Although this would be considered unacceptable for a shared pedestrian and cycle facility if this were the only possible route from the bridge to Loop Road level, the proposal provides two potential routes, one ramped and one staircase, from the bridge to Loop Road level both of which are1.8m wide. It is therefore considered that the stairs will take the majority of pedestrian movement, with the ramp retained for other users.

7.72 British Waterways has commented on the appearance and length of the western retaining ramp wall and its impact on creating a physical barrier between the Olympic Park and the towpath and has sought the insertion of openings in the structure. Officers have sought

amendments to the original scheme and amended plans have been received which show the inclusion of vertical planting along the western ramp retaining wall which will provide planting within the retaining structure consistent with the UDLF Bridges Appendix. The applicant has noted that there is a significant level difference between the towpath and Loop Road verge (approx. up to 2m) and openings in the ramp retaining structure would result in towpath users gaining sight of footpath level along the Loop Road. It is considered that this would not open up the vistas of the Park desired or sightlines to the water.

7.73 The applicant has stated that the eastern bridge approach for H14 is: designed to provide temporary access to the Loop Road verge, where a pedestrian crossing will be installed. The eastern approach provides the minimum requirements to enable connectivity between Fish Island and the Olympic Park. Although the bridges have been designed to be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) and are considered to be acceptable in minimum terms it is not considered that the eastern approach can be viewed as an acceptable long term solution. The applicant has noted that the approach is temporary but has not sought for a time limited or temporary permission for this aspect of the scheme.

7.74 As noted above the requirements of Condition 1 of the Legacy Highways application (ref: 09/9017/AODODA) requires that details of the L03 Highways Link Scheme (being the road link between Waterden Road and the Olympic Park Southern Loop Road passing over and including Bridge L03) be submitted by 31 December 2011. The connection with the retained Southern Loop Road occurs at the location of the eastern approach of Bridge H14.

7.75 In order to coordinate and safeguard that Condition 1 of the Legacy Highways application (ref: 09/9017/AODODA) and Condition LTD.30 of the 2007 OLF permission are delivered in a comprehensive manner, thereby superseding the current H14 eastern approach in due course, it is considered that a modified form of Condition 1 of the Legacy Highways application be applied to this permission requiring submission of a H14 Legacy Link Scheme.

7.76 The proposed general arrangements are considered to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists and less mobile users in an accessible and inclusive manner in accordance with London Plan Policy 3C.3, Policy 3C.20, Policy 3C.21, 4B.1 and 4B.5 and LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy S01.

7.77 Consideration of alternative bridge solutions and structures including lifting bridges: In developing the current general arrangements submitted for approval the applicant considered various alternative arrangements at pre-application stage which might remove the requirement for a lift at the western approach of Bridge H10 and generally reduce the current extent of ramp lengths required to allow sufficient clearance above tow path and water levels.

7.78 LB Hackney and the GLA have raised concerns in relation to the maintenance implications of a lift and the risk of failure and potential delay in repair. LB Hackney in their objection to the planning application have strongly encouraged that the ODA pursue a mechanical bridge solution in order to remove the requirement for a lift at the western approach of Bridge H10 and generally reduce the current extent of ramp lengths required to allow sufficient clearance above tow path and water levels.

7.79 The applicant considered and sought BW’s reaction to the concept of moveable bridge structures along the Lea Navigation as early as 2007. BW’s response is included at Attachment 5. BW’s main objection to the use of a lifting bridge is centred around the liability and risks associated with a failure of the bridge and maintenance and management of a mechanical solution opposed to a fixed bridge solution. A mechanical bridge would require BW to operate it when needed and they do not consider this feasible on such a

busy stretch of canal. BWs 2007 views have been reiterated in response to the same query made in 2010 by PDT Officers.

7.80 A copy of BW’s original 2007 advice has been provided to the PDT. The applicant originally requesting that BW consider the feasibility of a movable bridge and this was assessed as part of the original application and feasibility process with BW. BW were specifically asked to comment on the possibility of installing lifting/moving bridges as an alternative to fixed height bridges at H10, H14 and H16. A copy of BW correspondence from 2007 confirming that they ‘discourage moving objections over their canals and particularly those that create headroom difficulties.

7.81 It is noted that although the correspondence states that the applicant originally requested that BW consider the possibility of three lifting bridges across the Lea Navigation, that the in-principle objection of maintenance, management and navigation obstruction due to insufficient head height is valid for consideration of a single lifting bridge.

7.82 BWs 2007 views have been reiterated in response to queries in relation to this application where they have again stated that it “cannot see any way that it would not create a huge burden for BW.”

7.83 The applicant requires the permission of BW as the owner of this canal asset to install infrastructure on and over the canal. BW advised that a movable bridge was not acceptable and hence a decision was taken by the applicant early on not to pursue a lifting/swinging bridge option any further.

7.84 BW as navigation authority is required to ensure clear navigation along the canal. In response to the 2010 query on whether BW would support a lifting bridge along the Lea Navigation, potentially similar to the Glengall Bridge in Docklands, they have responded with the following:

We are also concerned about the ongoing maintenance requirements of the lift proposed as part of H10. In response to your query about the height of the bridge, we require this height in order to retain a clear navigation, in accordance with our duties as navigation authority. A lifting bridge such as Glengall Bridge in Docklands would block the navigation, and require British Waterways to operate it when needed, which would be unfeasible on such a busy stretch of mainline. Due to the higher drop to water level in Millwall Docks, the Glengall Bridge allows normal boat traffic through, and only needs to be lifted occasionally for larger craft specifically accessing the Millwall Outer Dock.

7.85 It is considered that a swinging or moveable bridge solution would only transfer the risk of a lift failure, together with all the management and maintenance issues associated with a lift to that of a larger mechanical element. The failure of the lift, although creating significant inconvenience, can be temporarily mitigated depending on the mode and mobility of the user. Cyclists could continue to utilise the wheeling channel is incorporated between the edge of the stair treads and as a worst case alternative routes into the Olympic Park would be available. A bridge failure might not allow for any mitigation as the failure could impact numerous modes of transport including watercraft for which no alternative routes exist.

7.86 LB Hackney have raised concerns in relation to the management of the proposed lift structure, however it is considered that the management requirements of a manually operated mechanical bridge is significantly more intensive than that of a lift, requiring BW personnel to operate the bridge every time it requires opening. Further, the management of a lifting bridge would fall between BW and OPLC and so introduce management conflict as to which route has priority especially given that the opening and closing process would not be a quick one.

7.87 Further, the height of the bridge is informed by minimum clearances above water and tow path level. The bridge has sufficient clearance both vertical and horizontal to allow unobstructed pedestrian and cycle access along the waterway on both sides of the canal therefore maintaining the eastern towpath and allowing the possibly of new western towpaths. Both bridge sites are heavily constrained by topography and adjoining neighbours, a lifting bridge would further encroach on the limited site area and would compromise towpath widths a potentially impeded pedestrian movement along both banks of the Lea Navigation.

7.88 The proposals for the western bridges have been brought forward under the requirements of Condition LTD.21 which requires specifically that the designs “...allow sufficient room for boats or vessels to pass safely beneath it..”. It is to this and the technical requirements of BW that the applicant has sought to respond.

7.89 LB Hackney’s proposed solution would only serve to shift the burden of management and maintenance of a moveable structure to another party, with greater potential conflict, greater management issues and a higher degree of impact on connectivity in the case of failure and is not considered a suitable or practical solution. A fixed structure, such as that proposed at Bridge H10, would not pose the same degree of risk compared to a lifting bridge and would always be available to provide access across the waterway which is in accordance with the aims and objectives of London Plan Policy 3C.3, Policy 3C.20, Policy 3C.21, LB Hackney Core Strategy Policy 5 – Hackney Wick New Community and Core Strategy Policy 33 – Promoting Sustainable Transport.

Impact on adjoining landowners and residential amenity

7.90 H14: 4 Roach Road: The objection letter received from the owner of 4 Roach Road states that the property is currently rented out for office, factory and cafe use (Counter Cafe). The owner and architect have provided details and a sketch plan illustrating the redevelopment proposed on the adjoining site to the south of the H14 western approach. LB Tower Hamlets have confirmed that a formal application has not been submitted to LB Tower Hamlets as Local Planning Authority of the adjoining property.

7.91 In respect of existing use of 4 Roach Road and the requirements of condition OD.0.19 (iv) that regard must be had to access and egress from adjoining properties it is considered that the proposed development does not impact on the primary frontage of the counter café towards Roach Road and the café will be able to continue operating.

7.92 Consideration of whether the proposed Western Bridges significantly prejudice redevelopment and regeneration of adjoining sites by significantly reducing development frontage or significantly hampering potential access and egress to adjoining sites is considered a legitimate material planning consideration in accordance with the strategic regeneration policies of the London Plan, draft replacement London Plan and LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy policies. The adjoining site to the south at 4 Roach Road will continue to a have a primary frontage onto Roach Road to the south-west of 23m and a secondary frontage to the north-east onto the Lea Navigation of 48m. The proposed H14 western approach does not impact on either of these frontages.

7.93 The owner of 4 Roach Road is seeking to maintain access and sightlines/solar access from a third frontage, the common boundary with the H14 western approach, the entirety of which corresponds with the CPO boundary and has already been the subject of outline planning approval for temporary and permanent bridge structures pursuant to the 2007 OLF planning permission. The representations received stated that the common boundary structure proposed will form a barrier between any open space at 4 Roach Road and the proposed bridge.

7.94 Although the total extent of the CPO boundary and approved parameters for the permanent H14 bridge allow scope for a retaining structure which could potentially run the

entire length of the common boundary with 4 Roach Road, the applicant has not sought such an approach. The proposed H14 ramp allows for potential connections between 4 Roach Road and the application site at the first floor level to the east of the site and at ground level at the bottom of the ramp to the west of the site. Current proposals for 4 Roach Road provided by the architect indicate that a first floor connection is no longer being pursued, however a ground floor connection still appears to be possible. In the context of the approved 2007 OLF parameters, the preserved primary and secondary frontages and the additional allowance for connections between the proposed development at H14 and 4 Roach Road it cannot be considered that the H14 approach would prejudice the redevelopment of 4 Roach Road. Further it is considered that within the constraints of the application site’s geometry and proximity of existing residential development to the north at Omega Works that the H14 western approach has been sensitively designed having regard to both enhancing connectivity with the site to the south whilst protecting amenity to the existing residential development to the north.

7.95 In relation to the potential for the proposed H14 common boundary wall to overshadow the proposed leisure/outdoor cafe it is considered that as the existing development at 4 Roach Road does not currently contain existing residential development that limited weight can be placed on any potential overshadowing impact. It is noted however, that the proposed permanent retaining wall is an average of 2.19m above existing ground level, with a removable ‘green screen’ with solid backing of 1.4m attached above. The proposed common boundary structure is located to the north-west of 4 Roach Road and cannot be considered to significantly overshadow the proposed open space at 4 Roach Road which is located to the south-east and which would be more significantly impacted by the existing buildings located to the south and which are shown as having a minimum height of 4.8m.

7.96 The applicant has responded that 1.9m brick wall agreed between the owner of 4 Roach Road and the LDA was not beneficial to either party. The representations received from 4 Roach Road object to the proposed common boundary structure which is described as being double the height than was originally agreed or over 3.7m tall and running for the entire length of the common boundary. The use of concrete instead of brick is raised as an issue and the wall is described as ‘unsightly’.

7.97 The applicant and owner/architect of 4 Roach Road are still discussing the interface and specification of the southern boundary treatment. Although, it is considered that the proposed development does not detrimentally impact on access or egress as required by condition OD.0.19 it is considered that a condition requiring further details of the boundary structure will allow the applicant to submit details to reflect any further minor changes to the boundary. Any further representations received on re-consultation from 4 Roach Road will be reported by way of update report.

7.98 H14: Crown Wharf Properties/Omega Works: The proposed arrangements of the H14 western approach will provide a new plaza/open space for four existing retail properties which currently have restricted access and frontages. It is considered that the creation of a new plaza space allowing an active frontage to the retail units will have a positive visual and physical benefit for this section of Roach Road and specifically to the adjoining development to the north.

7.99 No responses have been received from any of the units within the Crown Wharf Properties/Omega Works property to the north of the H14 western approach. However, it is considered that the construction works will have some temporary impact on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers but that these have been considered under the assessment and consideration of the 2007 OLF planning permission and will be mitigated by the measures set out within that permission which will be applied to the western bridges. The mitigation measures include the approved Construction Code of Practice, restrictions on the hours of work and conditions setting limits on noise levels experienced at any occupied residential property.

7.100 The applicant proposed the use of Continuous Flight Auger piles which reduce levels of vibration and noise in comparison to impact piling. A standard condition precluding impact piling is also recommended.

7.101 LB Tower Hamlets and the PDT have queried how the proposed development once implemented and open to the public will impact on the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers to the north, specifically those located to the south-east corner of the adjoining development. The applicant has provided a floor plan showing the internal arrangement of the residential apartments to the north, confirming that south facing windows of those dwellings located closest to the H14 Bridge contain living rooms and not bedrooms. Further it is noted that cantilevered balconies located at the south-east corner of the development would provide visual screening for the windows closest to the H14 landing. The Applicant has stated that they believe the ‘separation distances are felt to be satisfactory to maintain privacy. 5m offset with tree screening is considered satisfactory from living room windows’.

7.102 It cannot be considered that the proposed Bridge H14 development has any greater impact on amenity, either during construction phase or once open to the public, than the approved 2007 OLF bridges would in the same location and it is noted that the proposed bridge deck width is considerably reduced in comparison to that approved under 2007 OLF, thereby reducing the potential proximity of the structure approved under that permission.

7.103 It is noted that the Omega Works/Crown Wharf Development approval (granted in March 2007) post-dates the original 2004 planning permission for the development of the Olympic Facilities and their Legacy which was used to support the bid to host the Games and which was the precursor to the 2007 OLF planning application. Further, the Omega Works/Crown Wharf Development approval came after the submission of the 2007 OLF planning application and the adoption of the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework by the Mayor of London in January 2007 which supported the site as the main location for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Park and should have formed a material consideration in the assessment of the Omega Works/Crown Wharf Development planning application.

7.104 H10: Eton Mission Rowing Club: As set out at paragraph 6.3, the ODA have demonstrated that they have made efforts to engage with and work with the EMRC at pre- application stage in the development of the H10 proposal to enable the EMRC to continue to operate at its existing premises.

7.105 As set out at Table 1, the parameters of the 2007 OLF bridges approved at this location, both temporary and permanent, allow for a minimum bridge deck of 12m with a maximum width of 21-22m possible. The proposed H10 Bridge has a 4m wide deck (with a gross width of 5.15m), creating a bridge out of parameters by virtue of its reduced deck width. A bridge in accordance within approved 2007 OLF parameters would have a significantly greater impact on the operations of the EMRC to the point where operation might no longer be possible at this location. However, the proposal submitted for approval has taken into careful consideration how the bridge can be accommodated whilst minimising its impact on the activities of the EMRC, as far as can be reasonably accommodated within the constraints of the site.

7.106 The EMRC objection letter notes that boats and equipment are housed primarily within the Boathouse with additional items stored in an adjacent lean-to wooden shed and the redundant electricity substation. A boat trailer is also stored on a small grass strip between the existing fence line and water edge. The EMRC have confirmed that a river frontage of approximately 20m is the minimum requirement to launch a rowing eight along the Lea Navigation. It is noted that the lean-to shed, redundant electricity substation and small grass area used to store the boat trailer are all located within the CPO boundary on land acquired by the LDA.

7.107 The proposal includes a secure trailer storage area underneath the western landing structure. The applicant has also submitted boat and trailer swept path diagrams in order to demonstrate that the proposed layout of the H10 western landing would not physically prevent the ability of the EMRC to utilise and store the equipment they require in order to provide competitive and recreational rowing facilities. The boat swept path analysis indicates that a rowing eight has a maximum length of approximately 13.6m and could continue to be launched to the north of the proposed bridge within the remaining available frontage which appears to allow a minimum of 15m but up to 18m if a small pocket of undeveloped land to the north is also included (Attachment 1: Image 4). The trailer swept path analysis indicates that a trailer can be reversed into the proposed storage area underneath the western landing structure.

7.108 Although the ERMC have objected to the proposal in respect of a number of aspects, including the proposed removal of the existing fence and provision of a new publically accessible open space fronting onto the Lea Navigation, it is noted that they have not suggested that the proposed physical arrangement of the bridge itself presents a specific obstruction to the physical operation of the EMRC. They note that their operational area will be reduced but the submitted swept path analysis indicates that sufficient clearance has been allowed to allow continued movement of boats and equipment.

7.109 The primary objection is in relation to the impact the removal of the existing fence and gate will have on security and interface issues once open to the public with multiple users accessing the waterfront. The EMRC state that there will be insufficient space to undertaken maintenance work, adjustments to boats and movement of boats and that sharing this space will compromise such operations to the point where the EMRC would no longer be able to function safely.

7.110 Whist it is clear that in comparison to the current arrangements the proposed removal of the fence and intention to open up the waterfront to the public will have a discernable impact on the method and management of operations undertaken by the EMRC, it cannot be said that the H10 proposals physically preclude the ability for the EMRC to continue its operations. Sufficient clearances have been allowed and additional storage provision proposed underneath the bridge structure.

7.111 The EMRC currently has a secure waterfront site with a frontage of over 20m and enjoy the continuing benefit of structures and land no longer within their ownership, but which are located within the CPO area acquired by the LDA. Although officers are cognisant of the operational requirements of the EMRC, a reasonable balance needs to be struck between the need for periodic access by the EMRC to the canal, and the weight of planning policy which requires that LPA’s should seek the enhancement of London’s waterways. The Blue Ribbon Network policies within the adopted regional spatial strategy, the London Plan, requires that LPA’s protect and enhance the Blue Ribbon Network as part of the public realm, both when formulating policy and in determining applications. The London Plan specifically notes that the Blue ribbon Network should be accessible for everyone as part of London’s public realm.

7.112 Policy 4C.11 of the London Plan requires that LPA’s should protect and improve existing access points to, alongside and over the Blue Ribbon Network. New sections to extend existing or create new walking and cycling routes alongside the Blue Ribbon Network as well as new access points should be provided as part of development proposals for Opportunity Areas, especially in areas of deficiency.

7.113 Although not included within the submitted scheme, the applicant has agreed, in discussion with the LDA and OPLC, to incorporate a gate between the lift lobby and boathouse lean-to to allow the waterside to be secured. The applicant proposes to bring forward proposals for submission of the gate to the PDT in future.

7.114 The PDT has sent correspondence to the applicant indicating that Officers would not be minded to support the construction of a fence which would entirely exclude public access from the waterfront. Officers consider that there are options to secure and manage public access to the canal side at those times when EMRC does require access, but that these would require commitments by the land owner with respect to the management of this space and any potential fence/gate.

7.115 LBH Core Strategy Policy 28 (Water and Waterways) encourages where appropriate that public access, continuous green links and towpaths along the waterfront should be maintained, improved and extended for the purposes of nature conservation, leisure, recreation, education and economic activity.

7.116 Although alternate management and security measures will need to be employed by the EMRC to adapt the change in circumstances it cannot be considered that the physical arrangements of the proposed bridge are so significant as to negate the minimum clearances required in order to continue to operate a rowing club, operation will however be contingent on shared waterfront access. The general arrangements are therefore considered to represent a reasonable balance between public access to the waterfront and continuing the operation of a club which offers recreational and active use of a London waterway and is therefore considered to be in accordance with LB Hackney UDP Policies EQ1, OS6, OS9, OS12, OS13 and the aspirations of the Hackney Wick Area Action Plan which proposes the ‘opening up of a footpath on the western side of the Hackney Cut from the railway bridge to the Eastway’.

7.117 Interface with LTGDC public realm enhancement works along Wallis Road: LTGDC have responded noting that they are leading on public realm enhancements along Wallis Road which are due to commence in December 2010. The LTGDC have noted that the material palettet has not yet been fixed for the Hackney Wick/Fish Island public realm and strategic connections projects and an indicative palette has been provided of Granite kerbs, raised parking bays and crossovers in granite blocks, Artificial Stone Paving footways and semi-mature tree planting of potential London Plane trees with grille or surround.

7.118 The LTGDC have noted that the materials are intended as a guide and request that any planning consent include a requirement for a review of the materials palette and details to be undertaken closer to implementation as a condition of the consent. It is noted that the proposed western approaches surface material is granite

7.119 A condition is recommended requiring further submission of landscape details and details and samples of street furniture and surfacing materials.

7.120 Safety and Security: LB Hackney, BEAP and the Metropolitan Police have raised concerns in relation to the potential that the unsupervised lift at the H10 western approach may be subject to vandalism, compromise user safety particularly at night and also act as a ‘crime generator and attract increased levels of anti social behaviour’.

7.121 The Multi-Use Sports Venue (MUSV) is a flexible 6,000 seat legacy structure located within PDZ 5. The most proximate link to the MUSV from the Hackney Wick overland station would be the proposed H10 Bridge, the eastern extent of the bridge application site is located approximately 70m from the day-to-day entrance of the MUSV.

7.122 Without taking into account high volume Legacy events, it is anticipated that the MUSV would be utilised on a day-to-day basis during legacy as a community sporting facility with occasional use for alternative events such as concerts. The documents submitted in support of the MUSV application set out that demand assessments concluded that there was expected to be sufficient demand to for regular spectator events using up to 3,000 seats, with the need to use up to 6,000 seats for more infrequent use. The internal

arrangements of the MUSV also allow the possibility of three different sports to be run on the field of play at one time during day-to-day Legacy use.

7.123 The MUSV facility was designed to complement surrounding development within Hackney Wick and the Olympic Park and to also act as a catalyst for maximising usage and regeneration potential within the vicinity. The MUSV committee report set out that one of the design objectives was to create a facility that would form ‘part of a new neighbourhood, thereby developing a ‘life’ that attracts usage during the day and the evening throughout the week’.

7.124 It is considered that the H10 Bridge needs to be viewed within the context of the approved legacy MUSV, with each development enabling and facilitating increased usage of the other. As such it cannot be considered that the current low footfall levels along Wallis Road are indicative of the post-Games or Legacy situations and it is reasonable to assume, based on the demand assessments undertaken to support the MUSV, that contingent on the implementation of the H10 Bridge that Wallis Road will become a significantly more heavily utilised thoroughfare.

7.125 The H10 Bridge is additionally the western connection to the primary axial East-West Strategic route through the Olympic Park. The route commences in the west at the H10 Bridge, travelling alongside the proposed MUSV Access Road (to the north of the MUSV), crossing Waterden Road at a signalised crossing (as approved under the Waterden Road application) and continuing through the permanent parklands over a reduced width Transformation Bridge F03. The route then continues running to the north and parallel with MR1/Park Street/Frigoscandia Way and then crosses the intersection of Temple Mill Lane and North Avenue and continues on-carriageway over the Lea Valley Line across the Temple Mill Lane Bridge/Stratford City Bridge 1.

7.126 The architectural design of the proposed H10 lift, with the west (front) and east (back) elevations fully glazed, will allow clear sightlines through and into the structure from Wallis Road and from bridge users approaching from the east and is therefore, considered to increase passive surveillance into the lift from surrounding development and the street. It is acknowledged however that there may be periods prior to the re-opening of the Olympic Park or during early phases of post-Games and Legacy phases in which supplemental interim security measures may be required. It is noted that the Metropolitan Police have not objected to the development, but have requested that a condition be imposed requiring that the bridge operators demonstrate what measure or mitigations will be introduced. The Metropolitan Police note that they would envisage that any such measures could be reduced as surrounding areas are developed. A modified form of Condition LTD.5 specifically requiring submission of security and safety measures in conjunction with the requirements of LTD.5 is recommended.

7.127 The proposed H10 bridge can be considered to provide a significant new link within reasonable proximity of existing residential communities at Lea Bank square and existing residential developments which border the AAP identified Hackney Wick Hub Area located at the western end of Wallis Road at its intersection with Berkshire Road and further north. Although the current

7.128 It is considered that within the context of the proposed general arrangements for the H10 western approach, the likely day to day usage of the approved Legacy MUSV and the approved post-Games Transformation Parklands and Public Realm and Highways applications prioritisation of the East-West pedestrian and cycle route extending from Bridge H10 to Stratford City Bridge 1 (LB Waltham Forest) that the proposed H10 bridge will reinforce the objectives of PPG 1, policies EQ1 and EQ48 of the LB Hackney UDP , Policy 24 Design of the developing LB Hackney Core Strategy and London Plan Policy 4B.1.

Inclusive Access

7.129 Graded routes are DDA compliant and include level landings and rest areas with seating. The bridges have been through the applicant’s client review process and signed off by the ODA Inclusive Access Officer.

Flood Risk 7.130 In compliance with part (iii) of condition OD.0.19, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is provided in support of the application. A Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out relative to the approved Flood Risk Assessment (October 2008).

7.131 The results of the modelling indicate that the abutment positions and soffit levels will have a minimal impact on flow within the River Lea Navigation and this minimal impact will be restricted to directly upstream of the bridge. Any change in flood risk elsewhere, within or outside of the Olympic Park, as a result of Bridges H10 and H14 is likely to be negligible.

7.132 The EA have been consulted and have raised no objection. Amended plans have been received which indicate that the lift motor room finished floor levels have been raised to address the comments of the EA. It is considered that the proposed bridges are in accordance with the requirements of PPS 25.

7.133 Sustainability & Potential adaptability of the bridges for highway use: LB Newham and LB Tower Hamlets have stated that the proposed bridges should be capable of adaption and/or provide enabling infrastructure such as foundations, abutments and retaining approaches for the highway bridges required pursuant to Condition LTD.30 and to not do so would appear to be somewhat unsustainable. As set out above at Sections 2 and 7 the geometry of the proposed Bridge H10 and H14 are outside the parameters originally approved in the Olympic and Legacy Facilities planning permission 07/90010/OUMODA.

7.134 Officers consider that taking into account the geometric constraints of the H10 western approach, the requirement to resolve the H14 eastern approach in line with future LMF development, the current status of Local Development Framework documents within Fish Island and Hackney Wick and ongoing LMF work, that it would be premature to require that the proposed western bridges integrate highway geometry and loading considerations.

7.135 LTD.30 requires the development of a highway bridges at H10, H14 and H16 prior to occupation of buildings within development platforms within PDZ 4 and PDZ 5 and will be the mechanism and obligation by which highway bridges are delivered at these locations.

7.136 Deferring the design and implementation of the LTD.21 required bridges in order to allow time for AAPs and Development Briefs to be evolved/catch-up for surrounding and adjoining sites in Hackney Wick and Fish Island would be unacceptable to the PDT as this would put the timely implementation of pedestrian and cycle bridges, required to enhance western connectivity into the park once it is open to the public, at significant risk. The western bridges are required to be open by mid-2013 or western connectivity would be perceptibly disadvantaged.

7.137 The bridges are designed as pedestrian and cycle bridges and as such are not capable of adaptation in terms of being directly modified into highway bridges. However, it is considered that there is potential for the re-use of bridge components in other locations. CABE, in supporting the design of the bridges as high quality interventions have stated that it would be regrettable if the well-designed bridges went to waste and that the potential to disassemble and re-use them elsewhere should be considered.

7.138 The applicant has noted that it is possible for the bridges to be separated from their concrete abutments and re-used in another location. ‘In the event that the bridges are to be relocated in the future, they can be separated from the supporting concrete abutments relatively easily. The bridges would then need to be dismantled into manageable

segments, transported to their new locations and reconnected to the new concrete abutments’.

7.139 The applicant has stated however that ‘A precise re-use strategy cannot be developed when a destination and relocation site is unknown’. Officers agree that the principle of relocation of bridge components is realistic, with re-use and re-location of a bridge structure already approved to form the temporary Stratford High Street Bridge.

7.140 Officers support the design and construction of pedestrian and cycle bridges as robust and of permanent structures as a clear demonstration of commitment to connectivity rather than a temporary bridge design. The bridges are designed to be fully adoptable and the quality of all materials and finishes as well as the standard of detailing commensurate with that of permanent footbridges in the Olympic Park. The potential re-use of components is considered to be in accordance with London Plan policy 4B.1 and LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy policy S03.

7.141 The OLF planning permission and the accompanying section 106 agreement set out a range of site wide and venue specific sustainability targets. The applicant has confirmed that the western bridges are designed with regard to the following ODA Sustainable Development principles:

7.142 Materials: Secondary and recycled material will be used in order to meet the site wide minimum target of 20% by value. Concrete specifications are to comply with those required to achieve the recycled content targets in concrete.

7.143 Construction: The project will comply with the Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) approved by the Planning Decisions Team on 21st December 2007 and aims to secure a minimum rating of “Very Good” from the Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme (CEEQUAL).

7.144 Waste: Waste will be managed in accordance with the approved Construction Waste Management Plan. The management of waste arising from the construction and design of the Western Bridges will be expected to be in accordance with and contribute towards the following site-wide objectives: re-use or recycle 90% of on-site demolition waste; Design to minimise waste; achievement of maximum practicable reuse, recovery and recycling of construction waste.

7.145 It is considered that sustainable design and construction methods outlined in the planning statement which are to be utilised in the construction of the western bridges are appropriate and are generally in line with site wide sustainability targets.

7.146 Foundations and Remediation: A Piling Method Statement in accordance with condition OD.0.59 of the OLF permission has been submitted to ensure there is no risk to human health or contamination of controlled waters. The use of continuous flight augured piling methods for the construction of the bridge abutments is considered to be acceptable.

7.147 It is considered that the Piling Method Statement adequately assesses the environmental concerns regarding piling associated with this development. The Environment Agency and LB Hackney and LB Tower Hamlets EHO departments have raised no objections to the details provided and it is noted that the applicant will be required to submit a piling risk assessment to the EA outside of the planning process prior to the commencement of works.

7.148 The purpose of Condition OD.0.59 is to avoid risk to human health or contamination of controlled waters and the pilling method statement achieves this safeguard.

7.149 H10 and H14 are partially located within sub-zones 4 and 5. Although the application is submitted as a slot-in application regard has been given to the requirements of Conditions

SP.0.33 ‘Site Specific Remediation Strategy’ (SSRS) and SP.0.34 ‘Remediation Method Statement’ of the SP Permission.

7.150 Bridge H10 and H14 Bridge Abutment Position Papers have been submitted in relation to the western approach areas of each bridge. The SSRS for PDZs 4 and 5 do not cover the western approach areas and the papers seek to set out the remediation position in the absence of an SSRS. The papers conclude that there will be no unacceptable risk to human health as a result of the proposals, providing there is a presence of >0.6m of suitable fill and/or the presence of hardstanding. Any areas not covered by hard standing are proposed to include suitable fill material compliant with the human health criteria and the controlled waters criteria provided in the Paper and in agreed SSRSs for PDZs 4 and 5.

7.151 A condition is recommended to allow minor detailed matters to be resolved in relation to the position papers. Generally, it is considered that the submitted foundation details for Bridges H10 and H14 satisfy the requirements of condition OD.0.59 of the 2007 OLF permission.

8. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

8.1 Members should take account of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 as they relate to the application and the conflicting interests of the Applicants and any third party opposing the application in reaching their decisions. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report. In particular, Article 8, of the ECHR in relation to the right to respect for private and family life and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR in relation to the protection of property have been taken into account.

9. CONCLUSION

9.1 The proposed bridges will provide key new connections for local residents living in the western communities to the venues and open space within the Post-Games Transformation Olympic Park. It is considered that the design, modulation, grain and scale of the proposed western bridge represent a refined response to context which will provide a pair of well considered and sympathetic new public realm and bridge insertions within Fish Island and Hackney Wick. Within their context the proposed bridges are considered to respect local context, character and communities and create and enhance the visual amenity of each site.

9.2 The assessment and consideration of this application concludes that the timely and detailed development of the PGT works will ensure that the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics and Paralympics will be maximised, in accordance with Section 5(5) b) of the Olympic Act, and become available for public access at the earliest opportunity.

9.3 It is recommended that full planning permission be approved for Bridges H10 and H14 subject to conditions and informatives.

10. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 The Committee is asked to:

i) Agree the reasons for APPROVAL; and

ii) Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Definitions: Games means the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and the period which they will be held. Post-Games Transformation Phase means the period beginning with the end of the Games Phase and ending on 31 December 2014.

Time Limit WB.1. The Development shall be commenced in Planning Delivery Zones 2 and 4 before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Approvals in writing WB.2. Any application or submission for any approval pursuant to these conditions shall be made in writing to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that a proper record is kept.

Works in accordance with approvals WB.3. Unless minor amendments are otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority and to the extent that it does not deviate from this Permission, the development shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers:

Drawing Number Revision 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DDE-4006 Rev P02 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DDE-4007 Rev P02 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DSE-4001 Rev P01 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DDE-4004 Rev P02 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DDE-4008 Rev P02 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DLO-4001 Rev P02 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DLO-4002 Rev P02 0239-SBH-BGR-A-DLO-4003 Rev P01 0239-SBH-H10-A-DSP-4001 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H10-A-DSP-4002 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H10-A-DSP-4003 Rev P01 0239-SBH-H10-A-DSE-4006 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H10-A-DSE-4007 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H10-A-DGA-4002 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H10-A-DSE-4008 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H10-A-DSE-4009 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H10-A-DGA-4003 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H10-A-DSE-4010 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSP-5002 Rev P01 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSP-4002 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSP-4001 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSE-4007 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSE-4008 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DGA-4001 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DGA-4002 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSE-4006 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSE-4009 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSE-4011 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DGA-4004 Rev P02 0239-SBH-H14-A-DSE-4010 Rev P02

and the description of development contained in the application and any other approved plans, drawings, documents, details, schemes or strategies which have been approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to these conditions. All permanent works shall be retained in accordance with that approval thereafter, except and to the extent that these are expressly to be altered after the Games.

Reason: To ensure that all works are properly implemented and retained.

Management, maintenance and security measures WB.4. Before 31 December 2011, overall arrangements for the management, public use and maintenance of the bridge, lift, open space and public realm within the Site are to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The detail submitted pursuant to this condition shall specifically address the following in relation to Bridges H10 and H14:

i. Safety and Security: Measures that the party responsible for the bridges and lift will implement to address security and safety issues, including consideration of a security management plan or technical solutions including consideration of the feasibility of linking the H10 lift by audio and CCTV to a centrally monitored location linked to park operations enabling call outs in the case of failure or emergencies; ii. Lift Maintenance: Consideration of how the lift will be specifically maintained in order to ensure repairs are undertaken in a timely manner and reduce the unavailability of the lift in the event of failure; iii. Hours: Details of the proposed ‘opening hours’ of the lift and land to which the public has access within the Site.

The details so approved shall be implemented upon the opening of the bridges.

Reason: To ensure appropriate arrangements for public access, maintenance and management and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.5 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA and

Full details of lighting: Bridge H10 WB.5. Prior to the commencement of works, other than those associated with remediation, substructure or surface water drainage, or by December 2010, whichever is the earlier, details of the height, design and appearance of all lighting units, including columns, fixtures and luminaires shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

The details submitted shall include samples, confirmation of light outputs, spread, hours of operation, a statement of compliance with the approved Lighting Strategy (approved pursuant to condition OD.0.35 of permission reference 07/90010/OUMODA or any subsequent amendments). All lighting shall be installed and retained in accordance with the approved details unless minor variations are agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

The details submitted shall include:

i. Integral lighting within the superstructure of the bridge specifically recessed LED luminaires set flush into the inner face of the box beams and running parallel to the sloping top of the beam; ii. The lighting of landscaped areas in coordination with columns proposed in the Olympic Park PPR areas and how this will be coordinated/integrated with the scope of proposed LTGDC public realm improvements within western approach area; iii. Low level towpath and towpath abutment lighting specifically underneath bridge decks; iv. Appropriate levels of lighting within and surrounding the H10 lift structure in order to enhance security and passive surveillance,

Reason: To ensure high standards of the design and implementation of lighting design and to ensure that lighting is integral to structures and landscaping, minimise light pollution and to appropriately dovetail with conditions OD.0.20, OD.0.28 and LTD.1.11 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA

Full details of lighting: Bridge H14 WB.6. Prior to the commencement of works, other than those associated with remediation, substructure or surface water drainage, or by December 2010, whichever is the earlier, details of the height, design and appearance of all lighting units, including columns, fixtures and luminaires shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

The details submitted shall include:

i. Integral lighting within the superstructure of the bridge specifically recessed LED luminaires set flush into the inner face of the box beams and running parallel to the sloping top of the beam; ii. The lighting of landscaped areas in coordination with columns proposed in the Olympic Park PPR areas; iii. Low level towpath and towpath abutment lighting specifically underneath bridge decks; iv. Means of protecting the amenity of occupiers of adjoining residential development to the north of Bridge H14 (Crown Wharf properties/Omega Works).

Tow path hard surfacing within the extent of the application boundary WB.7. Prior to the commencement of works, other than those associated with remediation, substructure or surface water drainage, details of the finish and surfacing to be implemented along tow paths, specifically underneath bridge decks, on both banks of the Lea Navigation shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

All surfacing shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless minor variations are agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure high standards of the design and implementation of landscaping and the public realm and to appropriately dovetail with conditions OD.0.28 permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA

Details of H10 Screen Wall WB.8. Prior to the commencement of works, other than those associated with remediation, substructure or surface water drainage, details of the H10 western approach screen wall shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall include a sample. The screen wall shall be installed and retained in accordance with the approved details unless minor variations are agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure high standards of the design and implementation of design and to ensure that and to appropriately dovetail with conditions OD.0.20, OD.0.28 and LTD.1.11 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA

Details of H14 Interface WB.9. Notwithstanding the approved details, prior to the commencement of works, other than those associated with remediation, substructure or surface water drainage, details of the H14 western approach southern boundary treatment shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall include a sample. The boundary treatment shall be installed and retained in accordance with the approved details unless minor variations are agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Wayfinding Strategy WB.10. Before 30 December 2011, a Wayfinding Strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Wayfinding Strategy shall have been prepared, in consultation with the Host Boroughs, Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, Transport for London, the Built Environment Access Panel and the ODA Access and Inclusion Forum. The Strategy shall have regard to the Inclusive Design Objectives of the Inclusive Access Strategy approved pursuant to Condition OD.0.12. It shall contain details of how it relates and integrates appropriately with the wayfinding proposals and strategy for the Stratford City Development and the Greenway.

All measures contained within the approved Wayfinding Strategy and which are within the 07/90010/OUMODA application site shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to the re-opening of the Olympic Park to the general public after the close of the Games (unless alternative phasing has been agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing) and retained thereafter unless other minor variations are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a high level of legibility and access throughout the Park.

Wayfinding details: Waterways WB.11. Before 30 December 2011, details of a scheme to aid navigation and wayfinding for users of the Lea navigation shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The details shall include how colour, design or signage will be used to aid wayfinding and navigation from the water and along tow paths.

Reason: To ensure a high level of legibility along waterways and towpaths throughout the Park.

Protecting design quality WB.12. Prior to submission of details required by conditions WB.5, WB.6, WB.8, WB.9, WB.13 and WB.14 a statement shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority specifying how the design team for the approved scheme has been retained in connection with the details submitted.

All details submitted to the Local Planning Authority pursuant to Conditions WB.5, WB.6, WB.8, WB.9, WB.13 and WB.14 of this planning submission shall be accompanied by a statement specifying how the design architect of the scheme approved has been involved in the preparation of these details and their implementation.

Reason: In recognition of the importance of safeguarding the high quality of the design of the development supported by CABE and in accordance with Paragraph 34 of Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development which require that planning authorities should plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development and pursuant to section 39(2A) of the 2004 Act to have particular regard to the desirability of achieving good design in the exercise of certain of its planning functions.

Materials & Details: Hardworks WB.13. Prior to the commencement of works, other than those associated with remediation, substructure or surface water drainage, detailed drawings and sections (annotated with materials and finishes) at a scale to be agreed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

These drawings shall include:

i. Drawings showing the final details of the tapered box beams including how lighting will be incorporated, ii. Drawings showing the bridge to approach interface/junction, including the tapered box beam to guardings and bridge deck to abutments; iii. Samples and drawings showing the final detailed specification of the means of fixing the bridge parapet to bridge deck and guardings and handrails to stairs and landings; iv. Samples and drawings of the size, type and appearance of painted steel doors to boat trailer store, fence, gates and doors and fence panels at H10 eastern approach over water mains; v. Samples and drawings showing the final detailed specification of the lift structure, including steel lift shaft structure and glazing; vi. Samples and drawings of the size, type and appearance of all paving or other hard surfaces, including a sample the final detailed specification of the deck surface material and surface material at grade; vii. Details and samples of fascias to dwarf walls and vertical planting structures; viii. Details and samples of bridge abutments and retaining walls; ix. Full details of street furniture proposed; x. Details of the means by which installed remediation measures are to be safeguarded.

The details shall have regard to how selected elements will be coordinated with those of the proposed LTGDC public realm improvements within western approach areas.

The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the detailed design of these elements is satisfactory.

Landscaping: Soft Works WB.14. Prior to planting work commencing of all soft landscaping, the phasing of the planting including:

(i.) the finished ground levels and proposed drainage arrangements; (ii.) the means by which installed remediation measures are to be safeguarded; (iii.) the phasing of the planting (iv.) all fences, gates and other structures to be installed or modified; (v.) the location and species of all trees and other vegetation to be retained;

(vi.) proposed planting, including species, size and provenance, in respect of a soil source compatible to that on the site, of stock and planting densities; (vii.) specifications for planting and cultivation; and (viii.) management arrangements.

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

All planting shall be carried out in accordance with the phasing details submitted and shall be maintained until those areas are transferred to a long term management body after the Legacy Transformation phase. Maintenance shall include replacement of any area of planting that dies, is removed or becomes damaged or diseased. Replacement shall be with a similar species and size.

Reason: To ensure high standards of design and implementation of landscaping and the public realm.

Surface Water Drainage WB.15. Before any permanent surface or foul water drainage infrastructure is installed, details of all on and off-site works for the provision of that infrastructure to be constructed, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Surface water drainage system details shall be based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development. These shall ensure that any storm water flows are properly attenuated where required before discharge to any public sewer or watercourse. The surface water drainage system shall be designed in accordance with the Olympic Park Surface Water Drainage Planning Submission Statement (March 08) and the Olympic Park Surface Water Drainage Technical Design Strategy (March 08). The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding and ensure that environmental standards including sustainable drainage objectives are met and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.22 of permission ref. 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.23 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

H14 Legacy Link Scheme WB.16. By 31 December 2011 a H14 Legacy Link Scheme (being the link between Bridge H14 and Bridge L03 Link) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, such scheme to include the following:

a) consideration of how the H14 Legacy Link Scheme integrates with the scheme required pursuant to Condition 1 of 09/9017/AODODA; b) the phasing (including the submission of details and/or parameters and the implementation proposals) of the H14 Legacy Link Scheme (or such alternative scheme which may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

All parameter plans and sections, or horizontal and vertical alignments, to be provided as part of the H14 Legacy Link Scheme shall be at a scale to be agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority.

The H14 Legacy Link Scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and phasing (unless minor variations are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and the H14 Legacy Link Scheme shall be made available for use in accordance the approved details.

Reason: To ensure appropriate transport provision and safeguarding and implementation of Bridge L03 in accordance with Condition 1 of 09/9017/AODODA and to dovetail with Condition LTD.30 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Amendment to PDZ 4 Stitch WB.17. By 31 December 2010 a Bridge H14 to PDZ 4 Stitch Integration Scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

The Bridge H14 to PDZ 4 Stitch Integration Scheme submitted shall re-align the PDZ 4 Stitch approved pursuant to 09/90408/AODODA in reference with the Bridge H14 eastern approach ramp exit onto the Southern Loop Road in a manner which provides a coordinated and direct route from the bridge exit to the stitch.

All measures contained within the approved Bridge H14 to PDZ 4 Stitch Integration Scheme shall be provided in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter unless other minor variations are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enhance connectivity and legibility between Fish Island and the Olympic Park.

Fences, walls and other means of enclosure WB.18. No fences, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the site at any time without the prior approval of the LPA. None of the rights contained in Part 2 Class A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 shall be exercised, unless the approval of the Local Planning Authority has first been obtained.

Reason: To provide control over development including gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure.

WB.19. Before 31 December 2010, details of any perimeter security fencing to be erected, including its location, height, form of construction and the intended length of time it will remain in place, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the environmental or other impacts of the security fencing are minimised and dovetail with Condition OD.0.48 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Code of Construction Practice WB.20. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP) approved under condition OD.0.6 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Reason: To ensure that the construction of the Development uses best practicable means to minimise adverse environmental impacts and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.6 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Code of Construction Practice and Subsidiary Documents WB.21. All development shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Construction Practice approved under permission ref. 07/90011/FUMODA and permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA with all Project, Contractor or Topical Environmental Management Plans, referred to in that Code of Construction Practice including those approved in accordance with Conditions SP.0.6 to SP.0.9 inclusive of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and Conditions OD.0.5 to OD.0.7 inclusive of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Reason: To ensure that all elements of an approved Code of Construction Practice are properly applied and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.5 of permission ref. 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.7 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Construction Programme WB.22. All development shall be undertaken in accordance with the latest Phasing and Construction Programme submitted to the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition OD.0.8 and OD.0.14 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Reason: To inform the Local Planning Authority and facilitate the orderly approach to construction of the development and to appropriately dovetail with conditions OD.0.8 and OD.0.14 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Design and Access Statement WB.23. The design of the details of the development reserved under this permission and which are required to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, shall be in accordance with the Design and Access Statement which accompanied the application for this permission

Reason: To ensure that high standards of urban design are met

Biodiversity Action Plan

WB.24. All development shall comply with any relevant provisions of the Biodiversity Action Plan, approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition OD.0.11 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Reason: To help achieve biodiversity objectives and protect habitats and species and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.11 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Inclusive Access Strategy WB.25. All development shall be undertaken in accordance with the Inclusive Access Strategy approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition OD.0.12 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Reason: To ensure that the inclusive access commitments are met and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.12 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Building Height Limits WB.26. Without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority, no temporary or permanent building, including any crane, aerial or antenna shall be erected which exceeds the height of 154.95 metres AOD.

Reason: To ensure that operations at London City Airport are safeguarded and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.15 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Permitted Development WB.27. Notwithstanding the provisions of Parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, no part of the Site shall be used for the stationing of sleeping accommodation for site workers, unless the approval of the Local Planning Authority has first been obtained.

Reason: To provide control over use of the Site during construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.45 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

WB.28. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4 Class A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, no land outside but adjoining the Site shall be used for the provision of temporary buildings, works, plant or construction machinery, unless the approval of the Local Planning Authority has first been obtained

Reason: To provide control over the use of land adjoining the Site during construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.46 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

WB.29. None of the rights contained in Part 4 Class B of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 shall be exercised, unless the approval of the Local Planning Authority has first been obtained.

Reason: To provide control over potential temporary uses and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.47 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Commencement Notice WB.30. The Local Planning Authority shall be notified, at least one week in advance, that development under this permission is to commence.

Reason: To assist in checking that conditions have been met.

Statutory Undertakers’ Equipment WB.31. Unless otherwise agreed, no works within the Site, shall be undertaken in any areas affected unless the consultations with, notifications to or requirements of the statutory undertakers set out in annex 2 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA, have been observed and any necessary protective measures agreed with the relevant statutory undertakers.

Reason: To ensure that statutory undertakers’ equipment is safeguarded and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.29 of permission ref. 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.27 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Hours of Work WB.32. For any works undertaken prior to the Games, the normal hours of construction work shall be 07.00 to 18.00 on Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 14.00 on Saturdays. Public and Bank Holidays are to be treated as Saturdays and unless otherwise approved by the Local Authority under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 there shall be no work on Sundays. Construction activities that elevate noise levels, measured as LAeq (1hr) by more than 1dB above the ambient level at the façade of any noise sensitive premises, may only take place outside the normal hours of work, where these construction activities have been approved by the Local Authority under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

Reason: To protect the amenities and environment of local residents and other sensitive receptors and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.24 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.29 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Section 61 Control of Pollution WB.33. For any works undertaken prior to the Games, Except in accordance with an approval by the Local Authority, under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, the start up and shut down periods shall be 06.30 to 07.00 and 18.00 to 18.30 respectively on Monday to Friday and 06.30 to 07.00 and 14.00 to 14.30 on Saturdays. Public and Bank Holidays to be treated as Saturdays and there shall be no start up and shut down periods on Sundays. The following activities shall be permitted during start up and shut down periods: movement of construction personnel to and from Site, movement of plant to and from Site, unloading and maintenance of plant and equipment.

Reason: To protect the amenities and environment of local residents and other sensitive receptors and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.25 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.30 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Delivery Arrangements WB.34. For any works undertaken prior to the Games, all deliveries to the Site or removal of materials from the Site during the construction of the development shall take place during the hours and in the manner specified in the Construction Transport Management Plan approved pursuant to condition SP.0.6 of permission ref 07/9011/FUMODA.

Reason: To protect the amenities and environment of local residents and others and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.26 of Permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.31 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Protection of tree and habitats WB.35. The trees to be retained and existing habitats shown on a plan OLY-GLB-ILL-DWG-STW- SPC-IND-001, Rev 6, approved pursuant to permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA, or any replacement plan approved by the Local Planning Authority, shall be safeguarded until those areas are transferred to a long term management body, after the Games and Legacy Transformation. No retained tree shall be lopped or felled without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that trees and habitats are protected.

Replacement of Trees WB.36. Any tree or shrub planted as part of any landscaping scheme approved pursuant to condition WB.15 that, within a period of five years, is removed, dies or become seriously damage or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with a specimen of an appropriate size and the same species as originally present or planted in the next available planting season, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that trees and landscaping are properly maintained and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.33 of ODA permission re 07/90010/OUMODA.

Approval of On-Site Construction Facilities WB.37. For any works undertaken prior to the Games, Before any of the following construction facilities is installed, or bought into use on site, details of the siting and dimensions of that construction facility shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:  prefabricated buildings greater than two storeys or a footprint of 200 sq.metres within 100m of the Site;  concrete batching plant;  waste sorting and despatch facilities; and  parking areas for more than ten contractors’ plant or vehicles within 100 metres of the Site.

If, following approval, any of the facilities needs to be moved, the Local Planning Authority shall be given 14 days notice of any intended move. Unless the Local Planning Authority gives notice to the contrary within that period, the move can take place. Across the Olympic Park site as a whole, no more than 250 parking spaces for construction workers’ motor cars and vans used to travel to the Olympic Park, but to which access is not otherwise required when the vehicle is on the Olympic Park, shall be provided, at any one time, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and others and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.41 of Permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.34 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Discharge of Remediation Conditions Protocol WB.38. Unless otherwise agreed, all remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the Site Preparation Discharge of Remediation Conditions Protocol, included at Annex 5 to permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA.

Reason: To ensure that all Remediation Works are properly carried out and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.30 of permission ref 07/90011.

Global Remediation Strategy WB.39. All Remediation Works shall be undertaken in accordance with the Global Remediation Strategy (GRS) approved pursuant to permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA.

Reason: To ensure that all Remediation Works are properly carried out and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.31 of permission ref 07/90011.

Intrusive Investigation Method Statement WB.40. For any works undertaken prior to the Games, unless otherwise agreed, remediation Works shall not be commenced until the Intrusive Investigation Method Statement (IIMS) which relates to the intrusive site investigations to be undertaken in the Site, or an addendum to that approved under condition SP.0.32 of permission 07/90011/FUMODA which relates to the new formation levels approved by this permission, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that all Remediation Works are properly carried out and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.32 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA.

Site Specific Remediation Strategy WB.41. For any works undertaken prior to the Games, Unless otherwise agreed, remediation Works shall not be commenced until the Site Specific Remediation Strategy (SSRS) covering the Site or an addendum to the SSRS for this Site which has previously been approved pursuant to condition SP.0.33 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and which covers the Strategy for the remediation of the new formation levels approved under this permission, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Within 12 weeks of remediation commencing, any additional site investigations undertaken, not detailed in the IIMS or its addendum , are to be reported in the relevant SSRS or RMS with a full review and update of the outline conceptual site model.

Reason: To ensure that all Remediation Works are properly carried out and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.33 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA.

Position Papers WB.42. Unless otherwise agreed, remediation Works shall not be commenced until the H10 Bridge Abutment Position Paper and H14 Bridge Abutment Position Paper for Planning Delivery Zones 4 and 5 or an addendum to the Position Papers has been approved by the Local Planning Authority. Monthly progress reports shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority during the Remediation Works.

Reason: To ensure that all Remediation Works are properly carried out and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.34 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA.

Validation of Remediation Works WB.43. Unless otherwise agreed, validation of the Remediation Works for the purposes of human health protection must be provided within one month of completion of the Enabling Works Protection Layer within the Site. When all Remediation Works necessary for the protection of human health are completed within the Site, a consolidated Validation Report drawing together the Planning Delivery Sub-Zone validations shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This shall include detailed topographic mapping of the as-built ground levels. Validation of the Remediation Works for the protection of controlled waters shall be undertaken on completion of the relevant Remediation Works relating to controlled waters and a Validation Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for the Site.

Reason: To ensure that all Remediation is properly validated and recorded and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.35 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA.

Protection and Validation of Remediation

WB.44. Validation of the Remediation Works for the purposes of human health protection must be provided within 2 months of completion of the Final Build Layer within the Site. When all works for the protection of human health are completed within these Planning Delivery Zones, consolidated validation reports, drawing together the Construction Zone validations, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. This shall include topographic mapping of the final finished ground levels.

Reason: To ensure the protection of human health and avoidance of pollution of controlled waters and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.35 of Permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.36 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Remediation Monitoring WB.45. Approved post-remediation monitoring and maintenance of the Remediated Land shall continue, as set out in the validation reports, until such dates or events as are approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of human health and avoidance of pollution of controlled waters and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.37 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Unexpected Contamination WB.46. If at any time during the construction of the Site, contamination is encountered which was not previously identified or treated or has been brought to the surface by construction activity, construction work in that Construction Zone shall not proceed (except to the extent that it would not further disturb that contamination) until a Remediation Change Note, containing an assessment of that contamination and a scheme and timetable to contain, treat or remove it has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and any necessary remediation has been carried out.

Reason: To ensure the protection of human health and avoidance of pollution of controlled waters and to appropriately dovetail with conditions SP.0.36 of Permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.38 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Quality of Imported Fill WB.47. No soils or infill materials (including silt dredged from watercourses and crushed concrete or other aggregates), shall be imported onto the Site until it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that they present no risk to human health, planting and the environment. Documentary evidence to confirm the origin of all imported soils and infill materials, supported by appropriate chemical analysis test results, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to that import. The import onto the Site of material classified as ‘waste’ is only acceptable with the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that no contaminated material is brought onto Site and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.37 of Permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.39 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Construction Noise and Vibration WB.48. Development undertaken prior to the Games shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of a scheme for noise monitoring, assessment and mitigation for all construction plant and processes approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition SP.0.45 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.49 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and occupiers of other buildings and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.45 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.49 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Noise at Residential Properties WB.49. Noise levels at any occupied residential property due to construction or demolition shall not exceed 75dB LAeq (11 hour) measured at 1m from the façade of the nearest occupied property, during the hours from 07.00 to 18.00 Monday-Friday, 75dB LAeq (7 hour) during the hours from 07.00 to 14.00 on Saturday and Bank and Public Holidays and 65dB LAeq (1 hour) on Sunday, except with the prior approval of the Local Authority, under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act, 1974.

Reason: To ensure that best practicable means are used to reduce noise generated by construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.46 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.50 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Construction Work Noise WB.50. Noise from construction work shall give rise to noise levels no higher than 65dB LAeq (1 hour) and 70dB LAeq (1 minute) at any educational premises measured at 1m from the façade of the building during school hours in term time, except with the prior approval of the Local Authority under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

Reason: To ensure that best practicable means are used to reduce noise generated by construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.51 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Piling WB.51. No impact piling shall take place unless it has the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority and takes place in accordance with the terms of any such approval, or is in accordance with a consent issued under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act, 1974.

Reason: To avoid, wherever possible, unnecessary noise from piling operations and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.52 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Construction Vibration WB.52. The Development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the proposals and details approved by the Local Planning pursuant to condition 0D.0.53 of planning permission 07/90010/OUMODA with respect to vibration monitoring and where necessary mitigation or remedial measures.

Reason: To ensure that best practicable means are used to avoid damage or nuisance from vibration during construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.53 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Construction Dust WB.53. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of a scheme for dust monitoring, assessment and mitigation for all construction activities approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition SP.0.50 of permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.54 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and occupiers of other buildings and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.54 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Signage and Advertising WB.54. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007, no signs or advertisements, other than temporary directional signs agreed by the Construction Transport Management Group, shall be erected within the Site, without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide control over the size and design of signage and advertisements and to appropriately dovetail with condition OD.0.56 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Removal of Buildings and Equipment on Completion WB.55. At the completion of the development, all plant, temporary buildings, temporary fencing and other construction equipment not required for the Games shall be removed from the Site unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid unnecessary visual or other environmental impacts and to appropriately dovetail with condition SP.0.51 of Permission ref 07/90011/FUMODA and condition OD.0.57 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Security Arrangements WB.56. Before 31 December 2009, details of the proposed physical security arrangements to be installed for the Games within the Site, including any temporary buildings or fencing, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and users and to appropriately dovetail with condition OG.1 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Temporary Buildings WB.57. Before 31 December 2011, details of all temporary buildings or structures which are to be erected for the duration of the Games, including all those within the identified Front of House and Back of House areas, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate standards of design and construction are used and to appropriately dovetail with condition OG.3 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Removal of Temporary Games Facilities WB.58. No further use of the Site shall take place after 31 December 2013, unless all temporary buildings, spectator seating stands and associated structures and foundations, fences, signage and hard surface areas, including free-standing telecommunications masts and transmission equipment, erected for the Games have been removed.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.2 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

The following conditions relate to post-Games Transformation Phase:

Statutory Undertakers’ Equipment (PGT) WB.59. No works shall be undertaken during the Post-Games Transformation Phase in the areas affected unless the consultations with, notifications to or requirements of the statutory undertakers set out in annex 2 of permission ref. 07/90010/FUMODA, have been observed and any necessary protective measures agreed with the relevant statutory undertakers.

Reasons: To ensure that statutory undertakers’ equipment is safeguarded and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD 1.6 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Hours of Work (PGT) WB.60. The normal hours of construction work during the Post-Games Transformation Phase Development shall be 08.00 to 18.00 on Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays, other than on Bank or Public Holidays which shall be treated as Saturdays. There shall be no work on Sundays. Construction activities that elevate noise levels, measured as LAeq, 1hr, by more than 1dB above the ambient level at the façade of any noise sensitive premises may only take place outside the normal hours of work, where

these works have been approved by the Local Authority under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

Reason: To protect the amenities and environment of residents and other sensitive receptors and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.7 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Replacement of Trees (PGT) WB.61. Any tree or shrub planted as part of any landscaping scheme approved under Condition WB.15 of this permission (which is to be planted as part of or to be retained after completion of Post-Games Transformation Phase) that, within a period of five years after the completion of any Post-Games Transformation Phase, is removed, dies or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with a specimen of an appropriate size and the same species as originally present or planted in the next available planting season, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that trees and landscaping are properly maintained and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.9 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Approval of On-Site Construction Facilities (PGT) WB.62. Before any of the following construction facilities is installed during the Legacy Transformation Phase, or bought into use on Site, details of the siting and dimensions of that construction facility shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:  prefabricated buildings greater than two storeys or a footprint of 200 sq.metres within 100m of the boundary of the Site;  concrete batching plant;  waste sorting and despatch facilities; and  parking areas for more than ten contractors’ plant or vehicles within 100 metres of the Site boundary.

If, following approval, any of the facilities needs to be moved, the Local Planning Authority shall be given 14 days notice of any intended move. Unless the Local Planning Authority gives notice to the contrary within that period, the move can take place. Across the Olympic Park site, as a whole, no more than 250 parking spaces for construction workers’ motor cars and vans used to travel to the site, but to which access is not otherwise required when the vehicle is on site, shall be provided, at any one time, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and others and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.10 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Lighting Update (PGT) WB.63. Before the Post-Games Transformation Phase is commenced, details of any additions or external alterations to lighting within the Site, together with any necessary updates of the supporting details on lighting design approved pursuant to conditions WB.6 and WB.7 of this permission, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted shall be in accordance with the Lighting Strategy approved pursuant to condition OD.0.35 of planning permission 07/90010/OUMODA

Reason: To ensure high standards of urban design, minimise light pollution and safeguard the operations of London City Airport and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.11 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Remediation Monitoring (PGT) WB.64. Approved post-remediation monitoring and maintenance of the remediated land shall continue, as set out in the validation reports, until such dates or events as are approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of human health and avoidance of pollution of controlled waters and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.12 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Unexpected Contamination (PGT) WB.65. If at any time during the construction of the Post-Games Transformation Phase development , contamination is encountered which was not previously identified or treated or has been brought to the surface by construction activity, construction work in that Construction Zone shall not proceed (except to the extent that it would not further disturb that contamination) until a Remediation Change Note, containing an assessment of that contamination and a scheme and timetable to contain, treat or remove it has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and any necessary remediation has been carried out.

Reason: To ensure the protection of human health and avoidance of pollution of controlled waters and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.13 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Quality of Imported Fill (PGT) WB.66. No soils or infill materials (including silt dredged from watercourses and crushed concrete or other aggregates), shall be imported onto the Site until it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that they present no risk to human health, planting and the environment. Documentary evidence to confirm the origin of all imported soils and infill materials, supported by appropriate chemical analysis test results, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to that import. The import onto the Site of material classified as ‘waste’ is only acceptable with the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that no contaminated material is brought onto Site and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD 1.14 of permission ref 07/90010/OUMODA.

Permitted Development (PGT) WB.67. Notwithstanding the provisions of Parts 4 and 5 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995, no part of the Site shall be used for the stationing of sleeping accommodation for site workers, unless the approval of the Local Planning Authority has first been obtained during the Post-Games Transformation Phase development phase.

Reason: To provide control over use of the Site during construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.16 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Permitted Development (PGT) WB.68. None of the rights contained in Part 4 Class B of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 shall be exercised, unless the approval of the Local Planning Authority has first been obtained during the Post-Games Transformation Phase development phase.

Reason: To provide control over potential temporary uses and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.18 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Boundary Fencing (PGT) WB.69. Details of treatment proposed for the boundaries of the Site during the Post-Games Transformation Phase including construction hoardings and fences shall be submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before Post-Games Transformation Phase development commences. The approved details shall be implemented prior to use of the site and permanently retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

Construction Noise and Vibration (PGT) WB.70. All Post-Games Transformation Phase development in this Site shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme detailing noise monitoring, assessment and mitigation for all construction plant and processes within the Olympic Park approved pursuant to condition LTD.1.20 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and other sensitive receptors and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.20 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Noise - Residential Properties (PGT) WB.71. Noise levels at any occupied residential property due to construction or demolition shall not exceed 75dB LAeq (10 hour) measured at 1m from the façade of the nearest occupied property, during the hours from 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday, and 75dB LAeq (5 hour) during the hours from 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturday except with the prior approval of the Local Authority, under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, during the Legacy Transformation Phase.

Reason: To ensure that best practicable means are used to reduce noise generated by construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.21 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Noise – Construction Work (PGT) WB.72. Noise from construction work shall give rise to noise levels no higher than 65dB LAeq (1 hour) and 70dB LAeq (1 minute) at any educational premises measured at 1m from the façade of the building during school hours in term time, except with the prior written approval of the Local Authority under s61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, during the Post-Games Transformation Phase development phase.

Reason: To ensure that best practicable means are used to reduce noise generated by construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.22 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Dust (PGT) WB.73. All Post-Games Transformation Phase development within the Site shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme detailing dust monitoring, assessment and mitigation for all construction activities in the Olympic Park approved pursuant to condition LTD.1.25 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA

Reason: To ensure that best practicable means are used to avoid damage or nuisance from vibration during construction and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.24 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Signage and Advertising (PGT) WB.74. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007, no signs or advertisements shall be erected within the Site during the Legacy Transformation Phase, without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide control over the size and design of signage and advertisements and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.27 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Removal of Construction Buildings and Construction Equipment on Completion (PGT) WB.75. At the completion of the Post-Games Transformation Phase development within the Site, all construction plant, temporary construction buildings, construction bridges, construction fencing and other construction equipment shall be removed from the Site unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid unnecessary visual or other environmental impacts and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.1.28 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Revised Code of Construction Practice and Delivery Arrangements (PGT) The Post-Games Transformation Phase development shall be undertaken in accordance with a revised Code of Construction Practice, approved for the Olympic Development, for the Olympic Park submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority under permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA. This Code of Construction Practice will be based on the Code of Construction Practice and subsidiary documents including a revised Construction Transport Management Plan approved for the Olympic Development.

If this Code of Construction Practice has not yet been approved, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Construction Practice approved pursuant to condition SP.0.4 of permissions ref. 07/90011/FUMODA.

All deliveries to the Site or removal of materials from the Site shall take place during the hours and in the manner specified in the Construction Transport Management Plan approved by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to condition LTD.14 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA. If this Construction Transport Management Plan has not yet been approved, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Construction Transport Management Plan approved pursuant to condition SP.0.6 of permission ref. 07/90011/FUMODA.

Reason: To protect the amenities of local residents and users and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.14 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Protection and Enhancement of Remediation (PGT) WB.76. Before 31 December 2012, a method statement shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, indicating how the integrity of the remediation measures installed for the Olympic Development within the Site will be maintained and any necessary enhancement or alterations to those measures are to be installed.

Reason: To protect human health and avoid contamination of controlled waters and to appropriately dovetail with condition LTD.16 of permission ref. 07/90010/OUMODA.

Informative: Protecting design quality: The Local Planning Authority encourages that the design team for this application, including Allies and Morrison be retained in order to manage, oversee and coordinate the submission of the detailed design and lighting of Bridge H10 and H14 elements.

Reasons for Approval and Summary of Relevant Development Plan Policies In accordance with the Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development procedure) Order 1995 and Development Management (England) Order 2010 the following is a summary of the reasons for the grant of planning permission, together with a summary of the policies in the development plan which are relevant to the decision to grant permission.

The development plan for the site comprises the London Plan with alterations since 2004 and the ‘saved’ policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan of London Borough of Hackney (adopted 1995), ‘retained’ polices of the adopted Unitary Development Plan London Borough of Tower Hamlets (adopted June 1998) and policies of the adopted London Borough of Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (adopted September 2010).

The Borough of Hackney Local Development Framework: Core Strategy is not formally adopted but forms a material planning consideration.

Each of the reasons set out below, reflects the topics and issues identified in the report to the ODA Planning Committee.

Design, Appearance, Materials and Layout (Principle of the Development/Design Principles and relationship with UDLF: Bridges Appendix/Appearance within the context of the western communities including impact on the existing character of the streetscape and adjoining HWCA/General Arrangements of the H10 Western Approach/H14 Eastern Approach)

The details of the design, appearance and layout of Bridges H10 and H14 including external appearance, layout and materials is considered acceptable to grant full planning permission in respect of the application submitted for approval subject to conditions.

The 4m wide proposed deck widths of the western bridges are compliant with Transport for London’s standards for shared cycle/pedestrian bridges and also with that of the F03 deck width, which is the next bridge to the east of proposed bridge H10. The proposed deck width deviation is considered to allow for adequate clearance for shared pedestrian and cycle use in post-Games Transformation

LB Tower Hamlets has have raised concerns that the bridges have a poor visual appearance and that the design remains architecturally uninspiring and is very functional, lacking high quality design and local character and identity, but do support the design rationale and layout of western side landing approach in Fish Island. LB Hackney have raised concerns that the H10 bridge fails to create a strong arrival experience and welcoming visual effect as a main entrance to the park.

The bridges are not designed to be overt and conspicuous gateway structures. The bridges are two in a family of over 15 new bridges which will be retained for post-Games Transformation and are required to share common materials and architectural characteristic in order to knit into a shared aesthetic of parkwide bridges.

It is considered that the modulation, grain and scale of the proposed western bridge represent a refined response to context which will provide a sympathetic design solution. CABE support the design, materials and detailing of the bridges stating that they are well- considered and sophisticated pieces of contextual design. Within their context the proposed bridges are considered to respect local context, character and communities and create and enhance the visual amenity of the site in accordance with the following development plan policies and considerations:

(d) To any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (which may, in particular, refer to other documents), and (e) To the development plan for any area in respect of which an order is made under section 149 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65) by virtue of subsection (1) above, construed in accordance with section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c.5).

The assessment and consideration of this application concludes that the timely and detailed development of the PGT works will ensure that the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics and Paralympics will be maximised, in accordance with Section 5(5) b) of the Olympic Act, and become available for public access at the earliest opportunity.

The London Plan

4B.1 – Design principles for a compact city The Mayor will, and boroughs should seek to ensure that developments;

 Maximise the potential of sites  Create or enhance the public realm  Provide or enhance mix of uses  Are accessible, useable and permeable for all users  Are sustainable, durable and adaptable  Are safe for occupants and passers – by  Respect the local context, character and communities  Are practical and legible  Are attractive to look at and, where appropriate, inspire, excite and delight  Respect the natural environment  Respect London’s built heritage.

4B.4 – Enhancing the quality of the public realm The public realm should be accessible, usable for all, address the needs of London’s diverse population and provide facilities such as public toilets.

4B.5 – Creating an inclusive environment All development should meet the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion. Development proposals should include an access statement showing how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the development and how inclusion will be maintained and managed.

5C.1 - Strategic priorities for East London

London Borough of Hackney Unitary Development Plan

EQ12 Protection of Conservation Areas

The Council will only normally permit development proposals within, adjacent to, or affecting a Conservation Area which would preserve or enhance its character or appearance.

OS2 – Open Spaces and Parks Sites shown on the proposals map for the provision of new or extended open spaces and parks will be safeguarded.

OS3 – Loss of Open Space and Parks Development involving the loss of open space and parks will not normally be permitted.

London Borough of Hackney Local Development Framework Development Plan Document, Core Strategy (The LDF is not formally adopted but forms a material planning consideration)

London Borough of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy

Making Connected Places:

SO19 – Deliver an accessible, efficient, high quality, sustainable and integrated transport network to reach destinations within and outside the Borough.

Creating Attractive and Safe Streets and Spaces:

SO20 – Deliver safe, attractive, accessible and well designed network of streets and spaces that make it easy and enjoyable for people to move around on foot and bicycle.

SO21 – Create streets, spaces and places which promote social interaction and inclusion, and where people value, enjoy and feel safe and comfortable.

Consideration of alternative bridge solutions and structures including lifting bridges LB Hackney and the GLA have raised concerns in relation to the maintenance implications of a lift and the risk of failure and potential delay in repair. LB Hackney in their objection to the planning application have strongly encouraged that the ODA pursue a mechanical bridge solution in order to remove the requirement for a lift at the western approach of Bridge H10 and generally reduce the current extent of ramp lengths required to allow sufficient clearance above tow path and water levels.

The applicant considered and sought British Waterway’s reaction to the concept of moveable bridge structures along the Lea Navigation as early as 2007. BW’s main objection to the use of a lifting bridge is centred around the liability and risks associated with a failure of the bridge and maintenance and management of a mechanical solution opposed to a fixed bridge solution. A mechanical bridge would require BW to operate it when needed and they do not consider this feasible on such a busy stretch of canal. BWs 2007 views have been reiterated in response to the same query made in 2010 by PDT.

A mechanical bridge solution would only serve to shift the burden of management and maintenance of a moveable structure to another party, with greater potential conflict, greater management issues and a higher degree of impact on connectivity in the case of failure and is not considered a suitable or practical solution. A fixed structure, such as that proposed at Bridge H10, would not pose the same degree of risk compared to a lifting bridge and would always be available to provide access across the waterway which is in accordance with the following development plan policies and considerations:

London Olympic and Paralympic Games Act 2006 Section 5 (5) of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 sets out the matters to which the Olympic Delivery Authority in discharging its planning functions shall have regard, in particular: (a) To the desirability of making proper preparation for the London Olympics, (b) To the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics from things done in preparation for them, (c) To the terms of any planning permission already granted in connection with preparation for the London Olympics, (d) To any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (which may, in particular, refer to other documents), and (e) To the development plan for any area in respect of which an order is made under section 149 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65) by virtue of subsection (1) above, construed in accordance with section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c.5).

The London Plan

 Improved, sustainable transport between suburban centres, particularly by enhanced bus services, walking and cycling and by greater integration between bus, rail and underground services.  Enhanced bus services, pedestrian facilities and local means of transport to improve accessibility to jobs for the residents of deprived areas.

Policy 3C.20 Improving conditions for walking UDP policies should:

 ensure that safe, convenient, accessible and direct pedestrian access is provided from new developments to public transport nodes and key land uses, taking account of the need to connect people to jobs, to town centres and to schools  identify, complete and promote high quality walking routes including the six strategic walking routes identified in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy  ensure that Thames-side developments incorporate provision for a riverside walkway in accordance with Countryside Agency standards  ensure that the pedestrian environment is accessible to disabled people  take account of measures set out in the TfL Walking Plan for London  Improve the safety and convenience of pedestrian routes to school.

Policy 3C.21 Improving conditions for cycling UDP policies should:

London Borough of Hackney Local Development Framework Development Plan Document, Core Strategy (The LDF is not formally adopted but forms a material planning consideration)

Impact on adjoining landowners and residential amenity An objection has been received from 4 Roach Road: Consideration of whether the proposed Western Bridges significantly prejudice re-development and regeneration of adjoining sites by significantly reducing development frontage or significantly hampering potential access and egress to adjoining sites is considered a legitimate material planning consideration in accordance with the strategic regeneration policies of the London Plan, draft replacement London Plan and LB Tower Hamlets Core Strategy policies.

The design of the proposed H14 ramp allows for potential connections between 4 Roach Road and the application site at the first floor level to the east of the site and at ground level at the bottom of the ramp to the west of the site. In the context of the approved 2007 OLF parameters, the preserved primary and secondary frontages and the additional allowance for connections between the proposed development at H14 and 4 Roach Road it cannot be considered that the H14 approach would prejudice the redevelopment of 4 Roach Road. Further it is considered that within the constraints of the application site’s geometry and proximity of existing residential development to the north at Omega Works that the H14 western approach has been sensitively designed having regard to both enhancing connectivity with the site to the south whilst protecting amenity to the existing residential development to the north.

The proposed development will be in accordance with the policies set out below.

H10: Eton Mission Rowing Club: An objection has been received from the EMRC. The primary objection is in relation to the impact the removal of the existing fence and gate will have on security and interface issues once open to the public with multiple users accessing the waterfront. The EMRC state that there will be insufficient space to undertake maintenance work, adjustments to boats and movement of boats and that sharing this space will compromise such operations to the point where the EMRC would no longer be able to function safely.

Whist it is clear that in comparison to the current arrangements the proposed removal of the fence and intention to open up the waterfront to the public will have a discernable impact on the method and management of operations undertaken by the EMRC, it cannot be said that the H10 proposals physically preclude the ability for the EMRC to continue its operations. Sufficient clearances have been allowed and additional storage provision proposed underneath the bridge structure.

The general arrangements are considered to represent a reasonable balance between public access to the waterfront and continuing the operation of a club which offers recreational and active use of a London waterway and is therefore considered to be in accordance with the policies and considerations set out below.

The London Plan

4B.1 – Design principles for a compact city

The Mayor will, and boroughs should seek to ensure that developments;  Maximise the potential of sites  Create or enhance the public realm  Provide or enhance mix of uses  Are accessible, useable and permeable for all users  Are sustainable, durable and adaptable  Are safe for occupants and passers – by  Respect the local context, character and communities  Are practical and legible  Are attractive to look at and, where appropriate, inspire, excite and delight  Respect the natural environment  Respect London’s built heritage.

4B.3 – Enhancing the quality of the public realm

5C.1 - Strategic priorities for East London

Safety and Security LB Hackney, BEAP and the Metropolitan Police have raised concerns in relation to the potential that the unsupervised lift at the H10 western approach may be subject to vandalism, compromise user safety particularly at night and also act as a ‘crime generator and attract increased levels of anti social behaviour’.

It has been assessed that within the context of the proposed general arrangements for the H10 western approach, the likely day to day usage of the approved Legacy Multi Use Sports Venue and the approved post-Games Transformation Parklands and Public Realm and Highways applications prioritisation of the East-West pedestrian and cycle route extending from Bridge H10 to Stratford City Bridge 1 (LB Waltham Forest) that the proposed H10 bridge is in accordance with the following development plan policies:

London Borough of Hackney Unitary Development Plan

EQ48 – Designing out crime Developments to create environments that discourage crime and fear of crime both in overall layout and detailed design.

Inclusive Design/Access

The application for Bridges H10 and H14 is considered to meet the requirements in relation to Inclusive design and access. The submitted application adequately outlines inclusive access details relating to design and construction. In achieving this, the proposal will be in accordance with the following development plan policies and considerations:

The London Plan

4B.3 – Enhancing the quality of the public realm

100 inclusive design, including the specific needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the development and how inclusion will be maintained and managed.

London Borough of Hackney Core Strategy (The LDF is not formally adopted but forms a material planning consideration)

 ensuring good and optimum arrangement of the site in terms of form, mass and scale, including usable amenity space where appropriate and consideration of biodiversity

 adopting a rigorous design and impact approach to assessing the heights and bulk of buildings in relation to existing surroundings and views

 identifying with the architectural, historic quality and character of the surrounding environment.

 enhancing of the area between the public and private domains including boundary treatment and access for all

 enhancing of the Public Realm and ensuring good connection into existing routes, movement patterns and streetscape

 reducing in crime and the perception of crime by promoting social inclusion,

 reducing barriers to movement and applying the principles of ‘Secure By Design’

Sustainable Design and Construction The details of the design and sustainable construction of Bridges H10 and H14 are considered acceptable in respect of the application submitted for approval. The submitted application adequately outlines energy saving and recycling measures relating to design and construction in line with site wide environmental targets.

Although the bridges are designed as pedestrian and cycle bridges and as such are not capable of adaptation in terms of being directly modified into highway bridges, it has been assess that there is potential for the re-use of bridge components in other locations. CABE, in supporting the design of the bridges as high quality interventions have stated that it would be regrettable if the well-designed bridges went to waste and that the potential to disassemble and re-use them elsewhere should be considered.

The applicant has noted that it is possible for the bridges to be separated from their concrete abutments and re-used in another location. ‘In the event that the bridges are to be relocated in the future, they can be separated from the supporting concrete abutments relatively easily. The bridges would then need to be dismantled into manageable segments, transported to their new locations and reconnected to the new concrete abutments’.

Officers agree that the principle of relocation of bridge components is realistic, with re-use and re-location of a bridge structure already approved to form the temporary Stratford High Street Bridge. The potential re-use of components is considered to be in accordance with the following development plan policies and considerations:

101

(b) To the desirability of maximising the benefits to be derived after the London Olympics from things done in preparation for them, (c) To the terms of any planning permission already granted in connection with preparation for the London Olympics, (d) To any guidance issued by the Secretary of State (which may, in particular, refer to other documents), and (e) To the development plan for any area in respect of which an order is made under section 149 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (c.65) by virtue of subsection (1) above, construed in accordance with section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (c.5).

The London Plan

4B.1 – Design principles for a compact city The Mayor will, and boroughs should seek to ensure that developments;

5C.1 - Strategic priorities for East London

London Borough of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy

Achieving Wider Sustainability:

S03 – Tower Hamlets will achieve environmental, social and economic development simultaneously

Flood Risk and Remediation The Environment Agency has raised no concern in relation to flood risk or remediation. It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment. In achieving this, the proposal will be in accordance with the following development plan policies and considerations:

102

London Borough of Hackney Unitary Development Plan EQ9 – Development and the River Lee Navigation Floodplain In areas at risk of flooding the Council will, where appropriate, require flood protection measures

EQ44 – Water Pollution Development that would lead to deterioration in the quality of underground or surface water will not be permitted.

London Borough of Hackney Core Strategy (The LDF is not formally adopted but forms a material planning consideration)

London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan U2 - Development in Areas at Risk From Flooding The council will consult with the Environment Agency and Thames Water utilities on all applications for new development or the intensification of existing uses in the areas shown on the proposals map as being at risk from flooding

103