DOCSLIB.ORG

September 2009 1 COLUMBUS TOWER

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
September 2009 1 COLUMBUS TOWER COLUMBUS TOWER DEVELOPMENT, 2 HERTSMERE ROAD, LONDON, E14 4AB REVIEW OF DAYLIGHT, SUNLIGHT AND OVERSHADOWING EFFECTS Prepared on behalf of the Greater London Authority September 2009 1 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 14 Regent's Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL Offices also in T 020 7837 4477 Cardiff F 020 7837 2277 Manchester Newcastle upon Tyne [email protected] www.nlpplanning.com COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW Executive Summary 1.1 This report reviews the Gordon Ingram Associates (GIA) Daylight and Sunlight Assessment and supplementary information submitted in support of the planning application for the Columbus Tower development at No. 2 Hertsmere Road, London E14 4AB (LBTH Ref. No. PA/08/02709). The review has been prepared on behalf of the Greater London Authority to assist the Mayor of London in determining the application. It considers the acceptability of the scope of the assessment, the accuracy of the daylight and sunlight modelling and results and the validity of the conclusions drawn. It also provides a commentary on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets determination of the application in terms of daylight and sunlight matters. 1.2 The review confirms that the scope of the assessment is appropriate in terms of the neighbouring properties and areas of amenity space assessed. The methodology and significance criteria employed in the assessment are also considered generally acceptable. 1.3 Comparison daylight and sunlight plots have been undertaken to verify the accuracy and precision of the data on which the assessment is based. The calculations corroborate the accuracy of GIA’s daylight and sunlight modelling and the validity of the assessment results. 1.4 GIA’s daylight and sunlight assessment concludes that, whilst the development will result in some breaches of the relevant Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance, the daylight and sunlight effects will, on balance, be acceptable. In NLP’s professional opinion, these conclusions are reasonable. 1.5 The review provides a commentary on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets determination of the planning application in terms of daylight and sunlight impacts. The Council’s first committee report (from the 25 June 2009 committee meeting where the application was recommended for approval) concludes that, while the development will result in some losses of daylight and sunlight, the impacts are, on balance considered acceptable. We would broadly agree with these conclusions. The Council’s second committee report (04 August 2009) does not provide any evidence for justifying its change in stance in relation to the development’s daylight and sunlight effects. Having reviewed the daylight and sunlight assessment and the officer’s reports, there is no basis for the Council’s second reason for refusing the application on daylight and sunlight grounds. 1.6 In NLP’s professional opinion, taking account of the flexible nature of the BRE guidance, the character of the site and its surroundings and the benchmarks set by the previously approved development at the site and other existing and emerging developments in Canary Wharf, the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing effects arising as a result of the Columbus Tower development 12118/752088v1 COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW would, on balance, be acceptable and it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission on these grounds. 12118/752088v1752088_1.DOC COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW Contents 4 Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Background 3 3.0 Scope of Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 5 Neighbouring Properties and Amenity Space Assessed 5 Assessment Methodology and Significant Criteria 6 Scope of Assessment: Summary 7 4.0 Analysis of Daylight and Sunlight Results 9 5.0 Data Interpretation and Conclusions 10 Daylight and Sunlight Assessment: Results and Conclusions 10 NLP Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 11 6.0 Commentary on the Council’s Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 14 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Strategic Development Committee (25 June 2009) 14 London Borough of Tower Hamlets – Strategic Development Committee (04 August 2009) 15 Summary: LB Tower Hamlets Interpretation of Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 15 7.0 Summary and Conclusions 17 Scope of Assessment 17 Modelling and Data Accuracy 17 Data Interpretation and Assessment Conclusions 17 The Council’s Interpretation of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment 18 Overall Conclusions 18 12118/752088v1752088_1.DOC COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW Tables Table 5.1: Comparison between the daylight and sunlight impacts arising from the Columbus Tower development and other recently approved developments Appendices Appendix 1: Supplementary VSC results for additional residential properties surrounding the site Appendix 2: Results of comparison VSC plots for a sample of window reference points assessed 12118/752088v1752088_1.DOC COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This report provides a review of the daylight and sunlight assessment and supplementary information submitted in support of the planning application for the Columbus Tower development at No. 2 Hertsmere Road, London E14 4AB (LBTH Ref. No. PA/08/02709). It also considers the approach taken by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to the assessment of these issues in its committee reports when addressing PA/08/02709. The review has been prepared on behalf of the Greater London Authority to assist the Mayor of London in determining the application. 1.2 Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) is an independent town planning consultancy with a specialist daylight and sunlight team, which provides advice to local planning authorities, developers, architects and third parties regarding daylight and sunlight issues relating to the planning process. 1.3 The daylight and sunlight assessment submitted in support of the planning application was undertaken by Gordon Ingram Associates in December 2008 (Environmental Statement; Chapter 09). The ES Chapter also addressed the development’s effects in terms of light pollution and solar glare. This review addresses daylight, sunlight and overshadowing impacts only. 1.4 This review has been undertaken in the context of relevant planning policy and guidance, as well as the BRE daylight and sunlight guidance (B uilding Research Establishment ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A Guide to Good Practice’; 1991 ). It has been based on the following documents and information sources: • Columbus Tower Environmental Statement: Chapter 09 - Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing, Light Pollution and Solar Glare (Gordon Ingram Associates; December 2008); • Columbus Tower Environmental Statement: Appendix 10.2 – Detailed Results of the Daylight and Sunlight Analysis (Gordon Ingram Associates; December 2008); • Summary reporting letter dated 16 July ’09 providing a synopsis of the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment (Gordon Ingram Associates; 16.07.09); • Columbus Tower Environmental Statement: - Regulation 19 Response (URS); • Columbus Tower Consultation ‘Sweep Up’ (GVA Grimley 09.04.09); • Columbus Tower Consultation ‘Sweep Up’ – Appendix D (URS; April 2009); • Three Dimensional AutoCAD Daylight and Sunlight Model (Gordon Ingram Associates; December 2008); • Planning application drawings for the Columbus Tower development (Mark Weintraub Architecture and Design; December 2008); • Planning application drawings for approved neighbouring developments (10 Garford Street; Mary Jones House; Matthew House and Riverside House). P1/22 12118/752088v1 COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW 1.5 The review is structured as follows: • Section 2.0 provides an overview of the background to this review of the daylight and sunlight assessment; • Section 3.0 provides a comprehensive review of the scope of the submitted GIA daylight and sunlight assessment to ensure all neighbouring residential properties requiring assessment have been considered. It also provides a critique of the methodology and significance criteria used in the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing analyses. • Section 4.0 considers the validity of the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing modelling and calculations on which the daylight and sunlight assessment is based. A sample of comparison daylight and sunlight plots/calculations have been undertaken to confirm the data’s accuracy. • Section 5.0 provides a review of the data interpretation and conclusions drawn in the daylight and sunlight assessment. • Section 6.0 provides a commentary on Tower Hamlets interpretation of the daylight and sunlight assessment in its determination of the application. • Section 7.0 provides a summary of this review and our conclusions are drawn. P2/22 12118/752088v1 COLUMBUS TOWER DAYLIGHT AND SUNLIGHT REVIEW 2.0 Background 2.1 The application site, No. 2 Hertsmere Road, is situated on Hertsmere Road at the Western end of West India Dock North in the Canary Wharf area of Tower Hamlets. It covers an area of 0.356 hectares and is currently occupied by Hertsmere House, a four storey office building constructed in the late 1980s. The areas to the east, south and south west of the site are commercial in use, while the areas to the north and west include residential accommodation, which requires consideration in terms of potential daylight and sunlight effects. 2.2 A planning application was submitted by the current applicant, Commercial Estates Group, in June 2003 for the construction of a 63 storey commercial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DC120/034 7.5 Committee
    Committee: Date: Classification: Report Number: Agenda Item No: Development 17 March 2004 Unrestricted DC120/034 7.5 Committee Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Customer Services Location: HERTSMERE HOUSE 2 HERTSMERE Case Officer: Simon Dunn-Lwin ROAD, LONDON, E14 4A (Columbus Tower) Ward: Millwall 1. SUMMARY 1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/03/00475 PA/03/00878 Date Received: 31/03/2003 Last Amended 31/03/2003 Date: 1.2 Application Details Existing Use: Office building occupied by Barclays and Morgan Stanley. Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a 63 storey tower for office (B1), hotel and serviced apartments (C1 and sui generis), retail (A1/A2/A3) and leisure (D2) uses, with basement car parking and servicing. Applicant: SKMC & Farnham Properties Ltd Ownership: Barclays Bank PLC. Historic Building: N/A – adjacent to Grade II listed buildings on West India Quay, Grade I listed buildings known as Cannon Workshops, Grade I listed Dock Edge and Dock Wall. Conservation Area: Bordering West India Dock Conservation Area 2. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 That the Development Committee grant planning permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (and other appropriate powers) to include the matters outlined in Section 2.5 below; the conditions and informatives outlined in sections 2.6 and 2.7 below; and 5.1(22) relating to the OPDM Circular 1/2003. 2.2 That if the Committee resolve that planning permission be granted, that the application first be referred to the Mayor of London pursuant to the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000, as an application for a new building exceeding 30 metres in height.
    [Show full text]
  • The Isle of Dogs: Four Development Waves, Five Planning Models, Twelve
    Progress in Planning 71 (2009) 87–151 www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann The Isle of Dogs: Four development waves, five planning models, twelve plans, thirty-five years, and a renaissance ... of sorts Matthew Carmona * The Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, 22 Gordon Street, London WC1H 0QB, United Kingdom Abstract The story of the redevelopment of the Isle of Dogs in London’s Docklands is one that has only partially been told. Most professional and academic interest in the area ceased following the property crash of the early 1990s, when the demise of Olympia & York, developers of Canary Wharf, seemed to bear out many contemporary critiques. Yet the market bounced back, and so did Canary Wharf, with increasingly profound impacts on the rest of the Island. This paper takes an explicitly historical approach using contemporaneous professional critiques and more reflective academic accounts of the planning and development of the Isle of Dogs to examine whether we can now conclude that an urban renaissance has taken place in this part of London. An extensive review of the literature is supplemented with analysis of physical change on the ground and by analysis of the range of relevant plans and policy documents that have been produced to guide development over the 35-year period since the regeneration began. The paper asks: What forms of planning have we seen on the Island; what role has design played in these; what outcomes have resulted from these processes; and, as a result, have we yet seen an urban renaissance? # 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Isle of Dogs; Urban design; Planning; Urban renaissance Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Bus Services in South Tower Hamlets and Surrounds
    Bus Services In South Tower Hamlets And Surrounds TfL Surface Transport – Buses Directorate January 2014 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 This note seeks to understand what impact new development and rail enhancements (both planned and recently delivered) will have on the South Tower Hamlets bus network and how the network might change in response to the impact. South Tower Hamlets focuses mainly on Wapping and the Isle of Dogs but, inevitably, the results of the investigation extend beyond this to include most of Tower Hamlets and parts of the neighbouring boroughs. 1.2 The area has been the subject of previous reviews, particularly focusing on the Isle of Dogs. Reviews in 2003 and 2007 increased capacity on routes serving the island to accommodate the increased demand generated by new development. The 2007 review proposed the 135 which came into service in May 2008. Both reviews also proposed links to the east. Initially this was an extension of the D7 to Canning Town which was replaced by an extension of route 330 to the Isle of Dogs. Neither of these eastern extensions were implemented, in part due to developer contributions not being forthcoming. 1.3 In addition, routes in the study area have been continually monitored and adjusted to take account of changes in the area. Routes relevant to the study area have evolved as follows over the past 10 years: Route 135 introduced (May 2008) operating at up to 6 buses per hour (bph). Route 277 increased in frequency from 8 to 9 bph Monday – Saturday daytimes and from 4 to 6 bph on all evenings.
    [Show full text]
  • Crossrail - Costs of Delay Prepared in Association With
    Crossrail - Costs of Delay Prepared in association with February 2007 Crossrail - Costs of Delay Initial Report Project No: 125721 February 2007 Newcombe House 45 Notting Hill Gate, London, W11 3PB Telephone: 020 7309 7000 Fax: 020 7309 0906 Email : [email protected] Prepared by: Approved by: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Paul Buchanan and Volterra Consulting PB Status: Final Issue no: 1 Date: February 2007 document1 (C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report. No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has been made Crossrail - Costs of Delay Initial Report Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Overview and Summary 1 2. COSTS OF DELAY 2 2.1 Introduction 2 2.2 Impact on scheme costs 2 2.3 Planning Blight 3 2.4 Transport Blight 6 2.5 Loss of Agglomeration Benefits 6 2.6 Loss of User Benefits 7 3.
    [Show full text]
  • City Pride Public House, 15 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JH Existing
    Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item Number: [Strategic] 13 th June 2013 Unrestricted Development Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/12/03248 Case Officer: Ward: Millwall (February 2002 onwards) Beth Eite 1. APPLICATION DETAILS Location: City Pride Public House, 15 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JH Existing Use: Proposal: Erection of residential (Class C3) led mixed use 75 storey tower (239mAOD) comprising 822 residential units and 162 serviced apartments (Class C1), and associated amenity floors, roof terrace, basement car parking, cycle storage and plant, together with an amenity pavilion including retail (Class A1-A4) and open space. Drawing Nos/Documents: Drawings P-SL-C645-001 rev A, P-S-C645-001 rev B, P-LC-C645-001 rev A, P-L- C645-001 rev A, P-B2-C645-001 rev F, P-B1- C645-001 rev F, P-00-C645-001 rev G, P-01-C645-001 rev F, P-T0A-C645-001 rev D, P-T0B- C645-001 rev D, P-T1A- C645-001 rev B, B-T1B-C645-001 rev B, P-AM1-C645-001 rev E, P-T2-C645-001 rev E, P-T3-C645-001 rev E, P-AM2- C645-001 rev E, P-T4-C645-001 rev E, P-T5-C645-001 rev E, P-T6-C645-001 rev E, P-T7-C645-001 rev E, P-75-C645- 001 rev E, P-R-C645-001 rev E, P-LC-C645-001 rev B, P-L- C645-001 rev B, P_AM_C645_001 rev B, P_AM_C645_002 rev B, P_TY_D811_001 rev A, P-TY-D811-002 rev A E-JA-E-C645-001 rev A, E-JA-N-C645-001 rev A, E-JA-S- C645-001 rev A, E-JA-W-C645-001 rev A, E-01-C645-001 rev A, E-CE-N-645-001 rev A ,E-CE-S-645-001 rev A, E-CE- W-645-001 rev A, E-E-C645-001 rev C, E-N-C645-001 rev C, E-S-C645-001
    [Show full text]
  • Active Contracts to Be Posted On
    Active Assigned Contracts Grouped by PBCA Sorted by Contract Number PBCA ID:AK800 Name: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Contract Assigned Property Property Property Property Property Number Date Name Address City State ZIP AK020002001 11/1/2000 CHENANA APARTMENTS 5190 Amherst Drive (office) FAIRBANKS AK 99709 AK020003001 11/1/2000 Glen, The 1200 Columbine Ct Anchorage AK 99508 AK020004001 7/1/2001 EXECUTIVE ESTATES 1620 Washington Dr Fairbanks AK 99709 AK020005001 7/1/2001 PARKWEST APARTMENTS 2006 Sandvik Road FAIRBANKS AK 99709 AK020006001 7/1/2001 AYALPIK APARTMENTS 105 Atsaq BETHEL AK 99559 AK020007002 12/1/2004 COHO PARK 3601 AMALGA ST JUNEAU AK 99801 AK02M000010 11/1/2000 BAYSIDE APARTMENTS 1011 Fourth Street SEWARD AK 99664 AK02M000011 11/1/2000 LITTLE DIPPER APTS 1910 Turner St Fairbanks AK 99701 AK02M000012 11/1/2000 Chester Park Estates 1019 E 20TH AVE ANCHORAGE AK 99501 AK02M000016 11/1/2000 GRUENING PARK 1800 Northwood Dr # A Juneau AK 99801 AK02M000022 11/1/2000 BAYSIDE APARTMENTS 1011 Fourth Street SEWARD AK 99664 AK02M000023 11/1/2000 Chester Creek Estates 5814 E NORTHERN LIGHTS ANCHORAGE AK 99504 AK02R000003 11/1/2000 WOODRIDGE APARTMENTS 903 Cook Street KENAI AK 99611 AK02R000004 11/1/2000 PETERSBURG ELDERLY 16 North 12th ST PETERSBURG AK 99833 AK02T851001 11/1/2000 DAYBREAK APARTMENTS (CMI) 2080 HEMMER RD PALMER AK 99645 AK06E000005 11/1/2000 McKay Villa Apartments 3741 Richmond Avenue ANCHORAGE AK 99508 AK06L000001 11/1/2000 GRUENING PARK 1800 Northwood Dr # A Juneau AK 99801 AK06L000003 11/1/2000 NORTH WIND APARTMENTS
    [Show full text]
  • London Hotel Development Monitor May 2005
    LONDON HOTEL DEVELOPMENT MONITOR MAY 2005 London - New Hotel Room Supply 2004-2005 Introduction Since 1989, Visit London has been compiling data about new hotel developments across London. This information details new hotel openings, as well as potential developments which 1800 are likely to be constructed. This data can help identify gaps in London’s hotel market, and geographical areas where hotel coverage is poor. 1600 Limitations Information covers market facing hotels and excludes B&B’s, 1400 student accommodation and small hotels under 20 rooms. Purely speculative opportunities which are unlikely to proceed are also excluded. 1200 Recent Openings 1000 s Over the past 18 months, the London hotel market has witnessed a large amount of new built activity. Favourable oom macro economic conditions, combined with a sustained r f 800 recovery in visitor numbers to the capital, have helped o r support this growth. In addition, a number of large e b redevelopment schemes with significant hotel elements have m u 600 also come on stream. N All major hotel groups, with the exception of Hilton, have opened new London properties over the last 18 months. A 400 number of smaller hotel companies, such as: Baglioni, Firmdale and Urban Hotels have also entered the London market. 200 Another factor adding to this growth has been the renewed dash for growth by the major budget operators. Both Premier Travel Inn and Travelodge have committed themselves to 0 expanding their London hubs, with Travelodge recently Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2f Q3f Q4f stating that they need a minimum of 3,000 rooms in central London as soon as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan 2019-2028
    Air Traffic Controller WORKFORCE PLAN 2019–2028 his 2019 report is the FAA’s fourteenth annual update to Tthe controller workforce plan. The FAA issued the first comprehensive controller workforce plan in December 2004. It provides staffing ranges for all of the FAA’s air traffic control facilities and actual onboard controllers as of September 29, 2018. Section 221 of Public Law 108-176 (updated by Public Law 115-141) requires the FAA Administrator to transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that describes the overall air traffic controller workforce plan. 2 . Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan Contents 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 38 Controller Losses Due to Promotions and Other Transfers 8 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 39 Total Controller Losses 8 Staffing to Traffic 41 CHAPTER 5 | HIRING PLAN 10 Meeting the Challenge 42 Controller Hiring Profile 12 CHAPTER 2 | FACILITIES & SERVICES 43 Trainee-to-Total-Controller Percentage 12 Terminal and En Route Air Traffic Services 46 CHAPTER 6 | HIRING PROCESS 12 FAA Air Traffic Control Facilities 46 Controller Hiring Sources 14 CHAPTER 3 | STAFFING REQUIREMENTS 46 Recruitment 17 Staffing Ranges 49 CHAPTER 7 | TRAINING 21 Air Traffic Staffing Standards Overview 49 The Training Process 23 Tower Cab Overview 50 Designing and Delivering Effective Training 24 TRACON Overview 51 Infrastructure Investments 25 En Route Overview 51 Time to Certification 26 Summary 52 Investing for the Future 27 Air Traffic Controller Scheduling 53 CHAPTER 8 | FUNDING STATUS 27 Technological Advances 54 APPENDIX 31 CHAPTER 4 | LOSSES 54 2019 Facility Staffing Ranges 31 Controller Loss Summary 32 Actual Controller Retirements 32 Cumulative Retirement Eligibility 33 Controller Workforce Age Distribution 34 Controller Retirement Eligibility 35 Controller Retirement Pattern 36 Controller Losses Due to Retirements 37 Controller Losses Due to Resignations, Removals and Deaths 37 Developmental Attrition 37 Academy Attrition 2019-2028 .
    [Show full text]
  • LONDON BOROUGH of TOWER HAMLETS Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan Adopted for the Purpose of Development Control
    Interim Planning Guidance LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan Adopted for the purpose of development control Improving the quality of life for everyone living and working in the Borough September 2007 Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan This page has been left intentionally blank 1 Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan Contents page Foreword 1 Chapter 1 Introduction and context 7 Introduction 8 Isle of Dogs in context 12 Sub areas 18 Chapter 2 Spatial Strategy 23 Isle of Dogs key issues 24 Vision for the Isle of Dogs 26 Isle of Dogs Spatial Strategy 27 Chapter 3 Cross-cutting themes 31 Transport and movement 32 Health provision 37 Education provision 40 Open space and water space 43 Infrastructure, services and waste 48 Chapter 4 Sub-areas 53 A new district centre for the Isle of Dogs 54 The Northern sub-area 58 The Central sub-area 67 The East India South sub-area 76 The Southern sub-area 81 Chapter 5 Implementation 87 Implementing the Spatial Strategy 88 Appendices Appendix 1 Guidance and delivery of public open space 94 Appendix 2 Complete list of policies 105 Appendix 3 Supporting information 106 4 Tower Hamlets Interim Planning Guidance Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan List of figures page Figure 1 Community plan diagram 10 Figure 2 Location map 12 Figure 3 Historical maps 13 Figure 4 The Isle of Dogs today 17 Figure 5 Sub-areas and development sites map 19 Figure 6 Development sites 20 Figure 7 Key issues facing the Isle of Dogs 25 Figure 8
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Car and Cycle Parking Standards 2011
    Review of Car and Cycle Parking Standards 2011 1 A Review of Car and Cycle Parking Standards for Tower Hamlets Council’s Managing Development DPD Introduction This paper sets out a series of options for reviewing the car and cycle parking standards which are applied to new developments in the borough. This review follows commitment made in the Council’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP2) to review the appropriateness of parking standards in light of the issues set out in this paper. The Tower Hamlets Transport Planning Strategy has also recommended that the Council adopt more robust parking standards as a matter of priority. The analysis in this paper will inform new standards to be included in the emerging Managing Development DPD. Part 1 addresses some of the issues in the borough associated with car use which will worsen as car use increases in the borough. The second part looks at four options and evaluates each option in terms of their potential to reduce the overall additional car parking spaces over the life of the Core Strategy to 2025. Part 3 considers amendments to the current cycle parking standards in the light of the new London Plan and evolving sustainable transport agenda. The issues 1.1 Of all the 33 London boroughs, Tower Hamlets will see the most significant increase in population and jobs over the next 20 years. The existing population of 230,000 will increase by 51% to 342,000 and the existing 206,000 jobs will increase by 46% to 301,000. The Borough will accommodate about 9% of London’s population growth and about 12% of London’s jobs growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Rinaldi President National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL-CIO (NATCA)
    Written Testimony of Paul Rinaldi President National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL-CIO (NATCA) June 23, 2021 Before the Subcommittee on Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate “Aviation Infrastructure for the 21st Century” Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, AFL-CIO (NATCA) at today’s hearing titled “Aviation Infrastructure for the 21st Century.” NATCA is the exclusive representative for nearly 20,000 employees, including the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) air traffic controllers, traffic management coordinators and specialists, flight service station air traffic controllers, staff support specialists, engineers and architects, and other aviation safety professionals, as well as Department of Defense (DOD) and Federal Contract Tower (FCT) air traffic controllers. I. Executive Summary As NATCA has been highlighting for years, a stop-and-go funding stream negatively affects all aspects of our National Airspace System (NAS). It undermines air traffic control services, staffing, long-term modernization projects, preventative maintenance, and ongoing modernization to the physical infrastructure. It also slows the hiring and training process while preventing the timely implementation of modernization programs and the integration of new users into the system. Without a stable, predictable funding stream, the FAA will be hard-pressed to maintain pre- pandemic capacity, let alone modernize the physical and technological infrastructure of the system while expanding it for new users including unmanned aircraft systems, commercial space launches, and supersonic aircraft. NATCA’s testimony will focus on NATCA’s greatest priorities in the areas of physical infrastructure as well as the modernization and technological needs of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner East London Demand Study
    CONTENTS Interland Group INNER EAST LONDON DEMAND STUDY Panda House, 628 Commercial Road, E14 7HS DEMAND ASSESSMENT & MARKET ANALYSIS 0 | Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 4 2. MARKET PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................................... 10 3. DEMAND ............................................................................................................................................................ 14 4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS........................................................................................................ 19 5. DRIVERS OF DEMAND ..................................................................................................................................... 24 6. SUPPLY AND PIPELINE ................................................................................................................................... 28 7. SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 30 APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]