Garden Bridge Conditions Report, Item 3. PDF 4 MB

IBM ITV

Address: Land To The Front Of The London Television Centre, Queen's Walk And Potential Construction Access Routes From Upper Ground London, SE1

Application Numbers: 15/05151/DET; Case Officers: Richard McFerran and 15/05212/DET; 15/05214/DET; 15/06977/DET; Dale Jones 15/06979/DET

Ward: Bishops Dates Validated: 11th September 2015 (Conditions 24, 25 and 29) and 4th December 2015 (Conditions 21 and 23) Proposal:

Approval of details pursuant to

 Condition 21 (Detailed Design of South Landing Building) 15/06977/DET  Condition 23 (Internal Layout of South Landing Building) 15/06979/DET  Condition 24 (Delivery and Servicing Plan) 15/05151/DET  Condition 25 (Waste Management Plan) 15/05212/DET  Condition 29 (Coach and Taxi Management Plan) 15/05214/DET of planning permission 14/02792/FUL (Erection of a pedestrian bridge with incorporated garden, extending for a length of 366m over the River Thames from land adjacent to The Queens Walk on South Bank (in the London Borough of Lambeth) to land above and in the vicinity of Temple London Underground Station on the north bank, the structure of the bridge having a maximum height of 14.3m above Mean High Water and a maximum width of 30m; the development also comprising the erection of 2 new piers in the River Thames; erection of a single-storey landing building (incorporating maintenance, management and welfare facilities and up to 410sqm A1, A3 and/or D1 floorspace with additional ancillary service and plant) on land adjacent to The Queens Walk, opposite the ITV building; associated public realm works; works to trees (including the removal of trees); associated construction work (including laying out of a construction access from Upper Ground) and works sites; and works within the River Thames (including temporary and permanent scour protection, relocation of moorings and erection of temporary structures) granted on 19.12.2014 (herein referred to as ‘the Garden Bridge’).

Drawing Numbers / Documents / Samples:

Condition 21 (15/06977/DET): GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 09; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40002 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40010 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40011 Rev 06; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40012 Rev 02); GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40020 Rev 06; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40021 Rev 04; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40022 Rev 04; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40301 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40410 Rev 04; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40421 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40422 Rev 06; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40430 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40440 Rev 04; GBT-HS-LS-ZZ-DR-AX-33011 Rev A; Benches and litter bins visualisations (unnumbered); Garden Bridge South Landing Benches and Litter Bins Location Plan (unnumbered); Details of Metal Screens within the East, South and West Elevations (unnumbered); South Landing – Lift Shaft (Lower Ground Level NW View) (unnumbered); 6m Flange Lighting Columns (CCTV and No CCTV) (Ref. 35355-0); External Envelope (Appendix 1); Lift Cladding Rationale (January 2016) (unnumbered); South Landing Materials (January 2016) (unnumbered); GBT-HS-LS-ZZ-DR-AX-33011 Rev A; GB-MX-ALL-DWG-ARC-40440 Rev 04; GB-MX-ALL-DWG-ARC-40441 Rev 04; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40450 Rev 04); GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40451 Rev 04; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40470 Rev 04; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40471 Rev 04; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40520 Rev 02; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40700 Rev 03 and unnumbered physical samples (referenced also within the South Landing Materials (January 2016) and External Envelope Appendix 1).

Condition 23 (15/06979/DET): GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 09; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40002 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40010 Rev 05; South Landing Access Statement (dated 20th January 2016) and unnumbered list of publically available toilets near the garden bridge location (with unnumbered maps).

Condition 24 (15/05151/DET): Garden Bridge Delivery and Servicing Plan (5th Draft – 22nd January 2016).

Condition 25 (15/05212/DET): Garden Bridge Waste Management Plan (6th Draft – 6th January 2016).

Condition 29 (15/05214/DET): Garden Bridge Coach and Taxi Management Plan (6th Draft – 6th January 2016).

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Condition 21 (15/06977/DET): Grant Approval of Details

Condition 23 (15/06979/DET): Grant Approval of Details

Condition 24 (15/05151/DET): Grant Approval of Details

Condition 25 (15/05212/DET): Grant Approval of Details

Condition 29 (15/05214/DET): Grant Approval of Details

Applicant: Agent: The Garden Bridge Trust (GBT) Emma Barnett (Adams Hendry Consulting Limited)

SITE DESIGNATIONS

Relevant site designations: Conservation Area: Southbank Conservation Area (CA 38) Opportunity Area: Waterloo Opportunity Area London Plan Policy Area: Central Activities Zone (CAZ) London Plan Policy Area: Thames Policy Area Ecology: Site of Metropolitan Nature Conservation Importance – River Thames Flood Zone: Environment Agency Flood Zone 3 Trees: Tree Preservation Orders

LAND USE DETAILS

Site area 7.2ha (both sides of the river)

Use Class Use Description Floorspace (Gross External Area) Floorspace A1/A3/D1 Flexible 0 prior to retail/restaurant/community demolition use Proposed A1/A3/D1 Flexible 348m² floorspace retail/restaurant/community use

OFFICER’S REPORT

Reason for referral to PAC: The applications are reported to the Planning Applications Committee in accordance with (4) of the Committee’s terms of reference.

1 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

1.1 The Garden Bridge would be located in Central London, providing a new pedestrian river crossing between the South Bank (in the London Borough of Lambeth) and Temple Underground Station on the North Bank (in the City of Westminster). The planning application boundaries occupy an area of 7.2 hectares in total (on both sides of the river), including land required for construction.

1.2 The application site within Lambeth incorporates part of The Queen’s Walk, which forms part of the Thames Path and is identified as a Strategic Walking Route in the London Plan (2015). The Queen’s Walk varies in width and character along its full length. This section is approximately 30 metres wide and comprises two lines of mature trees (subject to a Tree Preservation Order), a paved section with some seating, and a grassed section (with some trees and shrubs) to the rear adjacent to the ITV building. Due to construction issues the application site also encompasses the pedestrian route that links The Queen’s Walk with Upper Ground (between the ITV and IBM buildings) and part of Bernie Spain Gardens, a landscaped public open space. Clarification on construction methodology and access was provided within conditions 7 and 8 which were approved at Planning Applications Committee on 15th December 2015. The details pursuant to these conditions confirmed that the pedestrian pathway between the ITV and IBM buildings would be used for construction access, together with access to the site via the river.

1.3 To the immediate south of the application site is the ITV television studios and offices, whilst beyond this is a residential area bound by Cornwall Road, Duchy Street and Stamford Street. To the south-east of the site is Gabriel’s Wharf (a mix of shops, restaurants, cafes and bars set around a courtyard), beyond which is Bernie Spain Gardens and the OXO Tower. To the west of the site is the four storey locally listed IBM office building and the Grade II* listed National Theatre.

1.4 The nearest existing river crossings to the site are Waterloo Bridge (250m west) which forms part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and Blackfriars Bridge (650m east) which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN).

1.5 The application site is located within the Southbank Conservation Area which is described as a nationally important collection of 20th Century buildings fronting the south bank of the River Thames.

1.6 This report deals with a number of planning conditions attached to the planning consent (14/02792/FUL) granted by LB Lambeth in December 2014 for the works falling within its administrative area. A separate consent was issued by Westminster City Council who will subsequently adjudicate on conditions associated with the permission for the works falling within its administrative area.

2 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 The relevant planning history for the site is listed below, including the parent permission issued by LB Lambeth and the conditions that have been discharged to date.

2.2 14/02792/FUL – Lambeth’s Planning Application Committee (PAC) resolved to grant planning approval on 11th November 2014. Following referral to the Greater London Authority (GLA), planning permission was granted by LB Lambeth on 19th December 2014 for the erection of a pedestrian bridge with incorporated garden, extending for a length of 366m over the River Thames from land adjacent to The Queens Walk on South Bank (in the London Borough of Lambeth) to land above and in the vicinity of Temple London Underground Station on the north bank, the structure of the bridge having a maximum height of 14.3m above Mean High Water and a maximum width of 30m; the development also comprising the erection of 2 new piers in the River Thames; erection of a single-storey landing building (incorporating maintenance, management and welfare facilities and up to 410sqm A1, A3 and/or D1 floorspace with additional ancillary service and plant) on land adjacent to The Queens Walk, opposite the ITV building; associated public realm works; works to trees (including the removal of trees); associated construction work (including laying out of a construction access from Upper Ground) and works sites; and works within the River Thames (including temporary and permanent scour protection, relocation of moorings and erection of temporary structures). An image showing the approved bridge in context can be found at Appendix 1.

2.3 The above permission was granted subject to a total of 46 conditions and the completion of a S106 legal agreement. 29 of these conditions are pre-commencement (or prior to specified works) conditions with a number that are specifically required to be referred back to Planning Applications Committee for determination.

2.4 The first package of conditions were submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for determination in March/April 2015. These conditions were not required to be referred to PAC for determination and as such they were determined by officers under delegated authority following input from the relevant technical consultees with decisions issued in May/June 2015. Details of these conditions are as follows:

 15/01803/DET – Partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 36 (Details of archaeological mitigation –Part A).  15/01836/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 42 (Details of a protocol for the protection of legally protected species).  15/01975/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 32 (Details of a monitoring plan - Flood Defences).  15/02055/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 33 (Details of piling works for South Bank Landing Building).  15/02056/DET – Partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 43 (Details of scheme to deal with site contamination – Parts 1 and 2 only).

2.5 The second package of conditions was submitted to the LPA for determination in late July 2015. Within this second package of conditions the following 4 PAC referable conditions were approved on 17th/18th December 2015 following PAC resolution on 15th December 2015:

 15/04312/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 7 (Construction Logistics Plan).  15/04313/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 8 (Code of Construction Practice).  15/04315/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 11 (Pedestrian/Cyclist Management Plan).  15/04316/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 12 (Tree Removal Plan).

2.6 The second package of conditions also included the submission of the following 4 tree related conditions which were not PAC referable. These applications were approved by officers under delegated authority following consultation with the Council’s Arboricultural Officer.

 15/04317/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 13 (Tree Protection Plan).  15/04318/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 14 (Arboricultural Method Statement).  15/04319/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 15 (Tree Service and Drainage Route Plan).  15/04320/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 16 (Details of Tree Protection Monitoring).

2.7 It is noted that the second package of conditions also included Condition 10 (Noise and Vibration Management Plan – ref: 15/04314/DET). This condition was specifically imposed in order to provide robust mitigation of noise and vibration impacts on neighbouring development, particularly to ITV and IBM, who immediately adjoin the application site and are therefore identified as the most sensitive receptors. Negotiations on the noise mitigation measures remain on-going at the time of writing in order to seek agreement between relevant parties on the broad principles of how suitable mitigation will be achieved. Once these mitigation measures are tested and the results found satisfactory the Noise and Vibration Strategy will be updated and the details will be reported to PAC. This is anticipated to be the 8th March 2016 PAC date.

2.8 The third package of conditions, largely relating to operational issues, was submitted to the LPA in mid-September 2015. This package includes 4 of the conditions on this PAC agenda (Conditions 24, 25, 29 and 37). Negotiations between GBT, Lambeth Officers and relevant consultees remain on-going with respect to the remaining conditions within this package which are listed below:

 15/05213/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 28 (Evacuation Plan).  15/05215/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 37 (Counter Terrorism).  15/05216/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 38 (Crime Prevention Statement).  15/05217/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 46 (Illegal Trading, Anti- Social Behaviour, Crowd Control and General Enforcement).

2.9 It is anticipated that details pursuant to Conditions 37 and 46 will be reported to PAC on 8th March 2016. Conditions 28 and 38 are ‘prior to opening’ conditions and are not PAC referable. These will therefore be determined by officers under delegated authority at a later date following input by relevant consultees including the Metropolitan Police. This will also form part of the Operations Management Plan which will be a ‘live’ document subject to review during the operation of the bridge.

2.10 A fourth package of conditions was submitted in December 2015. This package comprises the two conditions on this PAC agenda (Conditions 21 & 23) which relate to the detailed design and layout of the South Landing Building. A fifth and final package of pre-commencement conditions, generally relating to technical matters, was submitted in January 2016. The following two PAC referable conditions within this package will be reported to PAC on 8th March:

 16/00269/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 6 (River Scour Monitoring Plan).  16/00249/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 9 (Piling Method Statement).

2.11 The remaining conditions within this January 2016 package are listed below. These are not PAC referable and will therefore be determined by officers under delegated powers following input from relevant consultees including the Environment Agency and Thames Tideway Tunnel.

 16/00228/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 4 (Thames Tideway Collaborative Design Statement).  16/00268/DET- Approval of details pursuant to Condition 5 (Thames Tideway Tunnel Construction Interface Plan).  15/07357/DET - Partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 43 (Details of scheme to deal with site contamination – Parts 3 and 4 only).

3 PROPOSAL

3.1 This report deals with applications that seek to discharge five conditions associated with planning permission: 14/02792/FUL which was granted full planning permission in December 2014 for the structure commonly known as the ‘Garden Bridge’.

3.2 The applications currently under consideration seek the approval of details pursuant to the following:

 Condition 21 (Detailed Design of South Landing Building) - 15/06977/DET  Condition 23 (Internal Layout of South Landing Building) - 15/06979/DET  Condition 24 (Delivery and Servicing Plan) - 15/05151/DET  Condition 25 (Waste Management Plan) - 15/05212/DET  Condition 29 (Coach and Taxi Management Plan) - 15/05214/DET

3.3 Full details of each original condition, the information submitted by the applicant in order to satisfy the condition, and an officer appraisal can be found under each individual assessment section within this report.

3.4 A series of technical documents have been submitted pursuant to each of the above conditions. The information within each document is intended to satisfy the reasons why each condition was considered necessary in the first instance in order to provide further details of aspects of the development that were not fully described in the original application submission. The full wording of each condition is included within each individual assessment section. Each of these conditions were requested to be reported back to PAC for determination.

3.4 For the purposes of clarification, additional information has been received through the assessment period in relation to Condition 21. Furthermore, in response to consultation and officer feedback the documents submitted pursuant to Conditions 24, 25, 29 and 37 have been revised during the assessment period in order to address specific concerns arising from the consultation process.

3.5 The officer advice in relation to the pre-application and application stages for the conditions and legal obligations associated with the parent planning permission have been structured through a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA).

4 CONSULTATION

Garden Bridge Trust Consultation

4.1 As part of the original resolution to grant planning permission the Chair of PAC was clear in the instruction that there was an expectation for Garden Bridge Trust (GBT) to carry out a thorough consultation process with local stakeholders and residents in relation to the pre-commencement conditions and S106 obligations attached to the parent permission. To this end the following consultation measures were approved by the LPA and undertaken by GBT in advance of the submission of these applications:

Technical, Statutory and Local Stakeholders

Creation of an overarching consultative forum, the Operations Reference Group (ORG), which considered all operational matters relating to crowds/security, and transport/logistics. The output from these group discussions fed back into the documents pursuant to the various operational conditions. The ORG working group included representatives from IBM, ITV, London Eye, South Bank Employers Group, Southbank Centre and TfL (Operations Conditions Only).

Presentations on operational details to the IROKO Housing Co-Op and WaCoCo Group (Operations Conditions Only).

Presentation on South Landing Building details to IBM & ITV (South Landing Building Conditions Only).

Local Community

7,000 leaflets and questionnaires distributed to local residents and businesses on both banks of the river (Operations Conditions Only).

4,700 leaflets and questionnaires distributed to local residents and businesses on the south bank (South Landing Building Conditions Only)

Drop-in events within the Waterloo Area for members of the public to ask questions of the GBT technical team.

A Community Forum for representatives of local organisations (Operations Conditions Only).

A consultation website including the full range of draft documents available for viewing and comment.

Publicising consultation through social media, newsletters and networks.

4.2 Consultation feedback was facilitated via a freepost questionnaire included with the leaflet, whilst responses were also made via email or submitted through the GBT consultation website. The applications pursuant to these conditions are accompanied by a ‘Consultation Report’ which explains how public and stakeholder feedback has been considered and where possible it has been taken into account in finalising the submission documents. The ‘Operations Consultation Report’ can be viewed on the Council’s website alongside the other documents submitted in order to discharge Conditions 24, 25 and 29. The ‘South Landing Building Consultation Report’ can be viewed on the Council’s website alongside the other documents submitted in order to discharge Conditions 21 & 23.

LPA Consultation

4.3 In addition to the above, officers considered it prudent for the LPA to undertake its own separate public consultation. Members should note that there is no statutory requirement for the LPA to consult on applications for approval of details reserved by planning conditions. However given the scale of interest in the parent application and the criticism in relation to public engagement on that application it is considered that an additional consultation exercise was considered to be beneficial.

4.4 The LPA’s consultation exercise included the distribution of 247 letters to residential properties and businesses within the surrounding environs. This includes residential properties and businesses on Upper Ground, Cornwall Road, Stamford Street, Duchy Street, Coin Street and Waterloo Road.

4.5 A further 37 consultation letters/emails were also sent to local housing co-operatives, residential amenity groups and local stakeholders within the area surrounding the application site.

4.6 In addition to the above a press notice was published in the Lambeth Weekender on 2nd October 2015 (Operations Conditions Only) and South London Press on 11th December 2015 (South Landing Building Conditions Only). Furthermore, 6 site notices were erected within the vicinity of the site for each package of conditions.

4.7 Consultation with external statutory organisations including Transport for London (TfL) also took place, together with consultation with relevant internal technical officers including Transport Planning, Urban Design and Streetcare.

4.8 It should be noted that the 21-day (3 week) consultation period was extended to 35-day (5 weeks) in respect of the South Landing Building conditions. This extended period was due to the consultation period coinciding with the festive period, thereby giving interested parties additional time to make comment.

4.9 Specific consultation responses are reported separately under each individual assessment section within this report.

4.10 A ‘technical panel’ presentation was made on 30th November 2015 and 11th January 2016 to PAC members and ward councillors in order to explain the details pursuant to the six conditions under consideration within this report.

5 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The National Planning Policy Framework was published in 2012. This document sets out the Government’s planning policies for England including the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It is a material consideration in the determination of all applications.

5.3 The development plan in Lambeth is the London Plan (2015) and the Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015). The Local Plan contains detailed development management policies and site allocations. The Local Plan was submitted for examination to the government in March 2014. This process included a public hearing in July 2014 and has continued with the Inspector issued her final report in August 2015. The Local Plan was formally adopted by Council on 23rd September 2015 when it superseded the Core Strategy (2011) and saved UDP policies (2007) and was given full weight in the determination of planning applications.

5.4 The key policies of the Local Plan that are considered relevant in the assessment of each condition are listed within each individual assessment section of the report. For the purposes of clarification, the relevant Local Plan policies that are applicable to each application are considered to be similar to the superseded policies in the UDP and Core Strategy which are listed within the ‘reason’ for each individual condition. It is therefore considered that the Local Plan policies do not introduce new objectives which would not be met by these applications to discharge conditions.

6 ASSESSMENT: Condition 21 (Detailed Design of South Landing Building) 15/06977/DET

Introduction

6.1 Condition 21 of the parent application (14/02792/FUL) reads as follows:

Prior to commencement of the development, the following details pertaining to the South Landing Building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a. Schedule and samples of materials to be used in external elevations; b. Details of lift shaft, to include elevational drawings and 3D views; c. Details of shutters, to include elevations and sections; d. Details of metal screens within east, south and west elevation; e. Details of glazing, to include elevations and sections; f. Details of lighting, to include number, location, appearance and materials; g. Details of CCTV, to include number, location and method of concealment; h. Details of seating and refuse, to include location, appearance and materials; i. Samples of hard landscaping; j. Full details of how the south elevation of the building, in particular how the podium building will address the adjacent ITV site and how the elevation could be amended/activated to respond to any future development proposals that may come forward for the adjacent site; and k. Full details of the public toilet provision.

The South Landing Building shall thereafter only be constructed and provided in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a high quality of detailed design (London Plan Policy 7.5, Core Strategy Policies S9 and PN1 and Saved UDP Policies 28, 32, 33 and 37).

6.2 The condition was effectively imposed given that detailed design of the South Landing building were not presented at the time of the original planning application. As such, the condition was required to ensure that the proposed South Landing Building (SLB) would be of an appropriate external finish, and in keeping with the main bridge (as approved) and the wider local environment, given its prominent local on the South Bank and given the context with designated heritage assets.

6.3 The submission of details (which will be explored within the assessment section below) such as physical materials, 3D views and elevations (including of the lift shaft) has allowed for a thorough and robust review in relation to the detailed external finish of the proposed South Landing Building, noting the cultural, environmental and architectural significance of the surrounding area.

6.4 It should be observed that the officer assessment has explored the relevant planning submissions, including the physical samples (together with the material rationale), detailed elevations and floor plans. The assessment below will detail how each of the checklist (a to k) is planning policy compliant, and draw a conclusion on each specific element of the planning condition.

Submitted Document

6.5 A schedule of (and including the submitted physical samples) has been submitted which includes the following:

Table 1. Submitted Document and Supporting Material Samples – Illustrating the schedule of materials submitted to the Council and the physical material sample description

Sample item Location of Item (on the Description of item SLB)

Concrete All deck slab soffits, exposed Mid-grey cement mix & off- edges & supporting columns white exposed aggregate (with anti-graffiti treatment) Balustrades Podium and stairs, glazed Laminate glazed balustrade balustrade & cactus stair with stainless steel handrail central handrail

Lift envelope Lift cladding and lift glazing Bespoke steel fin (RAL7013) and translucent textured glass Façade (composite panel) South and west elevations of Composite insulated panels the South Landing Building to span from ground to underside of the podium (RAL 7013) Façade (metal fins) North elevation and east Bespoke welded decorated stair enclosure and profiled mild steel PPC finish (RAL 7013) to match lift cladding Facade (glazed shop front) North elevation Double glazed curtain walling, low-iron PVB inner layer and safety glass Façade (trust area) Garden Bridge trust area Double glazed curtain walling, low-iron PVB inner layer and safety glass (class 2 BSEN 12600) Doors (double glazed folding Ground floor (internal lobby Double glazed curtain door) area) walling, low-iron PVB inner layer and safety glass (class 2 BSEN 12600) Roller shutter North and east elevations Polycarbonate infill to meet visibility and SBD requirements, to match lift cladding (above) Ground level paving External areas Chinese granite sets, Red. G2070 matching existing finish on the Queens Walk Podium paving Podium floor Hardscape Kellen Range paving Tagenta D with Breccia Finish

The submitted plans

6.6 The table below provides for an easy-reference guide to the submitted drawings which have formed the basis for the officer assessment of Condition 21 (along with the materials) and supporting 3D illustrations.

Drawing Title Drawing Reference South Landing and Ground Floor Plan GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 09 South Landing Podium Plan GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40002 Rev 05 South Landing Building North and East GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40010 Rev 05 Elevations South Landing West and South Elevations GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40011 Rev 06 South Landing South Elevation – Future GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40012 Rev Development Proposal 02); South Landing Short Section GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40020 Rev 06 South Landing GA Section GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40021 Rev 04 South Landing GA Section GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40022 Rev 04 South Landing Superstructure Details GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40301 Rev 05 Security Shutters South Landing Solid Façade Details GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40410 Rev 04 South Landing North Elevation Glazed GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40421 Rev 05 Façade Bays 1-11 South Landing Glazed Façade Bays 12-13 GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40422 Rev 06 South Landing Glazed Façade Details GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40430 Rev 05 South Landing Glazed Façade Details GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40431 Rev 05); South Landing Plans Sheet 1 GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40440 Rev 04 No Title GBT-HS-LS-ZZ-DR-AX-33011 Rev A Benches and litter bins visualisations unnumbered Garden Bridge South Landing Benches and unnumbered Litter Bins Location Plan Details of Metal Screens within the East, unnumbered South and West Elevations South Landing – Lift Shaft (Lower Ground unnumbered Level NW View); 6m Flange Lighting Columns (CCTV and No 35355-0 CCTV); External Envelope Appendix 1 Lift Cladding Rationale (January 2016) unnumbered South Landing Materials (January 2016) unnumbered Bridge External Metal Work and Bench GBT-HS-LS-ZZ-DR-AX-33011 Rev A Detail South Landing Plans Sheet 1 GB-MX-ALL-DWG-ARC-40440 Rev 04 South Landing Plans Sheet 2 GB-MX-ALL-DWG-ARC-40441 Rev 04 South Landing Lift Core, North and East GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40450 Rev Elevations 04); South Landing Lift Core, South and West GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40451 Rev 04 Elevations South Landing Lift Core, Details Sheet 1 GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40470 Rev 04 South Landing Lift Core, Details Sheet 1 GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40471 Rev 04 South Landing Lighting and CCTV Column GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40520 Rev 02 Reflected Ceiling Plan GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40700 Rev 03

Images and further supporting details

6.7 It should be noted that the applicants have also submitted visualisations and 3D images that include the proposed benches, lighting columns, screening to the podium and lift shaft image.

6.8 A further supplementary document detailing the rationale behind each material was also submitted to explain the practical and aesthetical reasoning behind the selected finishes for the proposed South Landing Building. Imagery including a night-time mock- up of the podium level and lift shaft was also produced and submitted to the Council by the applicants.

Consultation Responses

6.9 At the time of writing, a total of 4 objections have been received in response to the public consultation exercise in relation to this application (including from DP9 on behalf of ITV plc). Two additional objections were also received from the Mulberry Housing Co-Operative and two further objections from local Councillors were also received in response to the Council’s public consultation exercise. The objections are summarised below, together with a corresponding response:

Objection Summary Officer Response

The Garden Bridge Consultation The Council undertook its own public document was not received by people on consultation exercise, which is this co-op. Seemingly, some people referenced fully elsewhere in the report. locally did receive it at a time when we However, it should also be noted that the were dealing with Operations Conditions. Garden Bridge Trust undertook its own The distribution would have been as public consultation exercise, comprising confusing as the previous experience of the distribution of approximately 4,700 receiving operation consultation leaflets and questionnaires to residents documents when we were dealing with and businesses in close proximity to the construction conditions SLB on the south of the river.

Two public drop-in events – both during the week, one on an afternoon and one in the evening, a consultation website and Publicising the consultation through social media, the GBT website and networks and other local networks, including in the ‘Our South Bank’ newsletter. The design of the proposed lift / shaft is The lift design is considered to be not in keeping with the openness of sympathetic to its surrounding context Queens walk and the river expanse on the South Bank. The design is presented as a contemporary addition to the modern brutalist architecture of the mid-20th Century, while the palate of materials makes strong reference to that evident on the South Bank. The concept for the proposed design utilises a painted steel cladding that makes reference to the Victorian cast iron structures - painted railings and lighting columns that form part of the material palette of the South- & North Bank contexts. The use of materials on the lift is mirrored in the façade of the South Landing building rooting the lift on the South Bank and making the lift part of the South Landing composition. This will fully explored within the officer report below. The images used of the proposed South It is considered that the submitted 3D Landing Building are poor quality and images, mock-ups together with the misleading. They do not illustrate the exit detailed elevations, sections and floor /entry points and whether the design and plans allow for a robust assessment of practicality is appropriate for all. the detailed design of the South Landing Building. Some of the images are set out within the report below whilst all of the supporting information has been made publically available as part of the consultation exercise. The report below examines the visual amenity assessment and concludes on all elements of condition 21. The detailed design and bulk of the The bulk of the South Landing Building proposed South Landing Building is has not increased beyond the original inappropriate for its context planning approval (Ref. 14/02792/FUL). The report below examines the visual amenity assessment and concludes on all elements of condition 21. The building is oppressive and does not The design of the proposed South relate to local building styles Landing Building would represent a contemporary addition to the surrounding architectural composition. However, the design of the South Landing Building draws from the use of materials and features from other historic developments along the South Bank. This is again referenced throughout the submission (including materials rationale) and is explored within the officer report below in more detail. Since we do not know what the full use of The approved ‘Flexible’ space within the building is we find it difficult to make full proposed South Landing Building and proper comment beyond pointing out comprises A1/A3/D1 as per the previous that charges for booking rooms at the planning approval. This composition of local CSBC Neighbourhood Centre prices approved uses remains unaltered. locals and small groups out of the Furthermore, it should be observed that building. the specific arrangements regarding rent of the space is not a material planning consideration in relation to this application, which deals with detailed design. Benches are not benches with backs: It should be noted that there is no they are plinths. They are not designed planning requirement for benches to for relaxation have a back. The bench to be retained at podium level is considered to be suitably positioned adjacent to the accessible lifts to ensure a suitable resting place for those who require it. As such, the design rationale for the benches is strong and can be supported. The bins are too small to meet any It should be observed that condition (21) practical need. We have pointed out the deals primarily with the detailed design need for good bin facilities in the aspects rather than the practicality of operations process. refuse storage. However, section 9 of the officer report relating to planning condition 25 (Waste Management Plan) will detail that the quality and quantum of waste provision which is found to be acceptable and policy compliant. Contradictory uses between events and This objection relates to the principle of queuing for bridge exist. Is this an events the bridge as opposed to any issue space or a public bridge related to the details pursuant to this condition (21). The objection is therefore not a consideration in the assessment of this application. There is inadequate access for all onto The proposed lifts would facilitate the south landing building podium level access between ground, podium and and then onto the bridge from podium, bridge deck level, supplementing the including access for all. staircases which is considered to be accurate and explored further in the officer report below. The quantum of toilet provision is Provision has been made for a total of inadequate seven public toilets (all unisex and one of which is accessible for disabled users and one with provision of baby changing facilities). The toilets would be for full public use, and the internal layout of the South Landing Building (at ground level) also indicates a cleaner’s store along with the WC attendant room. Inadequate disabled and baby changing Amended plans have been secured in facilities order to ensure that a baby change facility will be provided. The toilet proposals include one fully accessible cubicle including for wheelchair users. Inappropriate design of the proposed In terms of the proposed location and refuse bins which are also impractical, quantum of the refuse bins it should be and which will not promote general use observed that there are 8 refuse bins at podium level which are illustrated on the Garden Bridge South Landing Benches and Litter Bins Location Plan. The scale, siting, use of materials and detailed design are considered to be appropriate in design terms. ITV currently has a means of escape from The parent application proposed the north west corner of their site. The building up to adjoin the ITV northern proposals do not clearly show how that boundary, and so the current proposal escape is to be maintained. The drawings with the set-back building line to account / details indicate that the gates will lead for the rear access route would not have into the side of the 2m alley. It is not a greater impact than the scheme considered that this is a safe means of previously approved at planning escape. committee. For clarity, the access from the adjacent ITV site would remain unaffected by the proposals. The agents have confirmed that the proposals have not changed since planning approval where the drawings show the existing escape route and doors from ITV being maintained. The South Landing Building position allows anyone using the exit to turn left onto Queens Walk – the desired line of travel will be informed by the security gate preventing people entering access walkway along the southern edge of the South Landing Building. There are limited details in respect of the The lighting is directed towards the proposed lighting and how this might South Landing Building and not the ITV affect ITV in terms of light pollution. Is site. With regard to light pollution, it further information to be provided / should also be noted that the submission requested by the Council? of a detailed lighting strategy will come forward under Condition 26 which will provide details on luminance levels, amongst other matters so that the Council have sufficient scope to safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring sites. For clarity, the current application (21) deals with detailed design matters. No details on any noise emitting devices This is not a material consideration of has been made. Will there be a public this condition which deals with the address system/alarm system? If yes detailed design and appearance of the what are the predicted noise levels of SLB. The operational matters will be such equipment. covered under Condition 3 (including the Operations Management Plan) The new building appears to over-sail the The proposed South Landing Building boundary wall with ITV and finishes in line would not over-sail the neighbouring ITV with the existing railings – does the Trust site. Drawing: GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG- have the right to encroach over the ARC-40001 Rev 09 clearly illustrates boundary wall. this. There are limited details relating to CCTV This application simply provides details – what proposals are in place for CCTV? on CCTV housing (i.e. the detailed Will it record? Will it cause any loss of design as required by Condition privacy/security for ITV 21). CCTV coverage will form part of the Security Plan, pursuant to Condition 3 (the OMP). The drawings state that the ITV railings This matter is covered by Party Wall are to be reinstated – does this mean that Legislation and as such is not a planning there is an intention by the Trust to seek consideration. The objection is therefore permission to remove the railings? No not a consideration in the assessment of details on construction access have been this application. indicated on the drawings/proposals. The proposal would result in a loss of It should be noted that he principle of the privacy from the rear (north facing) SLB, including a raised podium has windows that are contained within the already been established by the parent adjacent ITV building. consent. In any event it should also be noted that views are already obtainable into windows to the rear of ITV studios from the Queen’s Walk and in particular the existing grassed area noting that there is not a closed boundary fence (i.e. the railings already allow views through them, and the proposed SLB would not project beyond the boundary with the neighbouring site).

6.10 The Council’s Urban Design Officer has undertaken a thorough review of the submitted documents and samples, and has expressed general support for the submitted details however at the time of writing, also required further clarification in relation to specific RAL colours of various elements of cladding together with further rationale regarding the proposed paving material (Tegenta D with Breccia finish) for the podium level. A further update on these specific elements will be provided via an addendum ahead of PAC.

Relevant Planning Policy

6.11 As previously explored, the Local Plan (2015) has since come into effect, and is the document by which planning decisions are based upon (along with national and regional policies). The policies within the Local Plan that are considered to be relevant to this application are listed as follows:

Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015) Title Policy D1 Delivering and Monitoring Policy D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy PN1 Waterloo Policy Q1 Inclusive environments Policy Q3 Community safety Policy Q5 Local distinctiveness Policy Q6 Urban design: public realm Policy Q7 Urban design: new development Policy Q8 Design quality: construction detailing Policy Q9 Landscaping Policy Q12 Refuse/recycling storage Policy Q22 Conservation areas Policy Q24 River Thames

Assessment

6.12 Against criterion (a to k) of Condition 21

a. Schedule and samples of materials to be used in external elevations;

6.13 The table above (paragraph 6.5) provides the (a) sample type, (b) location and (c) description of each of the submitted materials that was presented in order to address the schedule. Each of the materials is assessed below:

Concrete

6.14 In assessing the suitability of the proposed sample officers have paid due regard to how the sample would be seen in context with the bridge cladding and how it would fit in with the immediate and wider setting. The bridge would be clad in copper-nickel. The image below shows a copper-nickel sample weathered after 4.5 years in two different natural light conditions. In officers view the cream white tone of the concrete sample would complement the dark golden brown tone of the copper-nickel. The textured surface created by the aggregate would create a natural contrast to the bridges smooth and slightly reflective metal surface.

Figure 1. Mid-grey cement mixed with natural off-white exposed aggregate. A concrete sample has been submitted

6.15 The South Bank is home to a collection of outstanding cultural buildings typically clad in stone or concrete creating a grey and cream backdrop to the Thames. These groups of buildings form part of the neutral palette of the wider cityscape including the north bank. The proposed use of concrete for the south building reflects the predominant building material used in nearby buildings such as the Royal National Theatre (Grade II*), Queen Elizabeth Hall and Hayward Gallery both locally listed. Exposed aggregate can be found in the adjacent IBM building (locally listed) which incorporates a high proportion of grey and brown aggregate (see image below).

Figure. 2 [IBM (locally listed) - concrete with grey and brown aggregate cladding]

6.16 Concrete with exposed aggregate would relate well to the immediate context and as such is acceptable in principle.

6.17 The proposed concrete and exposed aggregate sample has not only been carefully considered to relate to the immediate and wider context, its long term appearance and maintenance have also been considered. The concrete mix has several advantages such as:

 Its appearance would not change much because the natural stone would not absorb dirt and therefore not discolour over time and the mid-grey concrete would be more resilient to decolourisation.  The textured surface would act as a deterrent to graffiti artists  The pearl like white stones would appear quite light and pale in daylight.  Low maintenance

6.18 The applicant has provided images of the sample in different natural light conditions (see images below). Officers undertook a similar exercise whereby the sample was taken in the same daylight condition however the orientation of the sample was altered from north to south facing.

Figure. 3 [Concrete and exposed aggregate sample (Images taken by applicant) – In different natural daylight conditions

Figure. 4 [Concrete and exposed aggregate sample (Images taken by officers 21.01.2016) – South facing and North facing in similar natural daylight conditions]

6.19 The images above demonstrate that the concrete mix would appear quite white or grey in differing daylight conditions and orientation both of which are considered acceptable. Overall, officers consider the sample acceptable in terms its relationship to the bridge and surrounding context.

Balustrades

6.20 A sample of the laminated glass balustrade with tubular stainless steel handrail has been submitted. The balustrades would provide protection, guidance (orientation assistance) and permeability along the podium and stairs to the proposed South Landing Building, including glazed balustrade & cactus stair central handrails that are proposed to the eastern and western staircases between the South Bank and podium level. The proposed balustrades would measure 1.1m in height and would comprise laminate glazed balustrades with stainless steel handrails. It is considered that the submitted samples demonstrate a clean finish and durable product for use on the South Landing Building. As such, officers conclude that the balustrades would be of an acceptable visual appearance in context with the main bridge and wider environment, and with the wider conservation area.

Lift envelope (cladding and lift glazing)

6.21 The proposed lift shaft would rise from ground terminating above podium level, which would be visible a variety of views along the South Bank. This element would comprise the use of bespoke steel fins (RAL7013), as submitted and translucent textured glass. The applicants have addressed the lift design in the context of a submission entitled ‘lift cladding rationale’ which states that:

6.22 The lift design is sympathetic to its surrounding context - on the South the design is presented as a contemporary addition to the modern brutalist architecture of the mid- 20th Century, while being aligned with a past Victorian metalwork tradition evident on both South and North Banks.

6.23 The concept for the proposed design utilises a painted steel cladding that makes reference to the Victorian cast iron structures - painted railings and lighting columns that form part of the material palette of the South- & North Bank contexts. The use of materials on the lift is mirrored in the façade of the South Landing building rooting the lift on the South Bank and making the lift part of the South Landing composition.

Figure 5. [Images of cladding in different natural daylight conditions (images provided by applicant)]

6.24 The steel fins of a mid to dark grey colour (RAL 7013) would provide the solid element in order to complement the void of the lightweight glazing that is also proposed. As such, the vertical emphasis of the lift would be successfully expressed, whilst the breaks in the solid (provided by the glazing) would help soften the appearance of the structure above podium level.

6.25 As such, it is considered that the materials palate and detailed design would be appropriate for the bridge, the South Landing Building and the wider surrounding environment in visual amenity terms. The visuals below (see figure 1 below) illustrate that the proposed lift would not dominate the South Landing Building or indeed result in an oppressive architectural element. The use of materials to compliment the remaining elements of the South Bank, and the reference to the historic and cultural developments (i.e. through the use of steel cladding and lighting columns) would result in a development that is practical in terms of ensure that there is access for all to the bridge level, whilst responding to the bridge and its environment.

Façade Treatments (composite panel, shop front, trust area and folding door system)

6.26 The composite panels would comprise insulated panels to span from ground to the underside of the podium (RAL 7013 in colour). It has been confirmed by the applicants that the proposed fin colours would match the proposed lift cladding. The applicants have also stated that the cladding fins on the lift shaft and the South Landing walls are roll-painted for ease of maintenance. In this respect, in the event where, the cladding is vandalised by graffiti, it would be of ease to paint over any graffiti works to ensure the crisp and clear finish would be maintained long-term, thereby safeguarding and future proofing the long term appearance of the elevations.

6.27 Furthermore, the east stair would be clad in bespoke metal welded, and decorative profiled steel to again match the proposed lift cladding (RAL 7013). In terms of the glazed shop frontage and the trust area respectively, the finishes would comprise double glazed curtain walling, low-iron PVB inner layer and safety glass (class 2 BSEN 12600). The bi-folding set-up of the doors would offer visual interest between the columns, whilst also providing greater visual permeability into the spaces at ground level off the south bank, creating a pleasant, welcoming environment on the south Bank. As such, it is considered that the proposed finishes would be acceptable in the interests of visual amenity.

Roller shutters

6.28 In terms of the proposed roller shutters that would be used within the northern and eastern elevations of the proposed South Landing Building. The external finish would be comprised of clear polycarbonate in-fills to meet both visibility and Secured by Design requirements, and would match the colouration of the proposed lift cladding (as previously explored above).

6.29 It is considered that the permeability of the shutters (when in use), and palate colours which would be in keeping with the main elevations and lift shaft would ensure that the finish would not be stark in appearance, and would not create an oppressive environment on the South Bank, and so it is therefore considered that the fear of crime would not be increased through the proposed use of the roller shutters. As such, it is considered that the proposed finishes would be acceptable in the interests of visual amenity.

Ground level paving

6.30 The ground level paving, proposed to the immediate vicinity of the South Landing Building would comprise the use of Chinese granite sets, (Red. G2070 in colouration) matching the existing finish on the Queens Walk. The applicants have stated that the use of this material would draw upon the palate of materials used within the immediate environment, whilst also signifying that the entrance to the proposed South Landing Building as a public place to welcome visitors.

6.31 Officers conclude that the chosen paving would be of an acceptable visual appearance in context with the main bridge and wider environment, emphasising the South Landing Building as a public space, offering visual contrast with the materials palate of the bridge and the Queens Walk, whilst also respecting the surrounding built environment and heritage assets. No objections are therefore raised in the in interests of visual amenity.

Podium Paving

6.32 This material (to be used at podium floor level of the South Landing Building) would comprise Hardscape Kellen Range paving Tagenta D with Breccia Finish. The applicants have provided a rationale behind the use of this material stating that:

6.33 The “Taganta” Kellen concrete paver from Hardscape was chosen because it gives a clear colour contrast to the other materials in the material palette. It highlights the cooper nickel and the lift cladding. The pavers on the deck and the stairs is clearly a different colour to the pink granite and resin bound gravel used on the Queens Walk. The material change would help signify that visitors are about to leave the Queens Walk space and enter the Garden Bridge. The material has been selected elsewhere around London in public realm, including in the Millennium Dome environment (Greenwich). It should be noted that officers have expressed concern regarding the dark colouration of the Tagenta D with Breccia Finish paving. At the time of writing further clarification was being sought from the architect regarding the use of this material. In the event that officers are not satisfied a lighter colouration will be sought. An addendum on this matter will provided in advance of PAC.

b. Details of lift shaft, to include elevational drawings and 3D views;

6.34 The lift shaft provides level access from ground floor to podium level and bridge level. Furthermore, the lift shaft is proposed to have a solid base comprising folded steel fins that gently taper to reveal a translucent glass behind. The design would contrast effectively with the strong horizontal form of the south landing building and would also complement the proposed parade of columns at ground level.

6.35 With regard to the detailed design rationale, the applicants have stated that the simple form and detailing of the bridge particularly the transition between solid and glazing and the profile of the folded fins create an attractive refined lift structure. The metal cladding will require little maintenance besides some occasional painting when needed and the translucent glass is resilient to dirt and as such reduces the cleaning burden. Overall materials are robust and low maintenance and as such considered satisfactory. The lighting of the lift shaft would be subtle located at the entrance of lift doors and within the glazed lift cars. Lighting would be turned off when the bridge is closed.

Figure 6. The lift shaft in context with the South Landing building

Figure 7. The lift shaft in context with the South Landing building (night time illustration)

Figure 8. Illustrating the lift shaft and South Landing Building with the bridge

c. Details of shutters, to include elevations and sections;

6.36 As referenced above, the proposed roller shutters to be used within the north and east elevations of the South Landing Building would be designed of a polycarbonate infill finish (PPC Steel) in order to meet visibility and Secured by Design (SBD) requirements and the finishing colour would also match the proposed lift cladding.

6.37 Submitted drawing South Landing Superstructure Details Security Shutters (Ref. GB- MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40301 Rev 05) was submitted by the applicants. The details include a section though the roller housing shutter, which indicate the honeycomb water proof membrane, up-stand (for the support) and how the shutters would be fixed. The details also clearly illustrate that the boxed housing (located at high level) would not be readily visible from the public arena, except for short range views within the envelope of the proposed South Landing building. Accordingly, officers are satisfied that the details provided in respect to point (c) would ensure a high quality finish.

d. Details of metal screens within east, south and west elevation;

6.38 The applicants have provided detailed elevations and sections in the form of the following drawing: South Landing Solid Façade Details (Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG- ARC-40410 Rev 04) which illustrate the bespoke folded mild-metal fins with a factory finished paint application. The details illustrate the context of the proposed metal screens with the structural columns (inclusive of the connectivity with the support columns and interface with the main slabs). The inverted ‘V-Shape’ of the bespoke panels is also clearly identified on this submitted drawing in plan form of the west elevation.

6.39 No objections are therefore raised to the submitted details in connection with the proposed metal screens. The proposals would be of a high quality external finish which has been clearly demonstrated through the submissions of the sections, plans, elevations and material samples (indicated and explored under point (a) of the above checklist. e. Details of glazing, to include elevations and sections;

6.40 It should be noted that a series of detailed drawings has been submitted in connection with point (e), all of which relate to glazing in elevation and section format. The submitted details illustrate the balustrade glazing and the glazing to be used within the building frontages at ground level along this part of the Queens Walk. The details demonstrate the cross sectional width of the fixed double glazed laminate panels, fixture between the glazing, aluminium framing and concrete structures, the opening circumference between the doors serving the ground floor units together with the wider contextual background with the South Landing Building.

6.41 Again, no objections are raised to the submitted details in connection with the proposed glazed elements. The submitted details clearly demonstrate that the doors, balustrades and panelling would be of a high quality external finish, offering security, permeability and visual interest to the proposed South Landing Building and would therefore be acceptable in the interests of visual amenity.

f. Details of lighting, to include number, location, appearance and materials;

6.42 The podium level lighting details include reference to the proposed down lighters (within soffits), recessed down lighters and lighting mounted within the lift shaft fins, and external mounted columns. The lighting columns would measure 6.0m in height and would be discretely fixed to the podium level slabs, with all fixings concealed beneath the podium finished floor level. In terms of the proposed quantum, it should be noted that drawing ref. GB-MX—SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40700 Rev 03 indicates that a total of 11 emergency luminaires and 23 linear luminaries. Further ceiling down lighters and suspended lighting systems would also serve the proposed South Landing Building. As such, all areas internally and externally would receive adequate artificial lighting sources in this respect.

6.43 No objections are therefore raised to the submitted details in connection with the detailed design of the proposed lighting. The lighting proposals would be of a high quality external finish which has been clearly demonstrated through the submissions of the sections, plans and detailed elevations (NB. It should also be noted that a separate planning condition (No.26), which is required to be discharged “prior to occupation” also requires the submission of a separate worked up lighting strategy to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. At this stage, the details are appropriate to meet the provisions of point (f) of condition 21.

g. Details of CCTV, to include number, location and method of concealment;

6.44 The applicants have provided a Reflected Ceiling Plan (Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG- ARC-40700 Rev 03) which illustrates the quantum and location of surface mounted CCTV cameras, which would provide coverage of the South Landing Building, including the staircases and podium level, whilst the following drawing: South Landing Lighting and CCTV Column (Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40520 Rev 02) illustrates the pole mounted CCTV, within the proposed lighting columns.

6.45 No objections are raised to the submitted details in connection with the proposed CCTV, in terms of the quantum, location or detailed design, which in part utilise the structures such as lighting columns to provide the appropriate coverage, whilst the use of surface mounted CCTV is also captured within the submitted plans. In total, eight mounted CCTV cameras would be positioned to capture the entrance stairs (east and west) to the South Landing Building with additional cameras controlling the entrance to the public toilets and the upper podium level. It is considered that the details proposed in terms of the quantum, location and positioned would ensure a high quality external finish which has been clearly demonstrated through the submissions of the sections, plans and detailed elevations.

6.46 However, it should also be noted that a separate planning conditions relating to a wider CCTV strategy in the context of Condition 3 (the wider Operational Management Plan) and the security-related conditions (28, 37, 38 and 46) which will also be considered as part of the garden bridge submission would also address the matter of security in detail. The present condition relates primarily to the detailed design of the CCTV systems, which is considered to be acceptable in the interests of visual amenity.

h. Details of seating and refuse, to include location, appearance and materials;

Figure 9. Illustrating the location (in part), design and context of the proposed benches and refuse bins, at podium level serving the proposed South Landing Building

6.47 In order to discharge this planning condition, drawing (Ref. Bridge External Metal Work and Bench Detail (Ref. GBT-HS-LS-ZZ-DR-AX-33011 Rev A) was provided. The details indicate the design (dimensions and appearance) of the bins and seating benches for the podium. The benches would be flat-topped, measuring 2.1m in length x 0.5m in width and would measure 0.45m in height off the surface. The benches would be of a pre-cast concrete base design with the top seating section of galvanised steel plates and dark grey coloured paving slabs which have been designed to match the lift shaft decking, thereby a consistent appearance to the podium level of the South Landing Building.

6.48 The proposed refuse receptacles would measure 1.230m in height (max), and would include apertures on all elevations for the disposal of litter. The proposed refuse receptacles would be of a simple, and function design to serve the proposed South Landing Building. The proposed refuse receptacles would be constructed with a pre- cast concrete base, which would taper in towards the base, and the main bodies would be of PPC galvanised steel plate construction, which is both durable and in keeping with other components of the bridge as explored above. To illustrate this point, it would be observed that the top plated element to each refuse receptacle would include the use of dark grey coloured paving slabs to match the proposed garden bridge benches, as previously explored above.

6.49 In terms of the proposed location and quantum of the refuse bins and benches it should be observed that there would be one bench (with three seats) at podium level, located adjacent to the lifts to ensure a suitable resting place for those who require it. As such, the design rationale for the benches is strong and can be supported. Furthermore, a total of 8 bins at podium level are also illustrated on the Garden Bridge South Landing Benches and Litter Bins Location Plan. Following detailed review, it is considered that the quantum of benches and refuse bins is appropriate for the South Landing Building, in terms of (a) allowing the safe and convenient passage of pedestrians, whilst (b) also offering these essential functions that are required as part of the public realm. The design and materials used would also be in keeping with the surfaces and facades of the proposed South Landing building and would therefore be acceptable in the interests of visual amenity.

i. Samples of hard landscaping;

6.50 Please refer to point (a) above (paragraphs 6.30 – 6.33) which set out the full range of surface treatments proposed for use within the context of the South Landing Building, which includes reference to the hard-landscaping treatments for the building and the immediate environment.

Figure 10. Illustrating the context between the use of podium level slabs (dark grey) and the pinkish slabs (bottom of the stairs) that are pinkish in colour indicating a change in environment

j. Full details of how the south elevation of the building, in particular how the podium building will address the adjacent ITV site and how the elevation could be amended/activated to respond to any future development proposals that may come forward for the adjacent site.

6.51 In order to demonstrate the interface with the adjacent ITV studios site (situated to the south of the proposed South Landing Building), the applicants have submitted the following floor plan: South Landing and Ground Floor Plan (Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL- DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 09). The detailed floor plan layout illustrates a series of single and double doors that comprise three openings within the southern façade of the proposed South Landing Building that would serve the commercial flexible space (within the eastern section of the building) and a further four openings within the Garden Bridge Trust element of the ground floor (within the western element) of the proposed South Landing Building. The details are also represented in elevation format in the context of drawing: GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40012. In terms of the adaptability, it should also be noted that the drawing demonstrates that glazing could be applied to the openings to the commercial space on the southern elevation to replace the metal panels, and thereby respond to the neighbouring ITV site. It is also noted that linkages could also be provided at podium level noting that the podium deck extends right to the boundary with the ITV site.

6.52 It is considered that the series of openings proposed within the southern façade of the proposed South Landing Building (at ground level) would respond positively to the neighbouring ITV site, allowing for an adaptable (and active) building elevation that would be readily adaptable in the event of any future development proposals that may come forward for the adjacent site. As such, this element of condition 21 is considered to be acceptable.

Figure.11. 5. Image of the eastern South Landing Building façade, highlighting the relationship with the ITV site (LHS of the image) which would be separated by the meshed access gate, again to the LHS of the staircase in this image.

k. Full details of the public toilet provision.

6.53 Provision has been made for a total of seven public toilets (all unisex and one of which is a fully accessible facility for disabled users) together with the separate provision of baby changing facilities. The toilets would be for full public use, and the internal layout of the South Landing Building (at ground level) also indicates a cleaner’s store along with the WC attendant room. These facilities would be accessed within the western element of the proposed South Landing Building, via a set of fixed laminate glazed entrance doors within the northern building façade.

6.54 It should be observed that since the original planning approval (Ref. 14/02792/FUL) there has been a net reduction in the garden bridge commercial floor space, to facilitate the proposed toilet provision. In this respect, it should be noted that 410sqm of A1/A3/D1 floor space was provided excluding plant and circulation space (as originally approved). This has since been reduced to approx. 348sqm in order to accommodate the public toilets. This is considered to be a net public benefit, and whilst there is no minimum figure of toilets in planning terms that can be applied, it is considered that the provision, location and layout of the toilets would be acceptable.

6.55 The applicants have also provided evidence that there is also a variety of toilets available within 800m of the proposed South Landing Building that can supplement the quantum of toilets that would be provided within the envelope of the proposed South Landing Building. In this respect, facilities are available at the National Theatre (that are free and within 160m of the application site), Royal Festival Hall (that are free and within 640m of the application site) and at the Tate Modern (free, and within 800m of the application site). Furthermore, the applicants have also since demonstrated that there are also toilets available in the nearby Gabriel’s Wharf, in proximity to the proposed South Landing Building.

6.56 As such, it is considered that despite the fact that there is no planning policy basis in terms of quantum of necessary provision to serve the proposed South Landing Building, that the applicants have demonstrated that there would be adequate on-site facilities available for all users, and that there is also wider capacity along the South Bank. The requirements of point (k) of condition 21 have therefore been met.

Conclusion and Recommendation

6.57 The submitted details are considered to be acceptable and would enhance the quality of the built environment and the surrounding area. The Urban Design and Conservation officer has raised no objections, subject to clarification on a number of elements which will be explored by way of an Addendum in advance of planning committee. As such, officers recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 21 of the parent permission 14/02792/FUL.

7 ASSESSMENT: Condition 23 (Internal Layout of South Landing Building) 15/06979/DET

Introduction

7.1 Condition 23 of the parent application (14/02792/FUL) reads as follows:

No development shall commence until plans showing the internal layout and use of each area of the South Landing Building, including the provision of public toilets, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The South Landing Building shall thereafter only be provided in accordance with the details approved.

Reason: To ensure suitable control over the final design and use of the South Landing Building (London Plan Policy 7.5, Core Strategy Policies S1 and PN1 and Saved UDP Policies 19 and 28). [Note: The details submitted pursuant to this condition will be referred to Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee for a resolution]

7.2 Condition 23 which requires the submission of the detailed floor plans, elevations and sections (as indicated below) was considered to be PAC referable in order to allow for a robust assessment of the proposed internal layout of the South Landing Building (SLB). The submissions have provided for a detailed review of the general layout, accessibility adaptations and considerations, public toilet provision and the adaptations and interface between the proposed South Landing Building and ITV studios to the south of the site. The officer assessment below will detail how the current application (to discharge Condition 23) is planning policy compliant.

7.3 Submitted Document

1) South Landing and Ground Floor Plan (Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 09)

2) South Landing Podium Plan (Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40002 Rev 05)

3) South Landing Building North and East Elevations (Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG- ARC-40010 Rev 05)

4) South Landing Access Statement (dated 20th January 2016)

5) Unnumbered list of publically accessible toilets near the garden bridge location (together with maps)

Consultation Responses

7.4 At the time of writing, a total of 7 objections have been received in response to the public consultation exercise including objections from the Mulberry Housing Co- Operative, DP9 on behalf of ITV plc and objections from two local Councillors, which were also received in response to the Council’s public consultation exercise. The objections are summarised below, together with a corresponding response. The detailed matters will be fully explored within the context of the officer report below.

Objection Summary Officer Response

Two public drop-in events – both during the week, one on an afternoon and one In the evening, a consultation website and Publicising the consultation through social media, the GBT website and networks and other local networks, including in the ‘Our South Bank’ newsletter. The design of the proposed lift / shaft is This objection relates to the design of the not in keeping with the openness of lift shaft which does not form part of this Queens walk and the river expanse application. For the purpose of clarity, the current condition (23) relates solely to the internal layout and use of the proposed South Landing Building. The objection is therefore not a consideration in the assessment of this application. The images used of the proposed South It should be noted that this objection Landing Building are poor quality and relates to the external appearance of the misleading. They do not illustrate the exit proposed South Landing Building (SLB) /entry points and whether the design and which is a matter for consideration under practicality is appropriate for all. Condition 21. The objection is therefore not a consideration in the assessment of this application. The detailed design and bulk of the It should be noted that this objection proposed South Landing Building is relates to the external appearance of the inappropriate for its context proposed South Landing Building (SLB) which is a matter for consideration under Condition 21. The objection is therefore not a consideration in the assessment of this application. The building is oppressive and does not It should be noted that this objection relate to local building styles relates to the external appearance of the proposed South Landing Building (SLB) which is a matter for consideration under Condition 21. The objection is therefore not a consideration in the assessment of this application. Since we do not know what the full use of The approved ‘Flexible’ space within the building is we find it difficult to make full proposed South Landing Building would and proper comment beyond pointing out be comprised of A1/A3/D1 use as that charges for booking rooms at the previously approved under the parent local CSBC Neighbourhood Centre prices application. locals and small groups out of the building. Benches are not benches with backs: It should be noted that there is no they are plinths. They are not designed planning requirement for benches to for relaxation have a back. The bench to be retained at podium level is considered to be suitably positioned adjacent to the accessible lifts to ensure a suitable resting place for those who require it. As such, the design rationale for the benches is strong and can be supported. The bins are too small to meet any The design of the bins is a matter for practical need. We have pointed out the Condition 21 whilst waste management need for good bin facilities in the issues are a consideration under operations process. Condition 25. Contradictory uses between events and It should be observed that the principle queuing for bridge exist. Is this an events of the proposed ‘Flexible Space’, which space or a public bridge would include A1, A3 and D1 uses was previously approved under the parent application (Ref. 14/02792/FUL). The external staircases to the east and western elevation of the proposed South Landing Building would facilitate independent access between ground and podium level (alongside the two accessible lifts) as indicated clearly on drawing no. South Landing and Ground Floor Plan (Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL- DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 09). The bridge would be a public space, with the flexible commercial space confined to within the western element of the South Landing Building clearly identified on the above plan, which remains as previously approved (albeit, the commercial element has been reduced in total area in order to accommodate the proposed quantum of public toilets). There is inadequate access for all onto The proposed lifts would facilitate the south landing building podium level access between ground, podium and and then onto the bridge from podium, bridge deck level, supplementing the including access for all. staircases. The quantum of toilet provision is Officers are satisfied with the overall inadequate quantum of public toilets provided within the South Landing Building. This represents the maximum provision that could be provided within the designated space. Furthermore, the quantum has been informed following a net reduction (62sqm) in the commercial floor space in order to accommodate the public toilet facilities. Inadequate disabled and baby changing Provision has been made for one fully facilities accessible toilet and one toilet that is equipped in terms of its size and facilities to allow for a baby changing facility. Inappropriate design of the proposed The design of the bins is a matter for refuse bins which are also impractical, Condition 21 (Detailed Design) whilst and which will not promote general use waste management issues are a consideration under Condition 25 relating to (Waste Management). Poor design of the proposed seating. The This objection relates to the design of the benches do not have backs and are of a South Landing Building which does not substandard design and appearance, not form part of this application. For the suitable for the full range of users. purpose of clarity, the current condition (23) relates solely to the internal layout and use of the proposed South Landing Building. The objection is therefore not a consideration in the assessment of this application. The South Landing Short Section The applicants have confirmed in writing (drawing ref. 40020 rev 06) illustrates that (email dated 27.01.2016) that the rear the ground level of the building is set back service corridor to the south of the South from the boundary with LTVC (This space Landing Building will not be a public is marked as “private alley”. It is important space and is for staff to access the waste to understand how this area is controlled storage areas and building facilities. The and what activities might occur in this rear service corridor will be access area. controlled via ID passes and proximity The proximity of the podium to the LTVC sensors for entry/exit on both ends (east rear service/entrance areas and north and west sides) of the building as a ’Staff elevation emphasise the importance of Only’ area. Both entrances will also have design measures to cater for those emergency releases for escape during visiting and working at the LTVC. The fire for example. The doors will be glass boundary treatment (as opposed to covered by internal CCTV and the the mesh that was described at the corridor will be kept clear at all times e.g. October 2015 meeting) is preferred by no storage or left items. All doors to the ITV plc. rear of the building will be securely locked and accessed via the same proximity sensor pass (assuming the job role requires access to that area). The service corridor will be treated like all other areas of GBT ‘back of house’ and will be cleaned and maintained to the same standards and protocols. In essence, it will be a gated area which will only be accessed by GB staff and staff of the commercial use only. There will be the need for on-going The principle of a building with a raised discussion and liaison with the Garden podium deck in this location has already Bridge Trust and ITV as part of the been established by the parent podium place management. There will be application. Whilst some views would be views from the podium level into the rear obtained from the podium deck into the office and studio areas of the LTVC, ITV building, it should be noted that such which will need to be addressed, overlooking already occurs from the potentially by screening. grassed area on which the proposed SLB would be sited. Furthermore, it should also be noted that there was no requirement within the parent permission which required any form of privacy screening to be erected along the southern boundary of the proposed SLB. As discussed (ITV and the GBT) in Oct It should be noted that there was no 2015, the potential for some form of canopy protection forming part of the canopy was that might protect against original parent permission and no items being thrown from the podium level planning requirement that any such into the rear service / entrance area of ITV feature be incorporated within the could be considered. The current plans design. GB staff will be available on the do not offer such protection. bridge structure to prevent anti-social behaviour by visitors including throwing items from the bridge. The operations matters pursuant under Condition 3. Proposed adaptions for the interface is It is considered that adequate practical indicated at ground level within the rear measures have been incorporated at façade of the proposed South Landing ground floor level within the southern Building. However, none are proposed at façade of the proposed South Landing podium level. Building to interface with the adjacent ITV site. The podium level immediately adjoins the southern boundary with the adjacent ITV site. A balustrade is required along the southern elevation for obvious safety reasons. However, should future development of the ITV site include a similar raised podium level, then it is officers opinion that this section of the balustrading could be easily removed in order to facilitate linkages between the two respective sites. ITV currently has a means of escape from The parent application proposed the north west corner of their site. The building up to adjoin the ITV northern proposals do not clearly show how that boundary, and so the current proposal escape is to be maintained. The drawings with the set-back building line to account / details indicate that the gates will lead for the rear access route would not have into the side of the 2m alley. It is not a greater impact than the scheme considered that this is a safe means of previously approved at planning escape. committee. For clarity, the access from the adjacent ITV site would remain unaffected by the proposals. The agents have confirmed that the proposals have not changed since planning approval where the drawings show the existing escape route and doors from ITV being maintained. The South Landing Building position allows anyone using the exit to turn left onto Queens Walk – the desired line of travel will be informed by the security gate preventing people entering access walkway along the southern edge of the South Landing Building.

Relevant Planning Policy

7.5 As previously explored, the Local Plan (2015) has since come into effect, and is the document by which planning decisions are based upon (along with national and regional policies). The policies within the Local Plan that are considered to be relevant to this application are listed as follows:

Assessment

The general layout

7.6 The submitted plans clearly identify the proposed ‘flexible space’ which would be accessed via a series of glazed aluminium framed bi-folding doors within the north and eastern elevations of the proposed South Landing Building, all of which would be accessible from the Queens Walk. The flexible space would effectively occupy the eastern section of the proposed South Landing Building and would also include an ancillary storage area serving the commercial floor space. Fundamentally, it should be observed that this ‘flexible’ floor space was previously approved by virtue of the parent planning application for the garden bridge scheme (Ref. 14/02792/FUL), albeit the quantum of the proposed commercial ‘flexible’ floor space has been reduced since the original planning approval in order to accommodate the public toilet provision (identified below within the context of Figure 1)

Figure 12. The eastern element of the proposed South Landing Building at ground level.

7.7 It should be observed that the western half of the proposed South Landing Building would include a total of 8 unisex toilets (one of which would be wheelchair accessible) along with a WC attendants’ room, and cleaning store to serve the maintenance of these facilities. The remainder of the western section of the South Landing Building would include a Garden Bridge staff welfare room, associated staff WC and shower room, plant room and sub-station which would facilitate the mechanical operations of the proposed South Landing Building and bridge itself.

7.8 Storage for refuse and an additional store would also be included within the western element of the proposed South Landing Building at ground level which would be accessed from the rear access route via the southern building facade. There would also be access doors within this southern elevation to serve the flexible space with two gates either end at the east and western facades serving the rear access route, which would provide controlled access to the rear (southern) elevation of the proposed South Landing Building.

7.9 The western element would also incorporate 2 separate plant rooms for the South Landing Building and staff welfare facilities comprising a welfare room, WC and shower facilities together with ancillary storage, which would be accessed via the north and southern elevation of the proposed South Landing Building (the western element of the proposed South Landing Building is identified below within the context of Figure 2).

Figure 13. The layout of the western section of the proposed South Landing Building at ground level.

7.10 In terms of general access, including between ground and podium level (to be fully explored in more detail within the remainder of the report below), it should be noted that a total of two staircases would intersect the eastern and western elements of the South Landing Building, providing access from ground level on the South Bank to the upper podium level and to the bridge deck, whilst two lifts are also proposed with access via the northern elevation of the South Landing Building off Queen Walk ensuring that there is access for all to the bridge and South Landing Building.

7.11 The two staircases proposed would also facilitate access to the upper podium level of the proposed South Landing Building, one which would be located to the east and the other to the west in order to capture pedestrians walking from each direction of the bridge along the South Bank. Officers are satisfied that the submitted layout is satisfactory, and that the reduction in commercial floor space in order to facilitate the proposed public toilets can be supported.

Public toilet provision

7.12 The applicants have confirmed that a total of eight accessible toilets for use by the public are being provided at ground level within the proposed South Landing building, including a unisex wheelchair accessible toilet and seven individual unisex cubicles. Of the eight toilets, one unisex one will be suitable for ambulant disabled visitors, and one will include baby changing facilities. It is considered that the proposed toilet provision within the South Landing Building would thereby enhance both the quantum and quality of the existing toilet facilities in the surrounding area. The layout of the toilet facilities (at ground floor level) is illustrated below within the context of Figure 3.

Figure 14. The layout of the public toilets (South Landing Building, ground level)

7.13 The applicants have submitted data supporting the quantum of toilets that have been proposed. The applicants state that the majority of trips to the proposed Garden Bridge on a weekend peak are anticipated to be tourists / leisure users making a multi- destination visitor trip to the vicinity of the Bridge. The average dwell time on the Bridge is estimated to be between 15 and 25 minutes (weather dependent). These individuals would already in the area and would not therefore significantly increase the demand for toilets, which is well served in the local area.

7.14 The applicants have also identified alternative public toilet provision on the North and South Banks, which can also supplement the on-site toilet provision as proposed in this case. The applicants have stated that only a small percentage of visitors to the Bridge (estimated to be 5%) are 'horticultural visitors', anticipated to make a specific trip to view the Gardens (at peak times on a Saturday, this is estimated to be around 170 people an hour as set out in the approved Transport Assessment). The forecast demand for toilets is therefore anticipated to be low and the eight toilets provided, along with others in the immediate vicinity of the Bridge (as illustrated within the table below), that will be available for those that require them.

Street Male Female Disabled Baby Opening Fee Walking Address Access changing Information Distance from SLB (metres) National y y y n - free 160 Theatre Royal y y y - free 640 Festival Hall Waterloo y y y y - ? 640 East Hole in 1 1 n n Mon-Sat free 640 the Wall 11.00- PH 23.00 and Sunday 12.00- 22.30 Waterloo y y 24hrs £0.30 640 Station Jubilee 13 and 2 y y 08.00- £0.50 800 Gardens family 21.00 units (summer) 08.00- 18.00 (winter), 24hr service for disabled unit Tate y y Normal free 800 Modern Business Hours Figure 15. Alternative toilet provision for use by the general public, together with walking distances.

7.15 In terms of the officer assessment, it should be noted that whilst London Plan Policy 7.5 (C) requires new developments to incorporate provision for facilities such as public toilets, it does not specify a particular quantum for development type. As such, Policy 7.5 of the London Plan states that:

‘Development should incorporate local social infrastructure such as public toilets, drinking water fountains and seating, where appropriate. Development should also reinforce the connection between public spaces and existing local features such as the Blue Ribbon Network and parks and others that may be of heritage significance’

7.16 As referenced above, it should be observed that since the original planning approval (Ref. 14/02792/FUL) there has been a net reduction in the garden bridge commercial floor space, in order to facilitate the proposed public toilet provision that has been put forward at this stage. In this respect, it should be noted that 410sqm of A1/A3/D1 floor space was provided, excluding plant and circulation space (as originally approved under the parent planning application). This quantum of commercial floor space has since been reduced to approx. 348sqm in order to accommodate the public toilets (based on the minimum height of 1.5m). Therefore the flexible (commercial) floor space would be reduced by some 62sqm in total.

7.17 It is considered that the loss of the flexible commercial floor space is considered to be a net public benefit and can be supported given the community benefits of increased public toilet provision on the South Bank. Furthermore, whilst there is no minimum figure of toilet provision that can be applied in planning terms (given the absence of planning standards in relation to this provision), it is considered that the location and layout of the public toilets to be provided in this case would be acceptable.

7.18 It is considered that the justification in terms of quantum, as presented by the applicants based on data including visitor numbers, dwell times and alternative toilet provision is considered to be satisfactory in this respect.

Access for all

7.19 With regard to the principles of access for all, the applicants have submitted a document entitled South Landing Access Statement (dated 20th January 2016) which includes a number of key measures that detail how provision for access for all has been informed in the design process and how the scheme adheres with prescribed guidance. The document states that:

7.20 The design philosophy seeks to achieve an inclusive design that provides ease of access for all disabled people. This satisfies the General Duty under the Equality Act 2010 and the London Plan to promote the interests of disabled people. The design team were made aware of inclusive design and understand the principles involved; and

7.21 Consultation with relevant authorities has been conducted to ensure that inclusive design is integral to the design. This includes discussions with the TFL Equality and Inclusion Advisor, Peter Wright, to ensure that all accessibility issues known and specific to TFL are addressed. This involvement demonstrates an ongoing commitment and consideration of accessibility, and a reasoned approach to decisions on the design of the Bridge. Consultation has also been conducted with Chris Fielding at the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) in relation to the visual and tactile language proposed for the Garden Bridge. This has been detailed within the main Access Statement for the Garden Bridge.

7.22 Key design features and principles that have informed access for all within the design process of the proposed South Landing Building include (inter alia): - The stairs on South Landing will have widths of between 3.8m and 4.8m. It is proposed that handrails will be provided to each side of the stair, as well as central handrails to split the stair into two channels and minimise the distance required to reach an alternative handrail (for left- or right-handed use). - A slip resistant, tactile nosing is proposed to the nose of each tread, which will also provide colour contrast. The underside of stairs, where the headroom falls beneath 2.1m, will be protected to remove the risk of collision and injury. - Risers will be set uniformly throughout the stair. All treads will be between 300mm and 450mm, and will have a rise of between 150mm and 180mm. Each stair will have no more than 20 risers in each flight in accordance with BS 8300. - Handrails will have a 300mm overhang at landings. Where a stair has two or more flights the handrail will be continuous around the half landings. The handrails provided for the stairs will be at a height of 900mm (the lower end of the range permitted in Approved Document M), and it is envisaged that this will accommodate most users. - The lifts will be located within close proximity to the stairs, offering an alternative means of access. The lifts will be directly visible from both the top and bottom of the stairs. - It is proposed that the Bridge will be closed between midnight and 6am. Gates will therefore be provided at the bottom of stair landings. These will be held open in normal operation, and so will not present a barrier to access. - Two passenger lifts are provided at the South Landing so that step-free circulation can continue even if one lift breaks down, providing for vertical circulation redundancy. Lifts are sized as 17-person lifts (1400mm by 2000mm internal car dimensions, with an 1100mm clear opening door) allowing use by all passengers. Lifts are ‘through-lifts’ in order to avoid the need for wheelchair users to either turn around or back-out of lift entrances. - The vast majority of pedestrians are expected to use the provided stairs. The lifts will therefore be mainly used by people with restricted mobility, not able to use the stairs, including wheelchair users, ambulant disabled people, elderly people, people with pushchairs and children, pregnant women, people carrying heavy items, as well as maintenance personnel bringing heavy tools and materials for the garden. - Internally the lift cars will be designed to the recommendations set out in Approved Document M, and to BS EN 81-70 and BS EN 81-1. This includes the provision of a handrail for support, tactile and visual controls, visual and audible announcements of direction of travel, signage and sufficient levels of illumination. - To minimise the disadvantages that lifts present for some users (for example, those who suffer from claustrophobia, or considerations to mitigate safety and security issues), careful consideration has been given to lighting and design of the lifts to make them as safe and pleasant an environment as possible. This includes design measures which prevent any damage to the lift associated with service access. - Seating will be provided at the podium lift landing to enable passengers to rest whilst waiting for the lift to arrive. - Lift landings located under the bridge at street level will be weather protected. - All doors have been designed in accordance with Approved Document M (Table 2) and BS 8300. Doors will have a clear opening width of 800mm or wider, dependent on approach, or 1000mm if external doors. - There will be one wheelchair accessible public WC. This will have room dimensions of 1865mm by 2695mm, with an inward opening door. The door opens inwards to reduce the risk of injury for people waiting outside. Sufficient space has been provided within the accessible cubicle, maintaining a turning space clear of the door swing. The door hinges will be designed so that it can be opened outwards in an emergency (e.g. if someone were to fall inside against the door). - There will also be one wheelchair accessible shower and WC cubicle for staff use. This will have room dimensions of 2290mm by 2380mm, which is smaller than the space recommended in Approved Document M and BS 8300. However, the key transfer spaces are still provided in this layout: 7.23 It is considered that the applicants have successfully demonstrated that the internal layout of the proposed South Landing Building has been designed to adhere with key accessibility legislation. The applicants have highlighted and addressed a number of features that would ensure that the proposed layout is welcoming, safe, convenient and fully adaptable to meet the range of users. As such, no objections are raised in terms of access.

The context and interface with ITV studios

7.24 In order to demonstrate the interface with the adjacent ITV studios site (situated to the south of the proposed South Landing Building), the applicants have submitted the following floor plan: South Landing and Ground Floor Plan Ref. GB-MX-SLB-ALL- DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 09. The detailed floor plan layout illustrates a series of single and double doors that comprise three openings within the southern façade of the proposed South Landing Building which would serve the commercial flexible space (within the eastern section of the proposed building (Bays 15, 17 and 19) and a further four openings within the Garden Bridge Trust element of the ground floor (within the western element) of the proposed South Landing Building (within bays 20, 21, 22 and 23).

7.25 The details are also represented in elevation format in the context of drawing: Ref. GB- MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40012 (an extract of the drawing is indicated below in the context of Figure 5).

Figure 16. The southern elevation of the South Landing Building, which incorporates a number of access points to interface with the adjacent ITV site.

7.26 The current layout at podium level indicates glazed balustrades along this boundary, which are required from a safety perspective to safeguard against visitors and users of the building from falling from that level. For clarity, the podium level would terminate with, but not over-hang the neighbouring ITV site. The podium level of the proposed South Landing Building would over-sail the gated rear service access route that would run parallel with the southern building façade of the proposed South Landing Building and the existing northern boundary fence of the adjacent ITV site to the south.

7.27 The over-hanging podium would terminate at the ITV boundary and the proposed glazed balustrade along the southern elevation could be easily removed in order to provide a linkage with the adjacent ITV site, in the even where a similar raised podium be forthcoming as part of any future redevelopment of this site.

7.28 As referenced previously, the openings that have been proposed at ground level within the southern building façade of the South Landing Building would successfully also allow for future adaptions and interface with ITV and would respond positively to the neighbouring ITV site, allowing for an adaptable (and active) building elevation that would be able to respond to any future development proposals that may come forward for the adjacent ITV site. As such, this element of condition 23 is considered to be acceptable.

Conclusion and Recommendation

7.29 The submitted details are considered to be acceptable and would enhance the quality of the built environment and the surrounding area. The proposed internal layout of the South Landing Building has successfully integrated design principles that allow for safe and convenient use for the range of prospective users, whilst also ensuring that the site is adaptable to respond to any development proposals in the immediate environment. As such, officers recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 23 of the parent permission.

8 ASSESSMENT: Condition 24 (Delivery and Servicing Plan) 15/05151/DET

Introduction

8.1 Condition 24 of the parent application (14/02792/FUL) reads as follows:

No development works shall commence until such time as a Delivery and Servicing Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bridge and the South Landing Building shall thereafter only operate in accordance with the approved Delivery and Servicing Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to prevent disruption and disturbance to the function and safety of the highway network (Core Strategy Policies S4, S5, S8 and PN1, and Saved UDP Policies 7, 9, 28 and 29). [Note: The details submitted pursuant to this condition will be referred to Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee for a resolution]

8.2 Condition 24 which requires the submission of a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) was considered to be PAC referable on the basis of the lack of clarity at the time of the determination of the parent application in terms of how the bridge, the integral gardens and the flexible use within the South Landing Building, would be serviced. This is particularly noting the constraints of the site including the fact that there is no direct access to the south landing site from a highway.

8.3 The principle of the bridge and flexible commercial space within the South Landing Building has been established by the parent consent. Resultantly it is accepted that a degree of servicing and delivery will occur with subsequent impacts such as additional vehicle movements along Upper Ground. The purpose of the DSP is to provide clarity on how delivery and servicing would be achieved but also how these activities can be suitably managed to help mitigate against impacts upon amenity and the operation and safety of the surrounding highway network.

Submitted Document

8.4 The applicant has provided a detailed DSP in support of this application which is available for viewing on the Council’s website. This document has been revised on a number of occasions during the assessment period of this application following comments from Lambeth Planning Officers, Lambeth’s Transport Planning Officer, TfL and responses to public consultation. The main headlines of the document are as follows:

 The only items that will be delivered to the bridge will be ones considered necessary for servicing/maintenance by the bridge’s operator (GBT). All other non-essential items including uniforms, promotional material and post will be delivered to an off-site Head Office. All essential vehicle deliveries and collections will be done using the most appropriate sized vehicle to reduce the impact of the frequency of movements. All deliveries/collections to the bridge will take place ‘off street’ (i.e. not on Upper Ground) to ensure there are no detrimental impacts upon the operation of the nearby highways.

 The on-site (as opposed to the off-site Head Office) deliveries and servicing for the Garden Bridge structure and ancillary accommodation within the South Landing Building (other than the flexible commercial floor space) will be conducted from the most appropriate landing, either on the North Bank or South Bank.

 All South Bank deliveries and servicing activities for the Garden Bridge structure will take place via the walkway between ITV and IBM. This includes delivery and servicing activities associated with maintenance (infrastructure, gardens etc.); supplies (cleaning products, hand wash, etc.); waste (general refuse, green waste, etc.); and event logistics (pedestrian barriers, tables and chairs, etc.).

 The most frequent vehicular movements associated with the Garden Bridge structure will be general waste removal. This is detailed further in the document submitted pursuant to Condition 25 (Waste Management Plan – ref: 15/05212/DET) which is assessed under Section 9 of this report. However in summary, the collection of waste generated by the bridge structure will be split on a 50:50 basis between the North and South Banks. The South Bank collection will take place via the ITV/IBM walkway and at its busiest will take place once a day during the peak summer season when the most visitor numbers are anticipated.

 The DSP assumes a ‘worst case scenario’ with respect to delivery and servicing activities for the flexible use within the South Landing Building which is considered to be A3 use (restaurant/café) which would generate the most deliveries/collections.

 Delivery and servicing activities for the flexible use within the South Landing Building will generally take place from the existing loading bay to the Oxo Tower Wharf development, located to the immediate east of Bernie Spain Gardens (North). Goods, including those associated with an A3 use, would be transported to the site from the loading bay using trolleys and sack trucks via Queen’s Walk.

 An A3 use of the flexible space would generate approximately 20 servicing trips per day including deliveries and waste collections. This would result in a negligible increase in traffic flows along Upper Ground. The other permitted uses (A1/D1) of the flexible space is considered to generate fewer vehicle movements associated with delivery/servicing.

 Waste generated by the flexible use would be wheeled from the dedicated refuse store within the South Landing Building along Queen’s Walk to the existing loading bay to the Oxo Tower Wharf development for collection. The ‘worst case scenario’ in terms of an A3 use would require waste to be collected from this location once a day.

 Due to the constraints of the existing loading bay to the Oxo Tower Wharf development an alternative approach is required for large, abnormal deliveries for the flexible use. These are expected to be infrequent. Such deliveries would take place by vehicles accessing the South Landing Building via Bernie Spain Gardens (North) and Queen’s Walk.

 All vehicles accessing Queen’s Walk or Bernie Spain Gardens (North) will be escorted by two/three operatives acting as a trained marshal/signaller when moving through publically accessible areas off the highway with speeds reduced to a maximum of 3mph.

 All service/delivery contractors will be required to become registered members of TfL’s Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS) in order to increase pedestrian and cyclist safety.

 Emergency access is maintained through the ITV/IBM walkway and Bernie Spain Gardens (North).

Consultation Responses

8.5 At the time of writing 8 objections had been made in relation to this application. The objections are summarised within the below table together with an officer response:

Objection Summary Officer Response

There is no consideration to the delivery The submitted DSP is considered to or storage of the tonnes of salt which will adequately consider the delivery of be required during cold winter days. goods for general supply and maintenance of the bridge structure which is estimated to be required on a weekly basis. Storage facilities for the maintenance of the bridge structure are available within the South Landing Building.

The emergency access arrangements The submitted details suitably are extremely vague and should be part demonstrate through swept path of the evacuation plan. The details do analysis how large emergency vehicles, not demonstrate how vehicles could get including fire engines, could access the onto the bridge. south landing site through Bernie Spain Gardens (North) and the ITV/IBM passageway. As per other pedestrian footbridges there is no expectation that emergency vehicles should reach the bridge deck and there is no requirement from any of the ‘blue light’ emergency services for such access.

The use of Bernie Spain Gardens for The submitted DSP stipulates that the servicing and delivery is not acceptable use of Bernie Spain Gardens (North) and is contrary to previous statements would be for abnormal deliveries that it would not be used. associated with the flexible commercial use only. Such deliveries would be on an infrequent basis and would be suitably marshalled to ensure public safety. There has been no previous statement that Bernie Spain Gardens (North) would not be used for servicing/delivery activity. The only such statement in relation to Bernie Spain Gardens (North) was in relation to construction activity. As confirmed in the details pursuant to Conditions 7 & 8 there would be no such use of this area for construction purposes.

Additional servicing and delivery The principle of the bridge and flexible movements along Upper Ground is not commercial space within the South acceptable to local residents given that Landing Building has been established it is already overcrowded, dangerous by the parent consent. Resultantly it is and noisy. accepted that a degree of servicing and delivery will occur with subsequent impacts such as additional vehicle movements along Upper Ground. However the DSP demonstrates that additional vehicle movements along Upper Ground would be relatively low. The intensification of the use of the highway would not therefore be significant and would not reduce amenity or the safety and operation of the highway.

The service and delivery windows only The service and delivery windows take into consideration factors such as ensure that there would be no deliveries peak visitor movements, ITV queues between 22.30 and 07.00, other than for and office arrivals. It does not take local infrequent emergency maintenance residents into account. The possibility purposes. This ensures that no regular of vehicular movements associated with deliveries would take place during noise maintenance is vague and raises the sensitive night time hours. Any rare possibility that it may place at night servicing/delivery activities during these during the bridge closure causing night time hours would take place via the massive disruption to residents. ITV/IBM passageway ensuring that any noise and disturbance associated with vehicle movements (other than entering/exiting the passageway) would be set back from residential properties which would also be shielded from the site by the ITV building.

The delivery and servicing It is acknowledged that servicing arrangements associated with events movements for the bridge structure itself on the bridge is not suitably addressed. will increase in relation to the large It also makes reference to community events which were consented as part of events which is something that the local the original permission. These events community have not been consulted on. will require the closure of the bridge for up to a maximum of 12 days per year. In a worst case scenario this will be 12 events per year. These events will require delivery of goods such as tables and chairs, temporary food and drink preparation areas etc. However the additional movements associated with these events are also considered to be acceptable noting the infrequency of the events and the fact that larger delivery vehicles will be utilised to minimise the number of vehicular movements. The flexible use could be used for community events, but this would be at the discretion of the operator. There is no requirement within the parent planning permission or s106 to engage with local residents regarding the end use of this flexible space and there is no requirement for it to be made available to the local community. Officers are fully satisfied that any end use of the flexible space (including community events) could be satisfactorily serviced within the terms stated within the DSP.

There is no reference to storage and Issues relating to the storage and disposal of cooking oils. disposal of cooking oils are not a material consideration to this application pursuant to Condition 24 of the parent permission. These matters are assessed within Section 9 of this report which deals with the assessment of the details pursuant to Condition 25 (Waste Management Plan).

Consultation undertaken by GBT is Issues relating the GBT’s public unacceptable and misleading noting consultation process are not material that there was poor communication with considerations of this application the local community, poor attendance at pursuant to Condition 24 of the parent consultation events and there is no permission. evidence that GBT has amended their approach as a result of consultation with the local community.

The bridge will cut across a sensitive This is not a material consideration of sweep of the River Thames and disrupt this application pursuant to Condition 24 local and wider views. of the parent permission. The principle of the proposed bridge and its subsequent impact upon views has already been established under the parent planning application.

The lack of direct highway access The principle of the bridge and flexible means that service and delivery commercial space within the South movements are not practical. Landing Building has been established by the parent consent. Resultantly it is accepted that a degree of servicing and delivery will occur despite the constraints of the site – including a lack of direct highway access. In any case officers consider that the use of ‘off highway’ areas such as ITV/IBM passageway, Queen’s Walk and Bernie Spain Gardens is acceptable subject to the marshalling proposals outlined within the DSP and the low frequency of vehicular movements.

The Garden Bridge is not a suitable This is not a material consideration of environment for successful planting this application pursuant to Condition 24 meaning intensive maintenance will be of the parent permission. required which may require additional bridge closures.

The service and delivery arrangements This is not a material consideration of associated with the events will be this application pursuant to Condition 24 significant and may require closure for of the parent permission. The service more than the permitted 12 days a year. and delivery activities are not considered to have any impact on bridge closures which are limited to a maximum of 12 days as year as per the parent planning permission. For the purposes of clarification, should event ‘set-up’ be required to take place the day before an event and event ‘clean up’ be required the day after an event, then officers consider that this would represent 3 days of the 12 permitted days closure.

The events shouldn’t be necessary This is not a material consideration of given the scale of the contribution from this application pursuant to Condition 24 the public purse and will create of the parent permission. significant noise and disturbance to local residents.

The maintenance requirements for the This is not a material consideration of bridge are likely to be significantly this application pursuant to Condition 24 greater than envisaged meaning a of the parent permission. greater drain on finances. If this had been a real bridge the levels of delivery and servicing would not be required.

There is a lack of clarification of what the The parent planning permission granted South Landing Building will be used for consent for either an A1, A3 or D1 use of and as such the service and delivery the flexible space within the South details cannot be ascertained. Landing Building. In assessing the impact of servicing activities of the flexible use a ‘worst case scenario’ of an A3 use (which would generate the most servicing/delivery activity) has been assumed. The DSP is considered to demonstrate that even with a ‘worst case’ A3 use the servicing activities would not have a significant impact upon amenity or the safety and operation of the surrounding highway network.

Vehicular movements on Queen’s Walk In order to mitigate against the risk of are extremely dangerous given that it a such vehicular movements along a busy busy pedestrian route. pedestrian thoroughfares including Queen’s Walk and Bernie Spain Gardens (North), vehicular movements in these off highway locations would be escorted by two/three operatives acting as a trained marshal/signaller when moving through publically accessible areas off the highway. These marshals would ensure vehicle speed remains below 3mph and guide any reversing/turning thus ensuring the safety of any nearby pedestrians.

The inference within the DSP that there Any subsequent alterations to the will be further testing and refinement of servicing arrangements set out within servicing arrangements ahead of the the submitted DSP will require a formal bridge opening raises questions about application to re-discharge the details the suitability of the proposals put pursuant to the condition. The Local forward at this stage. The bridge cannot Planning Authority will therefore have be easily undone and it is too big a risk opportunity to assess any proposed to allow chaotic delivery and servicing changes and any such application would plan to be implemented at a later stage. be reported to PAC for determination.

The majority of the deliveries and The provision of a flexible commercial servicing will take place from the south. space within the South Landing Building The roads on the north are far better has been established under the parent suited for deliveries. If there was no consent. As such the principle of south landing building commercial servicing such a commercial use is also space the need for deliveries would be considered to be established. The much reduced. purpose of the DSP is therefore to provide clarity on how servicing will be carried out and that any impacts are suitably mitigated in terms of amenity and the safety and operation of the highway. Given its location on the South Bank it is considered reasonable that servicing activity associated with the flexible commercial space also takes place from the South Bank. In all other respects there is considered to be a broad split between servicing activities between the North and South Banks.

The south landing building is The South Landing Building and the unnecessary and was resultant from a provision of flexible commercial space lack of negotiation around the ability for within it has been established under the parent consent and is not a material the north to accommodate much of the consideration for this application servicing needs. pursuant to Condition 24.

The numbers of delivery and servicing The amount of ancillary storage space trips could be reduced if storage was within the South Landing Building is increased and commercial space considered to be acceptable and decreased within the South Landing corresponds with the needs of GBT. Building. Officers consider that the overall number of vehicular movements associated with servicing and delivery are low and would not represent a significant intensification of the surrounding highway network.

Certain claims within the DSP cannot be The Local Planning Authority does not monitored or enforced such as have the resources to proactively deliveries during the night outside the monitor any service and delivery stipulated times. Reporting the offence activities for new development. after it has occurred is not acceptable. Planning Enforcement is a reactive service. However the Local Planning Authority will thoroughly investigate any claims regarding a breach of condition and has the powers to take action where such a breach is established.

It is likely that delivery vehicles will park All servicing activity will take place from illegally and all parking warden ‘off-street’ locations which officers are resources will concentrate on this area fully satisfied with and consider to be and the monitoring of illegal parking in perfectly achievable. Measures to deter the hinterland will be neglected. or prohibit illegal parking as well as the future resourcing of Parking Enforcement Wardens are not a material consideration of Condition 25 as they are Council functions which fall outside the LPA’s control.

The use of Somerset House for storage The submitted DSP makes no of specialist equipment is unacceptable. arrangement to the use of Somerset House and is not a material consideration of this application to discharge Condition 24 of the parent planning permission.

The amount of refuse that is likely to be Waste management arrangements are generated is likely to exceed on site discussed in greater detail under Section storage of four eurobins and as such 9 of this report. The reference to four there is likely to be more than 1 refuse eurobins is not considered to be collection required. accurate noting that there would be a minimum of eight eurobins for the entire bridge, including four on the north and four on the south. Eight eurobins are considered to provide sufficient capacity based on peak visitor figures. However it should be noted that there is sufficient additional capacity with the designated refuse stores being capable of accommodating a further two eurobins if required. On this basis it is not considered likely that there would be more than one refuse collection per day for waste generated by the bridge.

The cumulative assessment of vehicular All deliveries for the bridge will be movements fails to take into account delivered directly to the bridge. It is not deliveries to the Head Office which then anticipated that there would be any need to be transported to the South regular additional movements between Landing Building. the bridge and the Head Office.

The maintenance of the bridge structure The GLA guarantee of £3.5 million per is likely to cost up to £3.5 million per year is not material consideration to this year and as such is likely to create application pursuant to Condition 24 of substantially more vehicular the parent planning permission. movements for maintenance purposes than those listed within the DSP.

The ongoing maintenance of the bridge The DSP does not reference retail will require substantial amount of deliveries on the basis that there will not income to be generated by retail sales. be any. There is no expectation that There is no reference to retail deliveries there would be any ‘mobile’ sales within the WMP. The lack of designated activity. retail provision means that retail sales re likely to be carried out by sales people on foot, mobile stands or concessions.

8.6 The Council’s Transport Planning Officer was also consulted on the submitted details. Following clarification on certain issues and the submission of details he has raised no objections.

8.7 Transport for London were also consulted on the submitted details. Following clarification on certain issues and the submission of details they have raised no objections.

Relevant Planning Policy

8.8 As discussed at para 5.3 the Lambeth Local Plan now has been adopted. The policies within the Local Plan that are considered to be relevant to this application are listed as follows:

Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015) Policy D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy T1 Sustainable Travel Policy T8 Servicing Policy PN1 Waterloo London Plan (March 2015) Policy 6.14 Freight

Assessment

8.9 The wording of the original condition, including the reason, is clear that it was considered necessary in the first instance in order to provide clarity on how the bridge, its integral gardens and the flexible commercial use would be serviced. This was considered necessary in order to mitigate against the impact upon amenity within the wider area and mitigate against harm to the safety or operation of the surrounding highway network.

8.10 The submitted DSP has been assessed by the case officer in conjunction with the Council’s Transport Planning Officer noting the specific implications on the safety and operation of surrounding pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfares. The comments of TfL have also been considered as part of the assessment, together with those submitted in response to the consultation exercise.

8.11 The impact on the surrounding highway network has been considered, with additional scrutiny placed upon Upper Ground, which is the closest vehicular route, and Queen’s Walk, which is the pedestrian footway which fronts the South Landing Building. In assessing the submitted documents officers are satisfied that the impacts upon the safety and operation of Upper Ground, Queen’s Walk or indeed the wider highway network, are suitably mitigated against.

8.12 In the first instance this is achieved by ensuring that there would be no servicing of the bridge structure (from the South Bank) or the flexible use within the South Landing Building from Upper Ground. The originally submitted DSP was ambiguous in this respect and suggested a degree of ‘on street’ servicing would take place. However given the narrow nature of Upper Ground, the prevalence of vehicular parking, and the lack of any formal servicing bays along it, it was considered that this would be an unacceptable solution.

8.13 Such ‘on street’ activity would be likely to disrupt the flow of vehicles, including the RV1 bus, and would be disruptive to local residents given the proximity of residential development. As such the DSP has been revised to ensure that all deliveries and collections would take place off the highway. In particular, servicing activity associated with the bridge structure would be carried out through the ITV/IBM passageway whilst activity associated with the flexible use would be predominantly through the existing loading bay to the Oxo Tower Wharf development. Abnormal and infrequent deliveries to the flexible use would take place through Bernie Spain Gardens (North) and would use a marshalling system to address highway/pedestrian safety issues.

8.14 In terms of vehicular access to the respective servicing locations, whether it be the ITV/IBM passageway, Bernie Spain Gardens (North) or the existing Oxo Tower loading bay, it should also be noted that there is capability for vehicles to turn and exit back onto Upper Ground in forward gear. As such there will be no reversing onto Upper Ground which officers consider could be harmful to the safe operation of the highway. It is acknowledged that the use of the ITV/IBM passageway and Bernie Spain Gardens results in vehicular turning movements on Queen’s Walk, including reversing. In order to mitigate against the risk of such movements along a busy pedestrian thoroughfare, vehicular movements in these off highway locations would be escorted by two/three operatives acting as a trained marshal/signaller. These marshals would ensure vehicle speed remains below 3mph and guide any reversing/turning thus ensuring the safety of any nearby pedestrians.

8.15 The marshal will also be responsible for lowering the Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) measures once appropriate checks have been conducted to allow vehicle access. The strategy for implementing the HVM is contained within the Counter Terrorism Strategy pursuant to Condition 37. An officer assessment of this is expected to be presented to PAC on 8th March 2016. However for the purposes of this condition it should be noted that any HVM infrastructure will be positioned as to allow vehicles to pull off the highway, thereby not impinging upon vehicular flows.

8.16 Officers are also satisfied that there is sufficient capacity within these off-street servicing locations to ensure that there would be no significant impact upon the operation of Upper Ground from waiting vehicles. This is largely due to the infrequency of movements in relation to servicing from the ITV/IBM passageway and Bernie Spain Gardens, noting that the most frequent movements along the passageway would be a once daily refuse collection, whilst the use of Bernie Spain Gardens would be solely limited to large abnormal loads for the flexible use within the South Landing Building. Such deliveries are assumed to be most frequent for a D1 use which would be estimated to take place on a once weekly basis (worst case scenario).

8.17 It is recognised that a potential A3 use of the flexible space would generate significantly greater numbers of vehicle movements, estimated to be up to 20 movements a day (including waste collection) for a restaurant of this size. However these deliveries would be accommodated within the existing Oxo Tower Wharf loading bay of which there is considered to be adequate capacity noting that existing deliveries and collections are limited to the small number of commercial and business units within the Oxo Tower Wharf development.

8.18 Access to each of these servicing locations will result in additional movements along Upper Ground. However the frequency of movements in relation to servicing activities for the bridge and the flexible use within the South Landing Building ensure that the additional number of movements are minimal and will have no significant additional impact over the course of a typical day with movements associated with servicing the bridge structure itself generally limited to 12 – 15 movements per week.

8.19 It is acknowledged that servicing movements for the bridge structure itself will increase in relation to the large events which were consented as part of the original permission. These events will require the closure of the bridge for up to a maximum of 12 days per year. In a worst case scenario this will be 12 events per year. These events will require delivery of goods such as tables and chairs, temporary food and drink preparation areas etc. However the additional movements associated with these events are also considered to be acceptable noting the infrequency of the events and the fact that larger delivery vehicles will be utilised to minimise the number of vehicular movements.

8.20 The most significant additional number of servicing movements along Upper Ground would be resultant from a potential A3 use of the flexible commercial space within the South Landing Building. As discussed such a use would be likely to generate up to 20 additional movements a day, including refuse collection. However, based on the baseline assumption contained within the Transport Assessment (TA) submitted with the original application that 10% of trips would take place in the AM peak hour, this would generate two servicing trips. The TA detailed that there is an existing AM peak hour traffic flow of 118 vehicles. Resultantly an additional two trips equates to less than a 2% increase in traffic volume, which in officer’s opinion is a minimal increase which would not have a detrimental impact upon the operation of Upper Ground or residential amenity.

8.21 In terms of pedestrian and cyclist safety, revisions to the DSP have been secured to ensure that all large service or delivery vehicles and contractors (including waste collection), if not already registered, will become registered members of TfL’s endorsed Fleet Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS).

8.22 The reason attached to the original condition also seeks to ensure that the impacts upon amenity resultant from servicing and delivery are also suitably mitigated against. In relation to this officers are satisfied that the DSP incorporates sufficient measures to help achieve this. In the first instance it is considered that there is no significant increase in the numbers of vehicle movements along Upper Ground in close proximity to residential properties.

8.23 Furthermore, the servicing areas accessed through the ITV/IBM passageway and Bernie Spain Gardens are significantly set back from the closest residential properties to ensure that there would be little impact on noise and disturbance. It is recognised that there are residential properties within the Oxo Tower Wharf development and as such are relatively close to the existing service bay. However the service and delivery windows for this and the other servicing areas would ensure that there would be no servicing activities before 07.00 or after 23.00 during noise sensitive hours. The below image shows the location of the existing loading bay within the surrounding context:

Figure 17: Location of existing Oxo Tower Loading Bay to be used as the primary servicing location for the flexible commercial space within the South Landing Building.

8.24 Routine maintenance of the bridge structure will take place during the opening hours of the bridge. This will be secured through the public access requirements set out within the s106 agreement. However, the DSP indicates that maintenance of the bridge structure may occasionally require servicing activities outside the opening hours of the bridge i.e. at night between midnight and 06.00. However these are restricted to emergency maintenance activities only and officers therefore consider that servicing activity during these hours would be reasonable on the basis of the infrequent nature of such events. In any case, all deliveries pursuant to such activity would take place through the ITV/IBM passageway. Given this and the set back of the south landing site from the closest residential properties, shielded by the existing ITV building, it is not considered that such activity would be likely to generate any significant noise or disturbance to local residents.

8.25 It is noted that the ITV/IBM passageway is currently used for audience queuing for the recording of television programmes within ITV studios. However as a result of discussions between GBT and ITV the delivery servicing windows have been scheduled to avoid ITV day time audience queues.

Conclusion and Recommendation

8.26 In light of the above, officers consider that the DSP demonstrates that the impact on amenity and the safety and operation of the surrounding highway network has been mitigated as much as possible. Officers consider that the proposed servicing arrangements of the approved development would not unduly impact upon residential amenity of the safety and proper functioning of the highway. As such officers recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 24 of the parent permission.

9 ASSESSMENT: Condition 25 (Waste Management Plan) 15/05212/DET

Introduction

9.1 Condition 25 of the parent application (14/02792/FUL) reads as follows:

No development works shall commence until such time as a Waste Management Plan (including details of the storage and disposal of waste cooking oil if relevant) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The bridge and the South Landing Building shall thereafter only operate in accordance with the approved Waste Management Plan unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

9.2 Condition 25 which requires the submission of a Waste Management Plan (WMP) was considered to be PAC referable on the basis of the lack of clarity at the time of the determination of the parent application both in terms of how waste generated by the bridge (both in terms of visitors and bridge maintenance) and the flexible commercial space within the South Landing Building, is stored and collected.

9.3 The principle of the bridge and flexible commercial space within the South Landing Building has been established by the parent consent. Resultantly it is accepted that waste storage and collection is absolutely necessary as part of the overall servicing of the development. The purpose of the WMP is to provide clarity on how waste storage and collection would be achieved but also how these activities can be suitably managed to help mitigate against impacts upon amenity and the operation and safety of the surrounding highway network.

Submitted Document

9.4 The applicant has provided a detailed WMP in support of this application which is available for viewing on the Council’s website. This document has been revised on a number of occasions during the assessment period of this application following comments from Lambeth Planning Officers, Lambeth’s Transport Planning Officer, Lambeth’s Streetcare Officer, TfL and responses to public consultation. The main headlines of the document are as follows:

 The WMP has been drafted on the basis of calculated requirements for three different categories of waste generated by the bridge including general waste, green waste and event waste. The WMP also includes details of waste management arrangements for the flexible commercial space within the South Landing Building.

 General waste is calculated on the basis of what would be generated during a peak Saturday during the summer season which is anticipated to be the busiest day for visitors. The total predicted waste generated on this peak day is 7,970 litres which would fill approximately 7 to 8 standard 1,100 litre commercial waste bins (commonly known as ‘eurobins’). A minimum of four eurobins will be accommodated within each of the landing buildings with a total capacity of 8,800 litres per day. The designated refuse store within the South Landing Building is indicated within the below plan. It should be noted that the refuse store is capable of accommodating up to 6 eurobins ensuring plenty of spare capacity if required.

Figure 18: Location of proposed refuse store (shown in red) within South Landing Building for waste generated by the bridge.

 There would be one daily waste collection from each of the landing buildings in order to collect waste generated by the bridge. As per the servicing details outlined within Section 8 of this report, all refuse vehicles collecting bridge waste would access the south landing site via the ITV/IBM passageway during one of the three designated servicing windows.

 A Garden Bridge ‘clean team’ would be responsible for waste collection and removal from the public areas to the designated waste storage areas within each of the landings. Six public waste bins (approximately 160 litre) would be located on both the North and South Landing podiums as shown in the below plan. This will capture most of the waste as visitors arrive and depart. This arrangement reduces any potential security issues associated with bins located on the bridge deck. There would be 5 collections from these public bins on a peak Saturday.

Figure 19: Location of proposed public waste bins on deck of South Landing Building

 Green waste volumes can be controlled by the days, times and frequency of activities. As such no maintenance of the gardens will take place during the times of peak visitor flows to minimise disruption to the normal operation of the bridge. Green waste will only be generated during the growing and pruning seasons, estimated to require between 4 to 8 eurobins per week.

 All green waste will be removed via the North Landing and stored within on-site eurobins or composted within the existing operations of Westminster City Council at Temple Gardens or Victoria Embankment Gardens.

 Event waste will only be generated 12 times a year when the bridge is closed to the public. The capacity to store waste arising from any event is estimated to be far lower than a peak day on the Garden Bridge. Therefore once the bridge is closed for an event there would be sufficient capacity to store and dispose of waste associated with the event under the usual waste management facilities and procedures.

 The flexible commercial space within the South Landing Building will feature its own separate refuse store within its own demise, beneath the eastern staircase. The store will be large enough to accommodate three eurobins (3,300 litres) which is considered sufficient to accommodate waste generated by an A3 restaurant use during a peak Saturday. As opposed to waste generated by the bridge, all waste generated by the flexible commercial use will be wheeled along Queen’s Walk to the existing loading bay at Oxo Tower Wharf. Here waste would be transferred into the existing waste compactor and made ready for collection. There is an existing daily waste collection from this location. Waste generated by the proposed flexible use would therefore be incorporated into this exiting collection.

 The waste stores have been design to accord with best practice outlined within the Council’s Refuse and Recycling Store Design Guide (2013) and British Standard Waste Management in Buildings – Code of Practice (BS5906:2005). The stores would be therefore designed to incorporate suitable ventilation and cleaning facilities.

Consultation Responses

9.11 At the time of writing, a total of 6 objections have been received in response to the public consultation exercise. The objections are summarised below, together with a corresponding response:

Objection Summary Officer Response

Vehicular movements associated with The submitted WMP stipulates that there waste will only create additional would be a maximum of one refuse disruption to local residents. collection per day associated with waste generated by the bridge. This would be collected via the ITV/IBM passageway within one of the designated service windows. Waste generated by the flexible commercial would be collected from the existing Oxo Wharf loading bay and incorporated into existing collections which take place twice a week. The use of the ITV/IBM passageway and the Oxo Wharf loading bay ensures that all refuse collections would take place off-street. Given the low numbers of additional vehicle movements which would all take place off-street and outside of noise sensitive hours it is considered that there little in the way of additional disruption to local residents.

Consultation undertaken by GBT is Issues relating to the GBT’s public unacceptable and misleading noting that consultation process are not material there was poor communication with the considerations of this application local community, poor attendance at pursuant to Condition 25 of the parent consultation events and there is no permission. evidence that GBT has amended their approach as a result of consultation with the local community.

The WMP makes no reference to the Suitable revisions have been secured to storage and disposal of cooking oils. the WMP which now provides specific details regarding the storage and disposal of cooking oils in an environmentally safe manner. This is further detailed in the officer response below.

There is no direct highway access to The principle of the bridge and flexible allow refuse vehicles to access the site commercial space within the South and collect waste requiring use of Landing Building has been established pedestrian areas such as the ITV/IBM by the parent consent. Resultantly it is passageway. accepted that a degree of servicing and delivery will occur despite the constraints of the site – including a lack of direct highway access. In any case officers consider that the use of ‘off highway’ areas such as ITV/IBM passageway, Queen’s Walk and Bernie Spain Gardens is acceptable subject to the marshalling proposals outlined within the DSP and the low frequency of vehicular movements.

GBT have significantly underestimated The calculations used to predict the the amount of waste that will be levels of waste generation are generated by the large numbers of considered to be suitably robust. The visitors to the bridge. calculations were drawn up by the applicant’s Waste and Logistics Officer and have been examined by the Council’s Streetcare Officer who has raised no objections. They were also subject to review at GBT’s Operation Reference Group prior to the submission of the application. The figures are based upon waste generated by visitors to Jubilee Gardens and Trafalgar Square and are considered to demonstrate that there is sufficient provision for waste management as part of the development.

The amount of refuse that is likely to be The reference to four eurobins is not generated is likely to exceed on site considered to be accurate noting that storage of four eurobins and as such there would be a minimum of eight there is likely to be more than 1 refuse eurobins for the entire bridge, including collection required. four within a designated store on the north and four within a designated store on the south. Eight eurobins are considered to provide sufficient capacity based on peak visitor figures. However it should be noted that there is sufficient additional capacity if required given that the designated refuse stores are capable of accommodating a further two eurobins if required. On this basis it is not considered likely that there would be more than one refuse collection per day for waste generated by the bridge.

There are significant concerns regarding Matters regarding sustainable drainage sustainable drainage from the site – are not a material consideration of this particularly in relation to the public toilets application pursuant to Condition 25 of that will be provided on site. the parent consent.

The lack of information regarding the Officers are satisfied that the waste eventual use of the flexible commercial management arrangements can be space within the South Landing Building suitably assessed based on a ‘worst means that it is impossible to predict the case’ use. In this case the most waste generated by it. intensive waste generating use of the flexible commercial space is considered to be an A3 use which suitable addressed within the WMP.

The provision of refuse stores will It is not considered that the provision of exacerbate the existing rat infestation refuse stores within the South Landing along this stretch of the river. Building will exacerbate any pest problems noting that the stores will be internal and will be designed to British Standard BS5906:2005 which includes consideration to vermin proofing measures.

The lack of public bins on the bridge deck The proposals include the provision of means that there will excessive amounts 16 public litter bins, including 8 on the of litter accumulated which will inevitably North Landing and 8 on the South end up in the river. Landing. This provision will ensure that the vast majority of waste is collected from visitors either at the beginning or end of their visit to the bridge. The WMP also outlines the detailed arrangements for litter picking across the bridge to be undertaken by the Garden Bridge ‘clean team’ which will ensure that the bridge deck is maintained to Grade B standard of the DEFRA Code of Practice for Refuse and Litter. Given this it is not anticipated that there will be any significant amounts of refuse which would not be collected and could be blown into the River Thames.

The visitor numbers for a Saturday peak This is not a material consideration of are extremely dangerous. this application pursuant to Condition 25 of the parent planning permission which relates to waste management.

The fact that GBT may not manage The WMP specifically states that events certain events is concerning and gives that are not managed by GBT will be rise to concerns that the protocols will not required to use the standard procedures be followed. outlined within the WMP.

The statement within the WMP which This is not a material consideration of stipulates "Green waste will be relatively this application pursuant to Condition 25 low in the absence of lawns and grassed of the parent planning permission which areas" fails to correspond to earlier relates to waste management. comments about what is being presented as a new "garden" and suitable replacement for an existing and used grass area?

The additional costs to the taxpayer Issues around cost are not a material associated with extra refuse collections is consideration of this application unacceptable. Does Westminster share pursuant to Condition 25 of the parent any of this burden? How will people be planning permission. Garden Bridge prevented from throwing rubbish into the staff will regularly patrol the bridge river? This cannot be monitored and structure to help prevent any anti-social enforced with so many people on the behaviour including littering. It is bridge at one time. considered that anti-social behaviour is something which is commonplace in most urban environments including bridges. The existence of dedicated litter bins and a litter team (unlike most other bridges) should help act as a deterrent

There is a lack of detail regarding The WMP specifically references two composting arrangements for green possible options for composting on the waste. North Bank. This is considered reasonable on the basis that all green waste will be disposed of via the North Bank.

There is not enough staff to pick litter from The WMP demonstrates that a team of the bridge deck as well as collect waste two cleaners can suitably undertake at from the public bins and transfer to the least 5 collections from the public waste refuse stores. bins as well as between 4 – 6 cycles around the bridge to collect litter and other general cleaning duties.

9.10 The Council’s Transport Planning Officer was also consulted on the submitted details. Following clarification on certain issues and the submission of details and he has raised no objections.

9.11 The Council’s Streetcare Officer was also consulted on the submitted details. He has raised no objections.

9.12 Transport for London were also consulted on the submitted details. Following clarification on certain issues and the submission of details they have raised no objections.

Relevant Planning Policy

9.13 As discussed at para 5.6 the Local Plan (2015) has since come into effect, and is the document by which planning decisions are based upon (along with national and regional policies). The policies within the Local Plan that are considered to be relevant to this application are listed as follows:

Lambeth Local Plan (to be adopted September 2015) Policy D1 Delivery and monitoring Policy D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy T8 Servicing Policy EN7 Sustainable waste management Policy Q12 Refuse/recycling storage Policy PN1 Waterloo London Plan (March 2015) Policy 5.17 Waste capacity

Assessment

9.13 The wording of the original condition, including the reason, is clear that it was considered necessary in the first instance in order to provide clarity on how waste generated by the development would be managed. This was considered necessary in order to mitigate against the impact upon amenity within the wider area and mitigate against harm to the safety or operation of the surrounding highway network.

9.14 The submitted WMP has been assessed by the case officer in conjunction with the Council’s Streetcare Officer in order to assess the acceptability of the waste management arrangements. The Council’s Transport Planning Officer was also consulted noting the specific implications on the safety and operation of surrounding pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfares. The comments of TfL have also been considered as part of the assessment, together with those submitted in response to the consultation exercise.

9.15 The submitted WMP details the waste management arrangements for waste generated by the bridge and waste generated by the flexible commercial use within the South Landing Building. Both will have separate refuse stores and collection arrangements. In terms of waste generated by the bridge, the submitted WMP is considered to provide detailed and robust analysis of the likely levels to be generated by three separate waste management categories – general waste, green waste and event waste.

9.16 General waste is the waste generated by visitors to the bridge and will produce the highest levels of waste of any of the waste management categories. The WMP examines a ‘worst case scenario’ in terms of general waste generation by calculating the likely levels produced for a peak Saturday during the summer season. The rationale within the WMP is that if this ‘worst case scenario’ can be suitably managed then the proposals can be deemed to be robust and fit for purpose. Officers support this approach.

9.17 The waste generation figures within the WMP have been prepared by the applicant’s Waste and Logistics consultant together with input from various stakeholders at the Operations Reference Group. Using information garnered from sites such as Trafalgar Square and Jubilee Gardens, a series of robust assumptions have been drawn up as to the likely waste generated by the four different user groups who have been identified as visiting the bridge. Using these assumptions the WMP calculates predicts a peak daily waste volume of 7,970 litres.

9.18 This total peak volume will fill approximately 7 to 8 standard 1,100 litre commercial waste bins referred to as ‘eurobins’. The WMP demonstrates that there is sufficient on-site capacity for this peak volume of waste noting that the North and South Landings will both feature a designated refuse store which will house a minimum of 4 eurobins, resulting in 8 eurobins in total. This gives a minimum capacity of 8,800 litres, over 800 litres more than the calculated peak volume. It is also noted that there is further room within the designated refuse store within the South Landing Building for a further two eurobins which therefore builds in capacity for a further 2,200 litres if required. Alternatively this space could be used for a small waste compactor to help minimise waste volumes.

9.19 General waste generated by the bridge will be transferred on a 50:50 basis to each of the refuse stores within the North and South Landings. For the purposes of clarification the refuse store within the North Landing will provide four eurobins for general waste and two designated eurobins for green waste. General waste will be collected from the public areas and transferred to the two refuse stores by the Garden Bridge ‘clean team’. There will be a total of 8 x 160 litre public litter bins provided on the North and South Landings, resulting in 16 bins in total with a capacity of 2,560 litres which would be emptied regularly to ensure that they always have capacity, even during specific peaks within the busiest visitor days. For example, using a peak day scenario, Garden Bridge staff would carry out 5 collections from the litter bins on a two-hour cycle during the day, with a final ‘end of day’ collection between 21:00 and 23:00. Officers are satisfied that such an arrangement would ensure that there is always sufficient capacity and would avoid scenarios of waste bins overflowing and refuse being discarded in an inappropriate fashion.

9.20 It is noted that there is no provision for public litter bins to be provided on the span of the bridge deck. The rationale behind this is to ensure that pedestrian walkways are kept clutter free and to help minimise security risks. However it is considered that the WMP suitably demonstrates that adequate procedures will be put in place to collect any litter that is left within the landscaped areas. In particular, the Garden Bridge ‘clean team’ would conduct between 4 – 6 cycles of the bridge for litter picking and any other general cleaning duties. This will help ensure that any such litter is collected on a regular basis and that the bridge is kept clean to a high level.

9.21 In terms of green waste, this is waste generated by maintenance activities associated with the landscaped areas of the bridge. It is also considered to incorporate any seasonal foliage that is generated by the selected vegetation. Green waste can generally be controlled by days, times and frequency of activities. As such no maintenance or pruning activities would take place during peak visitor flows to minimise disruption to the operation of the bridge. The amount of green waste generated by the bridge is estimated to be between 4000 – 8000 litres per week (approx. 4 – 8 eurobins). All green waste will be removed via the North Landing. It will be stored in the two designated eurobins in this location or composted within the existing operations of Westminster City Council at Temple Gardens or Victoria Embankment Gardens. Collections of green waste will take place on a regular basis to ensure suitable capacity within the designated green waste bins.

9.22 With regards to event waste, it is noted that the parent consent includes permission for the bridge to be closed on 12 days per year for large events. In a worst case scenario this would result in 12 separate large events. However given that the bridge would be closed on these 12 occasions it is considered that there would be sufficient capacity for waste storage noting that there will be no general or green waste generated on these specific occasions. Event waste will then be collected and removed from site under the agreed procedures.

9.23 The collection on the South Bank of waste generated by the bridge will take place via the ITV/IBM passageway. Bins will be transported by Garden Bridge staff from the designated refuse store within the South Landing Building to a waste collection point at the junction of the passageway and Queen’s Walk. As discussed within Section 8 of the report in relation to servicing activities, waste generated by the bridge will be collected once a day within one of the designated servicing windows. This single collection arrangement ensures that there is not considered to be any significant increase in vehicle movements associated with GB waste collection.

9.24 The constraints of the site mean that the refuse vehicle will be required to undertake a turning manoeuvre on Queen’s Walk in order to exit onto Upper Ground in forward gear. As stipulated within the DSP, this will be overseen by one of the contractor’s staff acting as a banksman and two members of GBT staff acting as trained signallers. It is considered that these measures will help ensure safety along Upper Ground, Queen’s Walk and the ITV/IBM passageway. The Council’s Transport Planning Officer has reviewed these details as is satisfied with the proposed arrangements.

9.25 The submitted WMP also outlines the management procedures for the flexible commercial space within the South Landing Building. Given that this is a flexible use the WMP proposes a ‘worst case scenario’ of an A3 restaurant/café use which would be likely to generate the more waste requirements that the other consented A1 & D1 uses. This approach is supported by officers.

9.26 The flexible commercial space has a floor area of 348m². This is a reduction from the 410m² which was originally consented given the inclusion of the public toilets. Lambeth’s ‘Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Requirements’ (2013) provides guidance on waste storage for restaurants and fast food outlets. Whilst there is variation in the amount of storage required depending on the food offering, this document suggests that 10,000 litres of waste storage is required for every 1,000m² of gross floor space. On this basis the designated refuse store for the commercial use should provide storage for 3,480 litres of waste in order to accommodate a ‘worst case’ A3 use.

9.27 In relation to the above it is acknowledged that the designated refuse store to the commercial space only provides enough space for three eurobins. This equates to the provision of 3,300 litres of storage. However officers are of the opinion that the proposals are an acceptable solution noting that there is only a marginal shortfall from the suggested provision outlined within the Council’s guidance note. In any case, refuse will be regularly wheeled from the designated refuse store, along Queen’s Walk, to the service yard which lies immediately to the west of the Oxo Tower Wharf development. Here the waste from the commercial use will be deposited into the existing 24 cubic ton waste compactor along with other waste collected from the Coin Street Community Builders (CSCB) Estate. The submitted WMP states that waste is collected from across the CSCB Estate three times a day from November – February and four times a day during the rest of the year. Such regular collection and transfer to the compactor will ensure that there is sufficient waste storage within the designated refuse store even if a worst case ‘fast food’ use is implemented.

9.28 The submitted WMP states that the existing arrangement is for the compactor to be removed from the loading bay twice a week when it is collected in the morning and returned empty of waste (and cleaned) in the afternoon. This arrangement will be retained going forward and as such the proposed collection arrangements for the commercial waste would not generate any additional transport movements.

9.29 As per the wording of the original condition, details relating to the management of cooking oils is required on the basis that an A3 restaurant use could be implemented. The WMP stipulates that all cooking oil will be stored within suitable secure containers and will be stored on an impervious base within an oil-tight secondary containment system such as a bund. These mandatory storage requirements will be prescribed in the South Landing Building Guidelines for Tenants prior to agreeing a lease. Tenants will also be required to ensure that cooking oil is not poured down drains/sewers or dispose of oil along with the rest of any catering/kitchen waste. They will also be required to ensure that it is collected weekly by a licensed carrier who will take the waste oil to an authorised site for recovery or disposal.

9.30 The detailed design and layout of the South Landing Building is assessed within Sections 6 and 7 of this report which are pursuant to Conditions 21 (Detailed Design of South Landing Building) and 23 (Layout of South Landing Building). However for the purposes of this condition the refuse stores are considered to be designed to be robust, easily maintained and incorporate vermin proofing noting that the WMP stipulates that the refuse stores will be designed in accordance with British Standard (BS5906:2005) Waste Management in Buildings – Code of Practice and the main principles of Lambeth’s Refuse and Recycling Design Guidance Note (2013).

Conclusion and Recommendation

9.31 In light of the above, officers consider that the WMP provides a robust framework for the management of waste and that the impact on amenity and the safety and operation of the surrounding highway network has been mitigated as much as possible. As such officers recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 25 of the parent permission.

10 ASSESSMENT: Condition 29 (Coach and Taxi Management Plan) 15/05214/DET

Introduction

10.1 Condition 29 of the parent application (14/02792/FUL) reads as follows:

No development works shall commence until such time as a Coach and Taxi Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be operated in accordance with the approved plan thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the impacts of the development upon local amenity and the function and safety of the surrounding highway (London Plan Policy 6.8, Core Strategy Policies S4 and PN1 and Saved UDP Policies 9 and 28). [Note: The details submitted pursuant to this condition will be referred to Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee for a resolution]

10.2 Condition 29 which requires the submission of a Coach and Taxi Management Plan (CTMP) was considered to be PAC referable on the basis that, t the time of the determination of the original application, there was a lack of clarity as to how the additional number of visitors would arrive and depart from the site and the impact on the safety and operation of the surrounding highway network should a significant proportion of visitors use coaches or taxis. The CTMP has been submitted to provide a framework for managing coach and taxi movements attributable to the development in a way to ensure that these activities can be managed to help mitigate against impacts upon amenity and the operation and safety of the surrounding highway network.

Submitted Document

10.3 The applicant has provided a detailed CTMP in support of this application which is available for viewing on the Council’s website. This document has been revised on a number of occasions during the assessment period of this application following comments from Lambeth Planning Officers, Lambeth’s Transport Planning Officer, TfL and responses to public consultation. The main headlines of the document are as follows:

 The number of visitors expected to travel by coach and taxi to and from the Garden Bridge is expected to be very small. Using a ‘worst case scenario’ of a peak Saturday during the summer season, it is anticipated that there will be 30,000 visitors to the Garden Bridge. 62% of these are expected to be leisure tourists, equating to 18,600 visitors. Out of these, 0.7% are expected to travel by coach which equates to 130 visitors, or approximately 3 coach trips per day. Taxi trips during the Saturday peak are anticipated to be approximately 72.

 GBT will inform coach parties wishing to travel to the Garden Bridge to make arrangements to use existing coach parking locations across Central London. This will include the coach parking facilities available at Milbank or the ‘Park and Glide’ service which is promoted by Thames Clipper and includes coach parking at North Greenwich.

 Where this (or public transport) is not practical for the group’s needs, pre- arranged, scheduled coaches due to visit the Garden Bridge will be carefully managed with only one scheduled group slot planned within designated 30 minute windows throughout the day. A non-dedicated drop off and parking facility for coaches will be made available adjacent to the North Landing pedestrian ramp on Temple Place. All pre-arranged coach journeys will arrive and depart via the North Landing.

 The estimated number of annual coach journeys specifically to visit the Garden Bridge would be up to 200. Within this there is anticipated to be seasonal variations, with specific demand from horticultural and educational interest groups.

 Groups who are visiting the Garden Bridge as part of a wider trip, will be managed by liaising with other attractions. Such groups on a wider visit will be dropped off or picked up at Temple Place depending on whether the visit to the Garden Bridge is at the start or end of their visit. Groups who are visiting the Garden Bridge but are beginning and ending their journeys at other attractions will have their arrival and departure managed by these attractions. To facilitate this an integrated communication structure will be developed with other local attractions. The principles of working in partnership with other local attractions have been discussed with stakeholders through the Operations Reference Group (ORG) and will be greed in detail prior to the GB opening.

 In terms of visitors arriving/departing via taxi, this is more difficult to predict given that it will be influenced by a number of variables, including the time of day and weather. However, based on the figures listed within the Transport Assessment (TA) submitted in support of the parent application, approximately 2% of visitors are expected to arrive/depart during the Saturday peak hour. This equates to an approximate demand of 12 taxis per hour or up to 72 new taxi journeys per day.

 Taxi demand would not be serviced at the entry/exit points of the Garden Bridge but will use existing (or future) taxi ranks within Lambeth and Westminster. All operational staff, if asked about the possibility of taxi travel, will direct visitors to the nearest taxi rank. There are more taxi ranks on the North Bank than on the South Bank.

 The CTMP has been prepared on the premise that visitors, including groups, will be strongly encouraged to travel to the Garden Bridge via public transport given the lack of dedicated coach parking. A visitor contact centre will be available online to allow the public to plan their visits with the support of the GBT.

Consultation Responses

10.4 At the time of writing, a total of 7 objections have been received in response to the public consultation exercise. The objections are summarised below, together with a corresponding response:

Objection Summary Officer Response

The data within the Transport The data with the Transport Assessment Assessment (May 2014) is out of date (TA) is considered to be recent and and should not be used as a basis for robust in order to provide accurate analysis of road movements particularly analysis of road movements for the noting the construction of cycle purposes of this and other relevant superhighways. conditions considered within this report. Whilst there may have been some minor changes to highway conditions since the original TA was produced the Council’s Transport Planner considers that any associated capacity changes resulting from the Cycle Super Highway works to be negligible noting that the numbers of coaches are expected to be very low as are the taxi numbers and service movements in context of the traffic overall flows.

Consultation undertaken by GBT is Issues relating the GBT’s public unacceptable and misleading noting that consultation process are not material there was poor communication with the considerations of this application local community, poor attendance at pursuant to Condition 29 of the parent consultation events and there is no permission. evidence that GBT has amended their approach as a result of consultation with the local community.

The figures relating to predicted visitors The figures have been subject to using coaches and taxis are outdated and analysis by the Council’s Transport grossly underestimates visitor numbers Planner and Transport for London who as per the predictions for tourist have found them robust and have raised attractions such as London Eye and Tate no objections. The predicted visitor Modern prior to opening. figures for other tourist attractions are not a material consideration of this application to discharge Condition 29 of the parent permission.

The proposals for managing coaches in The CTMP suitably demonstrates that unrealistic. It is impossible to measures would be incorporated within reach/target every coach company that the GB website, promotional material might visit to make them aware of the and the set-up of an ‘online visitor centre’ proposed management arrangements. to advice of the coach management arrangements including making it explicitly clear that the coach facilities are in Temple Place on the North Bank.

The analysis on private cars is missing. The wording of the original condition is explicitly clear it relates to the management of coaches and taxis only.

The lack of dedicated coach parking on On the contrary officers consider that the the South Bank means that the proposals fact that there is no dedicated coach give rise to problems arising from coach parking available on the South Bank will parking in the streets immediately help ensure that there is no detrimental surrounding the South Landing with impact from scheduled coach visits in subsequent impacts on noise pollution the wider South Bank area. and bus services.

What are the specific arrangements for The CTMP is clear that there will be no coach parking on the South Bank? facility for coaches on the South Bank. Facilities for coach drop-off and pick-up associated with the Garden Bridge will be provided on Temple Place on the North Bank.

Will the visitor centre be on hand during The visitor centre is an online facility. the hours of operation including sunrise There will be no physical visitor centre at and sunset which will be popular times to the Garden bridge. visit GB.

There is a lack of details regarding the The CTMP is considered to be clear that framework for managing coach arrivals Garden Bridge staff will liaise with other and departures with other attractions operators when coach visits incorporate where the visit to the Garden Bridge is the Garden Bridge as part of a wider part of a wider visit. visit. The specific mechanics of how this will happen (email/telephone/booking system) are not considered necessary to provide comfort that co-operation is proposed in order to mitigate the impact of coach movements.

It is highly unlikely that coaches will park The CTMP emphasises that access to 8 miles away in Greenwich in order to visit the Garden Bridge via public transport or the GB. The whole point of a coach is to a combination of coach/public transport get close to the destination. will be supported. The ‘park and glide’ example which is referenced is just one example of alternative options which the public will be made aware of. It is not considered unreasonable that a group of tourists travelling by coach will incorporate a tourist activity such as river cruise to and from the existing coach park at North Greenwich as part of their visit.

The TA was compiled by Arup for GBT This is not a material consideration of who are currently the subject of a this application pursuant to Condition 29 GLA/TFL probe into the procurement of the parent permission. process for gaining the contract of the GB project.

How does GBT proposed to deal with There are two existing coach bays on coach overflow when the number of slots Temple Place for coaches to drop off or allocated for organised groups is collect their visitors. All pre-arranged, exceeded? scheduled coaches will be given a specific 30 minute window to help minimise the risk of coaches turning up at the same time. In the event that there is no capacity within these existing bays then the coach will be directed to a single yellow line to the east of the landing outside Two Temple Place.

The TA states that there are 4 coach This reference to existing coach parking spaces in the south landing area namely in the South Bank area within the original in Stamford Street, Broadwall, Upper TA is not relied upon by the submitted Ground and Cornwall Road – however CTMP. All scheduled coach drop-offs they do not appear to exist. and pick-ups will take place from the North Bank.

There is no mechanism for monitoring compliance.

The existing disruption from coaches on All scheduled coach drop-offs and pick- the South Bank will only be exacerbated ups will take place from the North Bank. by these proposals. It is therefore considered that there will be no additional impact on the South Bank from scheduled coach movements.

There are not sufficient taxi ranks on the The predicted number of taxi journeys South Bank to be able to cope with per day is considered to be low. Given additional numbers. Advising visitors to this it is considered that there is go north to find a taxi is unrealistic. adequate capacity within surrounding Visitors will spill out into the hinterland ranks – particularly within the North looking for a taxi and will cause anti-social Bank. Anti-social behaviour such as that behaviour litter including littering and referenced in the objection is not a urinating in the streets. material consideration of this application pursuant to Condition 21 of the parent application.

Where do coaches go in order to wait for Coach drivers will be advised that there their parties to return given that they is no parking facility at Temple Place. cannot park at the site? Should a coach parking space be required they will be advised to make use of one of the existing 55 coach bays within Westminster.

The proposals for coaches to stop on the The CTMP provides specific detail on North Bank is disturbing noting that many how such passenger movements to and are left hand drive and will require from coaches will be managed. In stepping out into the road. particular they will be managed by trained Garden Bridge staff in order to minimise the risk to public safety.

There are no arrangements for groups There will be no drop-off or pick up who are dropped off at the North Bank bur facility from the South Bank. This will all wish to be collected at the South Bank. take place from Temple Place on the North Bank. Additional coach movements in the South The coach arrangements are solely for Bank area is extremely unsafe to local the North Bank. There will be no such residents. facility on the South Bank thereby mitigating against any harm upon the safe operation of the highway in the South Bank area.

The requirements for coach and taxi This objection is considered to relate to arrangements for a bridge are ridiculous. the principle of the Garden Bridge which has already been established under the parent consent. The submitted CTMP is considered to be a robust management framework which helps mitigate against any harmful impacts from coach and taxi movements as a result of the Garden Bridge.

The Council’s Transport Planning Officer was also consulted on the submitted details. Following clarification on certain issues and the submission of details and he has raised no objections.

10.5 Transport for London were also consulted on the submitted details. Following clarification on certain issues and the submission of details they have raised no objections.

Relevant Planning Policy

10.6 As discussed at para 5.6 the Local Plan (2015) has since come into effect, and is the document by which planning decisions are based upon (along with national and regional policies). The policies within the Local Plan that are considered to be relevant to this application are listed as follows:

Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015) Policy D2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development Policy ED11 Visitor attractions, leisure, arts and culture uses Policy T1 Sustainable Travel Policy PN1 Waterloo London Plan (March 2015) Policy 6.8 Coaches

Assessment

10.7 The wording of the original condition, including the reason, is clear that it was considered necessary in the first instance in order to provide clarity on any coach and taxi management arrangements associated with the proposed development. This was considered necessary in order to mitigate against the impact upon amenity within the wider area and mitigate against harm to the safety or operation of the surrounding highway network.

10.8 The submitted CTMP has been assessed by the case officer in conjunction with the Council’s Transport Planning Officer noting the specific implications on the safety and operation of surrounding pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfares. The comments of TfL have also been considered as part of the assessment, together with those submitted in response to the consultation exercise.

10.9 The submitted CTMP is considered to suitably mitigate the impact of coach and taxi movements associated with the Garden Bridge. In the first instance this will be achieved by encouraging group visits to the site via public transport. This will be made explicitly clear within promotional material and GB website. Should this not be practical for a groups needs then they will be advised to make use of existing coach parking facilities across London. This will include the ‘Park and Glide’ service operated by Thames Clipper where coaches park in existing coach parking facilities North Greenwich and visitors are transported to the existing piers within the vicinity of the site via boat. A ‘visitor centre’ will be made available online to help support the public in planning their visits and will be an opportunity to influence behaviour in favour of public transport and existing coach parking facilities.

10.10 Where a group does require direct access via coach then all drop-off and pick-up activities will take place from Temple Place in the North Bank. There will therefore be no additional impact on amenity or the safety and operation of the highway resultant from scheduled coach movements within the South Bank area. The coach arrangements for Temple Place are considered to be robust and make use of two existing coach bays. If either of these bays is unavailable then the coach group will be directed to the nearest single yellow line. In order to prevent overloading, pre- arranged, scheduled coaches due to visit the Garden Bridge will be managed with one scheduled group within 30 minute windows.

10.11 There will be no coach parking available on Temple Place and coach activities will be therefore limited to drop-off and pick-up. Should coaches be required to wait they will directed to make use of existing coach parking facilities in Central London including the improved facilities along Millbank within Westminster City Council

10.12 All coach pick-up and drop-off activities within Temple Place will be overseen by Garden Bridge staff to ensure safety. This is particularly relevant for coaches with left- hand drive which will require passengers to enter the highway. To help ensure public safety Garden Bridge staff will be trained in Workplace Transport Operations and will be able to therefore act as a ‘sage signaller’ as outlined in HSE guidelines.

10.13 The CTMP specifies that anticipated coach trips solely to the Garden Bridge are anticipated to be relatively low, estimated to be approximately 200 a year, or 4 per week. However it is recognised that the nature of the attraction (with limited dwell time) together with its proximity to other visitor attractions ensures that visits to the Garden Bridge is likely to be part of a wider visit incorporating other existing attractions such as the London Eye. Any coach movements associated with such a wider visit will be managed by Garden Bridge where the visit begins or ends at the Garden Bridge. Again all drop-offs and pick-ups will be from Temple Place as opposed to the South Bank. The CTMP states that Garden Bridge staff will liaise with staff from other attractions to proactively manage such coach visits.

10.14 In terms of taxis, the CTMP makes the point that taxi demands are fluid and difficult to capture accurately. However the Transport Assessment predicts in a worst case scenario (Saturday afternoon peak) that 2% of visitors may require taxi trips. Again this is considered to be relatively low with 72 additional taxi trips spread across the Saturday peak. The Garden Bridge does not propose any new taxi arrangements for either the North or South Banks but instead utilise existing (or future) taxi ranks on both sides of the river. The CTWP has been updated through the assessment period to provide further information (Appendix B) on the closest taxi ranks on both sides of the river. On the South Bank these existing ranks on Upper Ground (albeit 1 space only) and Belvedere Road.

Conclusion and Recommendation

9.15 In light of the above, officers consider that the CTMP provides a robust framework for the management of coach and taxi trips associated with the development. Officers consider that the safety and operation of the surrounding highway network has been mitigated as much as possible. As such officers recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 29 of the parent permission.

Background documents – Case file (this can be accessed via the planning Advice Desk, Telephone 020 7 926 1180).

For advice on how to make further written submissions or to register to speak on this item, please contact Democratic Services, 020 796 2170 or email.

Appendix 1: Garden Bridge in context (enlarged image taken from approved plan ref: HS-A-P-0010 Rev. A)