planning report PDU/2836/01 14 September, 2011 The London River Park in the City of London planning application no.11/00505/FULEIA
Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008
The proposal A detailed application for the construction of two floating pontoon parks connected to the north bank of the River Thames for managed public use for a period of five years, and comprising: Seven floating pavilions for the following uses: museum, heritage, education, exhibitions, multi-use space available for public and private function/events including meetings, conferences, fashion shows, TV programmes, product launches, small concerts and exhibitions, swimming pool and associated changing facilities, and television broadcasting studios. Four access brows for access and egress to and from the north bank of the River Thames. Facilities for mooring and passenger ferries. Landscaping and lighting. Associated works.
The applicant The applicant is London River Park Ltd and the architects are Gensler.
Strategic issues This is a multi-purpose visitor attraction on the River Thames to complement major international events, such as the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games. The principal issues for consideration are: the acceptability of the scheme in strategic land use policy terms; the potential and strategic benefits to London’s status as a world city and global tourist attraction; and an assessment of urban design, strategic views and heritage assets of the City; inclusive design and access; its impacts on transportation, safeguarded wharves and river navigation; the energy and sustainable development provisions of the scheme; and the effectiveness of measures to reduce flood risk, adverse impacts on biodiversity, ambient noise and other environmental considerations.
Recommendation That the Corporation of London be advised that while the application is generally acceptable in strategic planning terms, it does not fully comply with the London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 126 of this report; but that the potential remedies set out in paragraph 128 of the report could address those deficiencies.
page 1 Context
1 On 5 August 2011, the Mayor of London received documents from the Corporation of London notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses, but has opted to delegate his authority on the application to the Deputy Mayor and Chief of Staff. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Deputy Mayor has until 15 September 2011 to provide the Corporation with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Deputy Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Deputy Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.
2 The application is referable under Category 2C1 of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “Development to provide- (i) a passenger pier on the River Thames.”
3 Once the Corporation of London has resolved how to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Deputy Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.
4 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.
5 The Deputy Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description
6 The application relates to an area that straddles the River Thames and its northern bank, between A201 Blackfriars Bridge (some 220 metres to the west) and A100 Tower Bridge (approximately 600 metres to the east).
Figure 1: Site location within the City of London. (Source: applicant’s Design & Access Statement).
page 2 7 The A3211 Upper Thames Street runs from east to west to the north of the site and forms the closest section of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). Cannon Street is the closest section of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) approximately 260 metres to the north. This section of the River Thames is also crossed by the A300 Southwark Bridge Road and A3 London Bridge (which are also part of the TLRN). Cycle Superhighway 7 (CS7), crosses Southwark Bridge linking with the site via Upper Thames Street.
Figure 2: The site and its context. (Source: applicant’s Design & Access Statement).
8 Four pedestrian access brows are proposed to link the development to the embankment- these are located by the Millennium Bridge, Southwark Bridge, London Bridge and Tower of London. Of the four access points, bus stops can be accessed within acceptable walking distance (640m). The area is well served by buses with 24 bus routes operating within close proximity of the development, with stops located on Upper Thames Street and Cannon Street.
9 Blackfriars, Cannon Street and Fenchurch street stations respectively are within 500 metres of this section of the Thames and provide access to a wide range of National Rail destinations. At various points, the site is well served by underground stations, with 8 stations in the vicinity; Mansion House (Circle Line and District Line), St Paul’s (Central Line), Blackfriars (Circle Line and District Line), Cannon Street (Circle and District lines), Monument and Bank (Central, Northern, Waterloo & City lines and the DLR), and Tower Hill/Tower Gateway (Circle, District lines and the DLR. 10 The development would be located on the River Thames, which is part of the Blue Ribbon Network and provides river transport services for people and freight. The nearest passenger piers are at Blackfriars Millennium Pier to the west and Tower Millennium Pier to the east. They provide access to scheduled river services across London provided by Thames River Taxis and Thames Clippers. The site therefore has excellent access to public transport and records a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) at an average of 6 (on a scale of 1 to 6, where 6 is classed as excellent).
Details of the proposal
11 Permission is sought for the creation of two floating public parks, amounting to 1.58 hectares of publicly accessible open space, on the River Thames. The development would be
page 3 constructed from 17 pontoons and 6 barges, held in place by 61 steel piles located along the length of the proposed park.
12 The two sections of the floating park would be separated to maintain mooring access to the safeguarded Walbrook Wharf, which is situated midway between the proposed sites.
13 The western (upstream) section would extend from a position east of Blackfriars Bridge to a position just downstream of Southwark Bridge, a length of 430m excluding the access brows. It would vary in width from 6m at its narrowest to 10m at its widest, and comprise an overall area of 5,580sq.m.
14 The eastern (downstream) section would be located between Cannon Street Rail Bridge and a point just east or downstream of Custom House, a length of 530m excluding the access brows. It would vary in width from 12m to 27m and comprise an overall area of 10,000sq.m.
Figures 3 and 4: Landing positions for upstream and downstream locations respectively. (Source: applicant’s Design & Access Statement).
15 The development would comprise the following facilities:
Seven floating pavilions, including a high-level viewing platform, for the following uses: exhibition/museum/heritage uses, which may include art or cultural exhibitions and other exhibitions sponsored by corporations to promote innovation, technology and education through visual and sensory experiences; a multi-use hall available for public and private function/events for up to 300 people, including meetings, dinners, conferences, fashion shows, TV programmes, product launches, small concerts and exhibitions; a swimming pool with retractable roof, associated changing facilities and pavilion to house an interactive sports exhibition; and Television broadcasting studios a facility for the production of television programmes. The pavilions may also be used for occasional functions in the evenings. Four access brows to facilitate pedestrian access and egress to and from the north bank of the River Thames.
page 4 Facilities for mooring and for loading/unloading passenger ferries and other river craft. New pedestrian means of access and the provision of new landing points on the north bank. Associated servicing facilities. Hard and soft landscaping and lighting. The removal of obstructions, demolition, re-profiling and miscellaneous engineering and other works. All necessary piling works and siting of structures required to support the parks and fixed moorings for the pavilions and support the access brows. The siting of two Pier Master Buildings. Works to the river wall. All other associated works.
16 The western section has the highest concentration of local residents on shore and would, therefore, open later and close earlier than the eastern section. It is envisaged that the walkway of the western section would be opened to the public from 7.30am to 10.00pm; and the pavilions from 9.00am to 6.30pm. Whilst the pavilions of the western section may remain open beyond 6.30pm for special events, the intention is to ensure that they would always be closed before the walkway closes at 10.00pm. The servicing hours for this section would be 6.30pm to 7.30pm.
17 The eastern section would generally be open from 6.00am for staff and 6.30am for the public. It would close at midnight. Due to the nature of the use, the television studio may need to remain open outside of these hours. Access would, therefore, be allowed for studio staff as necessary. Similarly, it is proposed that all deliveries would be undertaken during defined servicing hours and will aim to minimise impact during peak or sensitive times.
18 It is envisaged that the floating river park would be completed by late May/early June 2012, in time for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, which includes a river pageant; the Thames Festival and the London Olympic and Paralympic Games. It is expected to remain in situ for a temporary period of five years (expiring in 2017), whereupon the structures would be decommissioned and removed. Case history
19 No previous applications have been made for a similar use on any part of the proposed site. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
20 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:
Blue Ribbon Network London Plan; Public open space London Plan; PPG17; draft PPS Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment; World city role London Plan; Tourism/leisure London Plan; Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism(DCLG) Culture London Plan; the Mayor’s Culture Strategy Education London Plan; Ministerial statement July 2010
page 5 Economic development/ Regeneration London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy Mix of uses London Plan Urban design London Plan; PPS1 Tall buildings/views London Plan; RPG3A, Revised View Management Framework SPG Historic Environment London Plan; PPS5 Access London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM) Equal opportunities London Plan; Planning for Equality and Diversity in Meeting the spatial needs of London’s diverse communities SPG; Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide (ODPM) Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; the Mayor’s Energy Strategy; Mayor’s draft Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG River Thames/flooding London Plan; Mayor’s draft Water Strategy; PPS25, RPG3B Safeguarded wharves London Plan; London Plan Implementation Report “Safeguarded Wharves on the River Thames” Biodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9; draft PPS Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24 Transport/parking London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13; Land for Transport Functions SPG Crossrail London Plan Alteration; Crossrail SPG
21 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the September 2011 City of London Core Strategy Development Plan Document: ’Delivering a World Class City’ and the July 2011 London Plan.
22 The following are material planning considerations to which appropriate weight should be accorded:
The Thames River Basin Management Plan (Environment Agency, December 2009). Thames Estuary 2100 Flood Risk Management Plan (Environment Agency, 2009).
Riverside Appraisal of the Thames Policy Area Supplementary Planning Guidance (City of London, 2002).
Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy (City of London, 2005).
‘By the River’ (Mayor of London, 2009).
River Thames Pier Plan (London Development Agency, 2009). Strategic and local policy/the principle of development
23 The London Plan identifies the ‘Blue Ribbon Network’ as London’s strategic network of water spaces, including the River Thames, canals, tributary rivers, lakes, reservoirs and docks;
page 6 alongside smaller water bodies. It recognises the strategic and multi-functional role of the network as a transport corridor; for drainage and flood management; as a source of water; for the discharge of treated effluent; and in providing a series of diverse and important habitats, green infrastructure, heritage value, recreational opportunities, important landscapes and views.
24 Thus, from a strategic land use perspective, the principle of constructing two floating public parks on a central London section of the River Thames should be assessed against London Plan policies 7.24 to 7.29 on the Blue Ribbon Network; the latter policy relates specifically to the River Thames.
25 Policy 7.24 aims to ensure that the Blue Ribbon Network contributes to the overall quality and sustainability of London by prioritising uses of the water space and the land around it safely for water-related purposes, particularly for passenger and freight transport. Policies 7.25 and 7.26 affirm the Mayor’s commitment to secure an increase in the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for passenger and tourist river services and to transport freight; and his support for the principle of providing additional cruise liner facilities on the River Thames.
26 For development control purposes, policy 7.25 requires development proposals to ensure the protection of existing facilities for waterborne passenger and tourist traffic. Planning applications that seek to remove existing facilities would be refused, unless suitable replacements are provided; whilst those that provide new facilities for passenger and tourist traffic, or for cruise ships, especially on the central London stretch of the river Thames, would be supported.
27 Similarly, policy 7.26 requires development proposals to ensure the protection of existing facilities for waterborne freight traffic. In particular, safeguarded wharves should only be used for waterborne freight handling. The redevelopment of safeguarded wharves for other land uses should only be accepted if the wharf is no longer viable or capable of being made viable for waterborne freight handling purposes. Temporary uses should only be allowed where they do not preclude the wharf being reused for waterborne freight handling; whilst proposals that increase the use of safeguarded wharves for waterborne freight transport, especially on wharves that are currently not handling freight by water would be supported. Development proposals close to navigable waterways should look to maximize water transport for bulk materials, particularly during the demolition and construction phases.
28 Policy 7.27 requires development proposals to enhance the use of the Blue Ribbon Network by supporting waterway infrastructure and recreational use. In particular, development proposals that result in the loss of existing facilities for waterborne sport and leisure would be refused, unless suitable replacement facilities are provided. Developments are required to protect and improve existing access points into and alongside the Blue Ribbon Network; and to protect waterway support infrastructure, such as boatyards, moorings, jetties and safety equipment. New mooring facilities should normally be sited offline from main navigation routes i.e. in basins and docks.
29 The London Plan clarifies at paragraph 7.84 that whilst permanently moored vessels, such as residential barges, restaurants, bars and offices can add to the diversity and vibrancy of waterways and London in general, their siting requires careful consideration to ensure that the navigation, hydrology and biodiversity of the waterways are not compromised. New moorings should be managed in a way that respects the character of the waterways as well as the needs of its users. In particular, the Blue Ribbon Network should not be used as an extension of the developable land in London, nor should parts of it be a continuous line of moored craft.
30 Policy 7.28 requires development proposals to restore and enhance the Blue Ribbon Network by:
page 7 Increasing its habitat value; development which reduces biodiversity should be refused.
Preventing development and structures into water space unless it serves a water-related purpose.
Protecting the value of the foreshore of the River Thames and tidal rivers.
Protecting the open character of the Blue Ribbon Network.
31 With respect to the River Thames in particular, policy 7.29 acknowledges its status as a strategically important and iconic feature that should be protected and promoted. To that end, development proposals within the Thames Policy Area identified in Local Development Frameworks are required to be consistent with the published Thames Strategy for the particular stretch of river concerned.
32 For its part, the Corporation of London has, in policy CS9 (Thames and Riverside) of it’s Core Strategy DPD: ’Delivering a World Class City’, affirmed its commitment to ensure that the City capitalises on its unique riverside location, sustaining the river’s functional uses in transport, navigation and recreation, whilst minimising risks to the City’s communities from flooding. The policy proposes to achieve this by:
Designating a Thames Policy Area, the continuous appraisal and review of which would guide development within the area.
Ensuring that buildings and spaces on or near the riverside contribute to the aims of the Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy; particularly by securing completion of the riverside walk at Queenhithe; improving access to the river and riverside walk from the rest of the City and the Thames bridges; and improving the vibrancy of the riverside by encouraging a mix of uses, particularly at Three Quays, the Millennium Bridge, and Blackfriars.
Promoting the functional uses of the River Thames and its environs for transport, navigation and recreation particularly through: (i) retaining Walbrook Wharf, Blackfriars Pier, Swan Lane Pier and access to Tower Pier, and encouraging use of these facilities for river transport; (ii) maintaining London Bridge, Tower Bridge, Blackfriars Bridge, Southwark Bridge and the Millennium Bridge; (iii) resisting development on or over the River, including permanently moored vessels, except for structures which specifically require a waterside location for river-related uses; (iv) encouraging the use of the River Thames for the transport of construction and demolition materials and waste. The potential strategic benefits to London
33 The consolidation of London’s role as a world city is a recurring theme of the Mayor’s vision for the metropolis. Policy 2.1 of the London Plan states that the Mayor, the GLA group and other strategic agencies will work to ensure that London retains its global role as a sustainable centre for business, innovation, creativity, education, research, culture and art; and as a place to live, visit and enjoy.
34 More specifically, policy 4.5 looks to support and stimulate the growth of London’s visitor economy, taking into account the needs of business as well as leisure visitors; whilst policy 4.6 aims to support the continued success of London’s diverse range of arts, cultural, professional sporting and cultural enterprises, and the cultural, social and economic benefits that they offer to its residents, workers and visitors.
page 8 35 It is evident from the summary of policies outlined in the preceding section of this report, that the River Thames plays a strategically important and iconic role in maintaining London as an exemplary and sustainable world city. It is, however, recognised as an asset of great potential and that its use for particular types of leisure and sporting activities such as rowing, canoeing and sailing. Water-based sport and recreation should be prioritised and facilities that enable or enhance these activities should be supported.
36 The river park is proposed as a temporary development of potential interest and strategic significance, which is intended to be completed in time to coincide with major events, such as the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and the associated influx of visitors to London in 2012. It would complement those events and provide a major new visitor attraction in a location that showcases some of the city’s finest views, thereby enhancing the global image of the capital as a world class visitor destination and a venue for international organisations to locate. In addition, it is envisaged that some of the pavilions would be occupied by international corporations to exhibit innovation and technology, further reinforcing London’s reputation as a centre for excellence and a location for cutting edge global business.
37 The pavilions on the park would provide publicly accessible venues to showcase art, cultural, educational and sports exhibitions. The events proposed include a sports exhibition, with tournaments likely to make use of the swimming pool to be integrated into one of the pavilions. Those activities would complement the events scheduled to take place all over London in the lead- up to the Olympics and provides sports/leisure facilities to meet strategic and local policy objectives. It would also provide additional points of interest and attraction to ensure that the venue remains vibrant, inspiring and exciting for the duration of its existence.
38 In terms of visitor numbers, it is estimated that the maximum number of visitors to the Park per day will be 12,250 people. This would be split between the 5,000 visitors that would either transit or use the proposed development as a promenade, and the 7,700 visitors to events and exhibitions to be held in the pavilions.
39 The park would serve as a public open space of the type encouraged in central London by PPG17, the national planning guidance on sports and recreation. It would provide a variety of uses required by residents, workers and visitors to the City; including places to sit, eat and relax, all of which are in line with the objectives of national, regional and local planning policies. More specifically, it would make a positive contribution to the Central Activities Zone of the City, wherein the London Plan (policy 2.10) seeks to enhance and promote the unique international, national and London-wide roles.
40 It follows from the foregoing that, in principle, there is a consensus of policy at the strategic and local levels to increase public access to and use of the River Thames for passenger and freight transportation, tourism and recreational activities; and to support developments related to those activities, provided that they do not result in the loss of waterway infrastructure (such as safeguarded wharves, boatyards, moorings and jetties), facilities for riverside access and waterborne passenger/freight transportation; facilities for waterborne sport, recreation and tourism; compromise existing flood defences and increase the risks of flooding; or compromise the habitats needed to sustain biodiversity. Those matters are addressed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this report. The Blue Ribbon Network
Flood risk
page 9 41 A flood risk assessment has been carried out for the proposal. Within the application area the river is fast flowing and subject to a tidal range of 4.6 to 6.7 metres. The site lies within the functional flood plain. The mix of uses proposed can largely be considered as ‘less vulnerable’ uses as per table D2 of PPS25. Table D3 of PPS25 sets out that such uses should not be permitted in the functional flood plain. However, the City Corporation is considering the applicant’s position that the uses are acceptable and can be considered ‘water compatible development’ given that the proposed structure floats and can therefore move with the water level. The Environment Agency would be content with this local determination of the issue and it is suggested that the GLA broadly agree with this view - particularly in the light of the uniqueness of the structure that does not naturally fit into any PPS25 classification.
42 The Environment Agency has confirmed that the flood defences within the area are in good condition and do not require any major improvements during the lifetime of the scheme. The residual flood risk in terms of the access to/from the structure will be addressed through an operations and management plan and through an evacuation management plan. The access points will be fixed on top of the embankment and therefore do not compromise the flood defences. However, in particular at low tide the access ramp is likely to be rather steep. Furthermore, to gain access up and over the tidal defences would require ramped structures from the existing Thames Path, reducing the width of the Path in those locations. Further details are required m to understand how this is addressed (see specific comments on access).
43 As the development involves work on flood defence structures consent is required from the Environment Agency under the Water Resource Act 1991. It normally takes two to three months to obtain. The Environment Agency has advised that an application for such consent had not been received at the time of writing.
Drainage
44 Sloped surfaces along the waterway would direct surface water via point outlets into the river. Foul water from the pavilions would be collected in tanks and pumped to combined sewers along the embankment, subject to agreement with the statutory bodies. This is acceptable in terms of the London Plan policy 5.13 on sustainable drainage.
Erosion/sedimentation
45 The Environment Agency requires a physical 3D model testing different scenarios to comment comprehensively on the planning application and to inform their consent decision. The model is expected to be ready for testing by the middle of September (2011). It would provide detailed data on:
Impacts on the flood defences and bridge abutments - in particular scour.
Sediment movements and deposition under water and on the foreshore resulting from the structure. This could have implications for water quality and biodiversity.
Fish movement – this is also complemented by a fish survey of the area.
46 The results of the modelling cannot be predicted, as the structure is unique. In the light of their importance for the identification of the implications on flood defences, water quality and biodiversity the modelling results have to be awaited. Policy 7.28 of the London Plan promotes the enhancement of the waterways, specifically setting out that biodiversity should not be reduced and that the value of the foreshore should be protected.
page 10 47 It will also be important that the applicant uses excavation and piling techniques that are in line with Environment Agency requirement to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on water quality.
Waterways
Vessel traffic on the Thames
48 The particular stretch of the river Thames where the proposal would be located is one of the busiest stretches of the Thames in London. It has a significant number of passenger and tourist/charter services, regular freight services mainly for waste and aggregates to west London, and regular use by recreational vessels either within the Pool of London or making the journey to/through central London. Passenger traffic has grown significantly in recent years (from 1.5 to 4 million passengers over the last 10 years) and all the above-listed uses are expected to increase over the coming years. In terms of freight traffic, the increase also reflects the policy towards reducing heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The following key examples illustrate the significance of the expected increase:
The Thames Tunnel sewer is expected to commence construction in the next few years (construction is expected to start in 2014) and the Mayor has placed a high level of importance on making the maximum feasible use of the river to transport tunnel spoil and bulk construction materials. This could lead to a major new source of freight barge traffic running to millions of tonnes, the majority of which would travel through the central London stretch of the Thames. Planning permission has been granted for the expansion of two river served aggregates plants (Comleys Wharf in Hammersmith & Fulham and Ready Mixed Concrete, Battersea, in Wandsworth). Once implemented in the next few years, this is likely to lead to a significant increase in barged construction materials travelling through the central London stretch of the Thames. Construction works at Battersea Power Station are likely to utilise the Thames for demolition and bulk construction materials once development commences. This would generate additional barge traffic travelling through the central London stretch of the Thames, and furthermore other riverside developments may further contribute to this trend in line with London Plan Policy 7.26. In West London, an additional passenger pier has been constructed at St George’s Wharf, Vauxhall, and a further passenger pier is being investigated in Wandsworth, in line with the Mayor’s Pier Plan. In East London, planning permission has been granted for additional passenger piers at Minoco Wharf in the London Borough of Newham and at Enderby Wharf in the London Borough of Greenwich. All these piers are likely to lead to additional passenger vessel movements to and from central London. Pier capacity in the central section itself is also being increased with extensions to Tower Pier and London Eye Pier planned for 2012. Structures in the Thames
49 The particular stretch of the Thames where the River Park is proposed already includes a large number of structures and vessels. This has resulted in high-speed tidal flows, exacerbated by the six bridge structures within the relevant stretch (London Bridge, Cannon Street Railway Bridge, Southwark Bridge, Millennium Footbridge and Blackfriars Railway and Road Bridge).
page 11 50 There is also a high concentration of river passenger piers (Bankside Pier, London Bridge City Pier, Tower Pier and the disused Swan Lane Pier), a large number of moored vessels, including the HMS Belfast, and associated occasional visiting ships such as cruise ships and naval vessels.
51 In addition, during the course of the temporary existence of the proposed structure, Thames Water intends to construct the Thames Tideway Sewer Tunnel. The current proposals include construction sites into the foreshore of the river at Victoria Embankment and Blackfriars Bridge.
Waterways policy context
52 The proposal supports London Plan policy 7.27 improving access along the waterways. More widely it also promotes the Thames as an iconic feature.
53 It should also be ensured that the following aspects of the Blue Ribbon Network (BRN) policy are taken into account:
The development should not conflict with the safe use of the river for water-related purposes and transport in particular (Policy 7.24). Policy 7.29 adds that the role of the Thames should be protected.
Policy 7.28 sets out that structures encroaching into the water space should generally be prevented unless it serves a water-related purpose. However, paragraph 7.84 allows consideration of an exception, if a development would add to the vibrancy of the waterways and the navigation, hydrology and biology of the waterways are not compromised. In addition paragraph 7.84 identifies that the BRN should not be used as an extension of developable land in London, in this instance the structure is temporary and floating and is not considered to be an extension of developable land into the Thames.
Policy 7.26 highlights that development adjacent to a safeguarded wharf should be designed to minimise potential conflicts.
Policy 7.25 states that the Mayor seeks to increase the use of the BRN for passenger and tourist river services.
Policy 6.14 states that the use of the BRN for freight transport should be increased.
Implications of the proposal
54 The risks arising from the proposal are broadly the following:
Reduction of water space for transport, which could slow down and even limit water traffic and increase the risk of accidents for vessels passing through the central London stretch of the Thames.
More difficult manoeuvring for vessels accessing Walbrook Wharf or the additional piers proposed.
Increase in velocity at certain times making navigation in particular for slow moving and/or low power vessels more difficult.
Likelihood for vessels striking the structure and potential impacts.
page 12
55 The navigational risk assessment produced does currently not adequately address these risks satisfactorily.
Limitations to commercial water transport
56 The increased risk of an accident for a vessel in the light of the reduced water space has to be minimised. Otherwise, there could be significant impacts on the attractiveness of river transport operations and on operational viability. The potential reduction in vessel speed would impact on the viability of river bus services to provide frequent and reliable service. It could also make vessels harder to steer and require additional tugs. This could incur additional costs, which would be unreasonable to place on current operators and may make river-borne transport less attractive in relation to road served transport. This is contrary to the Mayor’s objectives and policies to increase the transport use of the Thames as stated in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and in the London Plan (notably policies 6.14, 7.25 and 7.26). Only a few mitigation measures are proposed to effectively address the reduction of water space and the limitations set out above. This would have to be explored further with the applicant, the City Corporation, the Port of London Authority (PLA) and other stakeholders, to ascertain if and how the potential limitations could effectively be overcome. It is unclear, for example, if a re-designing and re-positioning the pontoons would provide sufficient mitigation.
Walbrook Wharf
57 As indicated above the development would also make navigation to and from Walbrook Wharf much more difficult. The more frequent use of tugs would be required to ensure absolute safety. This will add to the operational costs of the waste transfer station. It is important to identify a way forward with key stakeholders that would allow the continued viability of the wharf, as the operation/servicing of the site by road would have significant impacts on the environmental quality of the City.
Additional piers 58 The benefits/need for the two additional piers proposed in this particular section of the Thames is questioned: there are doubts that the operators of the fast ferries in particular would consider their use as viable, as there are already piers in close proximity and additional stops would rather slow down the service overall. Additional capacity for the existing piers in the area is required instead. This viability issue adds to the concerns about navigational safety that would arise from the additional piers. The applicant is encouraged to re-consider this aspect of the proposal and identify an alternative for servicing the structure.
Water flow 59 Mitigation measures to address the likely increase in velocity at certain times have not been identified. The 3D modelling also mentioned in the flood risk and water management section will provide further data about the structure’s generation of eddies and sheers that may also affect navigation. Further discussions with the applicant, the City Corporation, the PLA and other key stakeholders are required to understand the significance of the changing behaviour of the water on navigational safety and potential limitations to water transport.
Recreational vessels
page 13 60 Less water space and increased velocity may have considerable impacts on often more vulnerable recreational vessels. Whilst passenger and freight services play a more significant role in this central stretch of the Thames, the proposals should not squeeze this type of use out of this part of the river. Therefore, suitable mitigation measures should be explored with the relevant stakeholders to ensure their navigational safety.
Safety on the structure
61 The following safety risks have not been fully assessed and/or mitigated:
Mitigation measures covering the incident of a vessel hitting the floating structure are not clear.
At low tide the structure will hit the foreshore of the river. This is likely to lead to regular and potentially violent bumping of the structure on the foreshore at particular states of the tide. The impacts of this, in particular on vulnerable groups such as children, older people and those with reduced mobility, has not been fully assessed.
There is a risk of wave inundation onto the floating structure. A wave across the deck presents an immediate physical danger in particular for vulnerable people. There are also other dangers such as contact with potentially contaminated water and the inconvenience of wet clothing and footwear. These impacts have not been fully assessed or mitigated.
62 Further assessment work should be undertaken and mitigation measures investigated with relevant stakeholders to ensure the safety of the people on the structure.
Conclusion
63 Overall, it has to be decided whether the benefits of the proposal including the promotion of London as a world city and the provision of moorings, sports and leisure facilities and access and biodiversity enhancements outweigh the potentially limiting impacts on water transport. The scale of the limitations and how they could be mitigated requires further exploration with the applicant, the City Corporation, the PLA and other key stakeholders. Ecological assessment/biodiversity
64 London Plan policy 7.19 requires proposals for new development to make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity wherever possible; prioritise assistance towards the achievement of targets identified in biodiversity action plans (BAPs), and/or improve access to nature in areas deficient in accessible wildlife sites; and ensure that they do not adversely affect the integrity of European sites. Proposals should be resisted where they would have a significant adverse effect on European or nationally designated sites, or on the population or conservation status of protected species, or a priority species or species identified in a UK, London or appropriate regional or borough BAP.
65 On Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation, development proposals are expected to:
Give the highest protection to sites with existing or proposed international designations (SACs and SPAs) and national designations (SSSIs and NNRs), in line with the relevant EU and UK guidance and regulations.
page 14 Give strong protection to sites identified by the Mayor and the borough councils as having of metropolitan importance for nature conservation (SMIs). Give sites for borough and local importance for nature conservation, the level of protection commensurate with their importance.
66 The policy further states that in considering proposals that would directly, indirectly or cumulatively affect a site of recognised nature conservation interest, the following hierarchy would apply: Avoidance of adverse impact to the biodiversity interest.
Minimising the impact and seeking mitigation.
Seeking appropriate compensation only in exceptional cases, where the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the biodiversity impacts.
67 The River Thames is designated as a ‘Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation.’ Consequently, the Corporation of London has prioritised the improvement of riverside biodiversity as part of its Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy.
68 To address those policy issues, the applicant included an ecology chapter in the accompanying Environmental Statement and a free-standing ecological impact assessment, with a full extended phase 1 habitat survey report and an aquatic biology report attached as appendices. These were independently reviewed by consultants on behalf of the GLA.
69 The ecology chapter draws attention to the appropriate legally protected species and BAP priority habitats and species. The baseline surveys completed include a desktop study, an extended phase 1 habitat survey, an intertidal aquatic survey and a sub-tidal aquatic survey. Although those baseline studies are appropriate for its purposes, the consultants advise a need to update the ecological impact assessment to include an update of the sub-tidal and fish surveys.
70 In broad terms, the consultants concluded that the approach taken for the assessment of cumulative impacts was appropriate, but may need to be revisited following clarification of the following issues in particular:
Valuation of mature trees, and clarification regarding impacts.
Valuation of benthic fauna, including update following completion of data analysis.
Update following completion of fish surveys.
Further discussion regarding impacts during construction on substratum and implications for benthic communities, as per the aquatic survey report.
Clarification of impacts on migratory and spawning fish particularly regarding the timing of piling works as per the aquatic survey report.
Consideration of potential contamination impacts on the SINC, aquatic habitats and fauna during construction and operation.
Further consideration of the provision of enhancement opportunities would be welcomed, including greater certainty regarding how marginal planting may be achieved and further opportunities within the Park itself.
page 15 71 In general, the mitigation measures proposed are considered appropriate to minimise or mitigate the identified impacts. The development of detailed mitigation proposals in collaboration with the Environment Agency is welcomed. 72 Outline proposals for marginal planting/habitats at the foot of the river wall are welcomed; however uncertainty remains as to whether this will actually be undertaken, with insufficient information about how this may be achieved. It is understood that further information would be provided at detailed design stage, but further certainty is required at this stage. 73 The Park provides significant additional opportunities for the inclusion of biodiversity enhancement measures within its design and as part of any new landscaping works required as part of bankside elements of the scheme; for example, wildlife friendly landscape planting, and bird nesting/roosting opportunities. Further consideration of the inclusion of these and other opportunities (as appropriate) would be welcomed. Urban design
74 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within chapter seven, which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 7.1 sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites, built heritage and World Heritage Sites, views, the public realm and the Blue Ribbon Network. New development is also required to have regard to its context, and make a positive contribution to local character within its neighbourhood (policy 7.4).
75 The proposal would provide several design benefits, although there are also some points that need too be addressed, as outlined within this section of the report. A benefit would be the creation of a new riverside route, bypassing an area of the shoreline where the Thames Path is broken and sometimes confusing and illegible. There are clear benefits in creating a new passive recreational space, which in turn has health benefits. Furthermore, the proposal would increase access to the river, providing Londoners with better access to one of the city’s greatest assets, and at a level that is currently not possible within Central London. All these aspects are welcomed.
76 The comments within the views and heritage section of this report note the proposal’s impact on the setting of the World Heritage Site and listed buildings, including Custom House. The unabashedly modern forms of the pavilions, do not seek to mimic the architecture of the surroundings and contrast with the horizontality and verticality of existing buildings on the north side of the river. However, the incorporation of some forms within the design mimic the maritime history of the bank, recreating the impression of ships moored at the edge of the river. The structure and the pavilions are relatively low lying forms and shouldn’t have a harm full impact on the open character of the Thames at this point (at high or low tides) as required by policy 7.28 of the London Plan.
page 16
Figure 5: View of the western pavilions from south near the Millenium Bridge (Source: applicant’s Design & Access Statement).
77 The applicant should consider the improvement or extension of the existing river path and bank as a design development option. The proposed option creates a new route, which sets itself within the river and this should interact with the existing bank, buildings and uses and where it can contribute to the eventual delivery of an improved and contiguous path along the north bank.
78 An iconic, but temporary scheme such as this is likely to imprint itself as part of the London psyche, and become part of the route network. It would be useful if a development of this scale was able to deliver a lasting benefit such as improvement of the Thames Walk on the northern bank of the river.
79 Within the route, the proposed use of zones is good – the creation of pockets of activity mirrors patterns of activity along a street or shore. The landscape concepts that would reinforce the route are also welcomed, and would assist with legibility. It may be useful to consider the use of these on approaches to the development, on the northern bank. Routes to entrances within the surrounding area should be well signposted and upgrades to existing riverwalk signage would be expected.
80 Although the supporting documentation notes that the development would be affected by passing river traffic and that there would be some degree of sedimentation, it does not address the issue of refuse, and surface vegetation, which are often common in enclosed water spaces. The applicant should confirm the management strategy of the area between the development and the river wall, including the shore, as the maintenance of this area has the potential to lessen the experience for visitors. Impact on strategic views and heritage assets
81 There are a number of issues with the views assessments undertaken as part of the townscape, conservation and visual impact assessment. The assessments are not only missing key views, such as the kinetic assessment between 11B.1 and 11B.2, but also the method of assessment for all the London View Management Framework (LVMF) views identified does not follow the methodology set out in the LVMF Supplementary Planning Guidance 2010. The view assessments should use the same co-ordinates, bearings and camera heights as per the LVMF SPG 2010. The wider 120 degree panoramas should be taken particularly where the view includes heritage assets such as the Tower of London. In order to fully appreciate the impact of the proposal, all views should be fully rendered with both high tide and low tide images.
page 17 82 The applicant needs to provide visual assessment of all the LVMF views which are likely to be affected by the proposal in accordance with the LVMF SPG 2010, including 10A.1, 25A.1, 25A.2, 25A.3, 11B.1, 11B.2, 11A.1, 12B.1, 12A.1, 12A.2, 13B.1, 13A.1, 14B. Where the LVMF SPG 2010 identifies a kinetic assessment, these should also be carried out.
83 In assessing these views, the applicant should fully consider the impact on the viewer’s ability to appreciate important elements within the views, particularly between high tide and low tides as well as day and night. For those views in which the proposal is seen in the setting of the World Heritage Site of the Tower of London, special consideration should be paid to impact on the outstanding universal value, authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage Site as per London Plan Policy 7.10 and 7.11. The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the Tower of London can be found on the World Heritage Site page of the Historic Royal Palaces’ website. The Tower of London World Heritage Site Management Plan should also be used to gain an appreciation of the important elements of the World Heritage Site.
84 In addition to the potential impact on the setting of the World Heritage Site, the proposal also has an effect on a number of other heritage assets along the river. Whilst the applicant acknowledges the adverse impact on Billingsgate Market and Custom House, there should be further consideration of how these impacts could be reduced through the potential relocation of the larger pavilions in relation to these buildings but also in terms of further transparency of the roof to help retain the visual relationship between these heritage assets and the river; as per Policy HE10 of PPS5, which deals with applications for development affecting the setting of designated heritage assets, and which states that authorities should treat favourably applications that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to, or better reveal the significance of the asset. When considering applications that do not do this, local planning authorities should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval.
Figure 6: View of the eastern (downstream) pavilions from south. (Source: applicant’s Design & Access Statement). Inclusive design and access
85 Inclusive design principles, if embedded into the development and design process from the outset, help to ensure that everyone, including older people, disabled and Deaf people, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity. The aim of London Plan Policy 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion (not just the minimum). Given the unique nature of this proposal and
page 18 the particular access issues it raises, the appointment at this early stage of an access consultant is recommended, as close collaboration between the access consultant and the design team can help to ensure that inclusive design principles are embedded into all aspects of the design process.
86 If the detailed design enables the whole park and its pavilions to be easily accessible and usable by disabled and older people, it could provide an accessible and a more direct and legible alternative route to the areas of the riverside walk that are currently inaccessible due to steps (e.g. the section in front of Fishmongers Hall), or where the path leaves the river frontage to detour into the City, which would be welcomed. However, the scheme raises specific issues, which the design and access statement does not fully explain. The design and access statement does not demonstrate how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific access needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development and how inclusion would be maintained and managed.
87 There is a lack of detail in the submission material about the intended access strategy, other than the statement that the proposals would comply with Part M of the Building Regulations (which are minimum standards not best practice). For example, where the park connects to the river walk, ramps would be needed on the riverside walk side at two of the four landings to provide access up and over the river wall (to over sail the flood defences). The design of these ramps and adjacent steps would need to ensure easy access for all users, while ensuring that pedestrians using the riverside walk still have adequate space. The design and access statement states that the slope of each of the brows, which give access down to the floating pontoons, would be determined by the need to ensure the slopes are easily accessible. A 1 in 20 gradient is mentioned, but further detail should be provided of the gradients achieved in all tidal conditions, particularly for the brows which are 60m long. As the canting brows cannot have any level landings along their length and a ramp is used to overcome a level change of 6m, they cannot in fact comply with Part M (which is a building standard and would not normally apply to a marine structure but the principles of achieving convenient access for disabled people should still apply). An assessment should be provided of whether the surface materials to be used and the proposed handrail design would be sufficiently accessible and usable for disabled people, given the nature of the River Park- including views through the balustrade for wheelchair users and the ability to provide suitable seating and rest points along all the routes.
88 It is also unclear how accessible and usable the River Park and its facilities would be to disabled and older people. Issues include the location of nearby Blue Badge parking in relation to the access entrance points into the park, facilities for disabled people within the park, piazzas and pavilions, including accessible public toilet facilities, access into the swimming pool and associated changing rooms, access up to the first floor viewing areas and the TV studio mezzanine (access appears to be via a spiral stair and a small circular lift), the width of the park and its pedestrian pathways, especially in the vicinity of the entry onto the floating pontoons and how the pontoons are connected to each other and the accessibility of the visitor information and signposts. Details should also be provided that demonstrate how access for everyone would be achieved for the temporary events (for example wheelchair viewing spaces for festivals, displays and other events). This information should be provided to ensure that the scheme is fully accessible to disabled and older people as well as to families with small children.
89 The presentation of the scheme to a joint meeting of the City of London Access Group and the London Access Forum on the 14 September 2011 raised a number of detailed access and inclusive design questions. Issues raised at the meeting include:
The steepness of the canting brow at low tide, given its length of 60m and gradient of 1 in 12, with no level landings to rest and the difficulty this could create for some disabled people.
page 19 In the two locations where ramps oversail the wall, the possibility of replacing the river wall with a removable flood defence barrier that would allow direct access from the river walk onto the connecting bridge was proposed, to help reduce the gradient of the canting brows.
The stability of the floating pontoons when river craft go past; the design and location of handrails on the stairs, canting brows and the balustrade - handrails at 600mm and 900mm high above floor level were considered, along with a central handrail in the canting brows.
The design, location and number of accessible seats; the provision of a 'Changing Places' WC available from the park (in addition to any accessible WCs provided within the pavilions); the design, size and location of lifts to upper and lower levels; and the design and location of the accessible changing rooms in the Lido were flagged up for review.
The highlighting of the glazed frontage and the visibility of the entrance doors into the pavilions; the accessibility of the pedestrian routes from adjacent streets, e.g. from taxi drop-off locations and from bus stops; the number, location and distance from the park to the nearest blue badge parking bays and their availability at peak times were also raised for attention.
The accessibility of the signposts (Legible London signs were suggested); the need for an Accessibility Management Plan that sets out various management company commitments, including training for park staff in disability awareness (important if they would be required to assist disabled visitors to access and use the canting brows at low tide); and a requirement that accessible information should be provided about the park and its facilities, as well as the events to be held there (on site and on line); and that facilities such as accessible WCs are maintained and available at all times were also highlighted.
90 The group requested a further meeting to discuss the response to these issues as the detailed design of the scheme progresses. It would be helpful if the response to these queries could be pooled together, developed into an Access Strategy and submitted prior to any further referral of this scheme back to the Mayor.
91 It is understood that an access consultant has recently been appointed to work with the design team, to embed inclusive design principles into the detailed design, which is welcomed. A meeting with the GLA's access advisor, the Corporation of London's access officer and the applicant's access consultant has been requested to resolve these outstanding issues. Climate change mitigation
92 Chapter 5 of the London Plan sets out the approach to climate change and requires developments to make the fullest contribution to minimizing carbon dioxide emissions. The policies collectively require developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy technologies with a target of 20% carbon reductions from on-site renewable energy. The policies set out ways in which developers must address mitigation of and adaptation to the effects of climate change. Energy
Be Lean Energy efficiency standards
page 20 93 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include mechanical ventilation and heat recovery.
94 It is not clear from the information provided whether or not the development would achieve any carbon savings from energy efficiency alone. Using 2010 Building Regulations compliance software, the applicant should model, and commit to, measures that would enable the development to exceed 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone.
Be Clean
District heating 95 There are no existing district heating mains in the vicinity of the park landings. Efficient, low-carbon heat pumps are proposed to provide heating and cooling to the pavilions, and for pre- heating the domestic hot water.
Combined heat and power
96 CHP has been ruled out due to the low heat demand. In this instance, given the type and temporary nature of the development, this is acceptable. Cooling 97 Natural ventilation and solar control glazing is proposed to minimise solar gain and cooling loads.
Be Green
Renewable energy technologies
98 Photovoltaic panels would be installed on the roofs of the pavilions (except the roof pavilions), and will generate sufficient electricity to meet the energy demand of the park’s infrastructure (primarily external lighting and sewage pumping). Solar thermal panels would be used in place of the PVs on the roof. The impacts of noise and vibration
99 Policy 7.15 of the London Plan requires development proposals to contribute to the reduction of noise by:
Minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within or in the vicinity of developments. Separating new noise-sensitive developments from major noise sources where practicable through the use of distance, screening, or internal layout in preference to sole reliance on sound insulation. Promoting new technologies and improved practices to reduce noise at source.
100 The applicant submitted a noise and vibrations assessment as part of the environmental statement accompanying the application. Again, this was independently reviewed on behalf of the GLA.
page 21 101 A baseline survey was undertaken, against which predicted noise levels from the development could be assessed. The survey comprised a number of short-term attended measurements at four monitoring sites, which collectively provide a suitable summary of baseline ambient noise levels. Consideration has also been given to existing environmental noise on the development. Standard policy and guidance, against which the assessment was made, were adequately referenced; however, no mention was made of the Noise Policy Statement for England1 (NPSE), which sets out the long term vision of Government noise policy.
102 With a few exceptions, the assessment methodology is considered appropriate. For example, it is stated that BS4142:1997 had been used to assess operational noise from the pavilions (para. 4.3.4). That standard is specifically intended for noise sources of an industrial nature, which is appropriate for assessing plant noise from the pavilions; but not for noise from pavilion activities such as concerts, dinners or fashion shows.
103 Delivery noise has been scoped out on the basis of there being an average of 10-15 deliveries per day by road and river (para. 4.3.7). This is acceptable provided that the majority of deliveries do not occur during the night.
104 The construction noise assessment considers a worst-case scenario over a one-hour period, which gives potentially very high noise levels at the relevant receptors. The report correctly states that, without mitigation, construction noise is likely to have a temporary and short-term, but significant adverse impact. Section 7 describes mitigation measures, but does not state whether the impact would be significant. Subsequent sections imply that construction noise will not be significant. No significant impact is predicted from construction vibration.
105 A quantitative assessment of construction noise and vibration has been undertaken. Decommissioning noise impact has been assessed on a qualitative basis and predicted to produce a less significant impact than construction (para. 4.4.1 and 6.4).
106 In terms of operational noise, noise from people on the walkway requires mitigation in the form of opening hour restrictions enforced by security guards such that no significant noise impact arises. It is suggested that a suitable condition is written to ensure that these measures are put in place.
107 Recommended noise level limits are proposed for breakout from, and plant associated with the pavilions, such that no significant impact is predicted due to noise from the pavilions. It is suggested that a suitable condition be drafted to ensure that those limits are adhered to in the designs.
108 Significant adverse noise impact from the swimming pool and pontoon structures are not considered likely.
109 In summary, the applicant is requested to provide additional information in respect of the following outstanding issues :
Reference to the Noise Policy Statement for England2 (NPSE) which sets out the long term vision of Government noise policy.
Review the assessment of non-industrial noise due to the pavilion; an assessment in accordance with BS4142 is appropriate for plant noise only.
1 Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, March 2010. 2 Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, March 2010.
page 22 Confirm when, during an average day, the majority of deliveries are likely to occur.
It is suggested that a suitable condition is written to ensure that measures are put in place to control crowd noises on the walkway.
It is suggested that a suitable condition is written to ensure that pavilion noise emission limits are adhered to in the designs.
Transport for London’s comments
Trip generation, modal share & public transport impact
110 The transport assessment estimates that there would be 12,700 visitors to the river park on a peak day. This is split between 5,000 people walking through the site and another 7,700 expected to visit the pavilions and exhibitions. The assessment assumes that the majority of trips to the proposals would be linked, pass-by or diverted trips; with limited new trips being generated. Given the proximity of some tourist attractions nearby, TfL accepts that there would be some linked trips, but that these would not account for all trips to the site. Whilst TfL considers that the transport assessment could be more robust in this respect, its opinion is that trips from the development would be dispersed across a wide range of services and would, therefore, have a limited impact on the bus, rail and underground network.
111 TfL agrees that there would be no significant effect on the public transport peak capacity as a result of staff trips to work, as the proposals only requires 20 to 30 staff working shifts on site. Similarly the 10 to 15 daily and 8 weekly proposed delivery and servicing trips are not expected to cause a significant impact on the highway network. In accordance with London Plan policy 6.3 ‘Assessing effects of development on transport capacity’, TfL requests a delivery and servicing plan (DSP) to be submitted and secured by condition or legal agreement, to ensure the impact of any trips are minimised.
Car parking & cycle parking
112 No car parking is associated with the proposals, which is welcomed by TfL as the site is highly accessible and the surrounding road network is already congested. For cycle parking, the assessment suggests the use of three separate car parks that are located between 300 and 910 metres, but are not considered easily accessible or convenient. In accordance with London Plan policy 6.9 ‘Cycling’, TfL requests the provision of cycle parking in a convenient location for both staff and visitors, in order to encourage cycling as a sustainable transport.
Pedestrian network
113 TfL welcomes that the applicant’s audit of pedestrian routes in the surrounding area. Although the audit appears to be comprehensive, clarification is required regarding the methodology that was used and whether the developer is committed to providing signage links to the existing way-finding systems.
114 TfL notes that sections of the Thames Path would be reduced in width where the access brows meet the riverside path. Further information is required regarding the actual width reduction. TfL’s Pedestrian Comfort Guidance should be the tool used for this purpose.
River services impact
page 23 115 The location of the proposed river park on the River Thames is already the busiest stretch of commercial waterway in the UK, while passenger and freight traffic levels are expected to increase. The proposal to install two large structures into this area of the river would result in a reduction of navigable water, which would also obstruct navigation through no.2 arch of Southwark Bridge and no.2 arch of Blackfriars Bridge. The navigational risk assessment submitted by the applicant concludes that this would increase the risk of collisions in an area that already experiences a significant concentration of navigational incidents. It is also predicted that the structures would increase the velocity of the river by 0.5 knots, which would significantly affect the safe navigation of slow moving and/or low-powered vessels.
Travel planning
116 TfL agrees that given the predicted number of employees, a travel plan would not be required for this particular development.
Servicing and delivery
117 TfL welcomes the applicant’s commitment to undertake deliveries outside of peak hours and encourages the aspiration to deliver bulky goods by river wherever possible. To manage this process, a DSP, in line with the London Plan policy 6.14 ‘Freight’, should be secured by condition or in legal agreement associated with the development.
Construction impact
118 Construction activity should be undertaken from the river as much as possible to minimise the impact on the local highway network. Measures to encourage use of the river should be included in the construction logistics plan and secured by the local planning authority by condition or legal agreement. Crossrail
119 TfL understands that temporary consent is sought for five years and therefore, the development would be removed prior to Crossrail becoming operational. Accordingly, for that period no Crossrail contribution would be sought. However, should permission be renewed, so that the structures remain in place after 2018, then a Crossrail contribution would be sought in accordance with London Plan policy 6.5 ‘Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure’.
Summary
120 TfL generally supports the principle of high trip-generating uses within highly accessible areas. Nevertheless, TfL considers that the assessment could have been more robust in terms of the predicted trip generation and mode share.
121 As the river park is proposed to be located on the busiest stretch of commercial waterway in the UK, the impact on the hydrology, navigation and biodiversity of the River Thames should be considered in relation to London Plan policy 7.28.
Local planning authority’s position
122 Officers at the Corporation of London have written to the applicant identifying specific issues on which additional details would be required, to enable a full assessment of this application.
page 24 123 In the absence of those details, it is highly unlikely that the application would be reported to the corporation’s planning and transportation committee on 25 October 2011, as planned. It is therefore not known at this stage when the application would be considered by the committee, or what the officers’ recommendation is likely to be. Legal considerations
124 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations
125 There are no financial considerations at this stage.
Conclusion
126 London Plan policies land use, the Blue Ribbon Network, ecology/biodiversity, urban design, strategic views and heritage assets; inclusive design and access; energy; noise and vibration, and transportation are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons: Blue Ribbon Network: Essential modelling and other information required to assess the impact of works on flood defences, water quality, biodiversity and the risks to navigation, have not been provided to allow a full assessment of the proposal in line with the London Plan policies on the Blue Ribbon Network.
Ecology/biodiversity: Further clarification is required on the applicant’s valuation of SINCS, habitats and various species of flora and fauna, and the impacts that the construction and operation of the development would have on the ecology of the river within the vicinity of the site, to ensure full compliance with policy 7.19 of the London Plan.
Urban design: The design and access statement does not address the issue of refuse and surface vegetation, which are often common in enclosed water spaces.
Strategic views and heritage assets: The submitted assessment omits key views, whilst the method of assessment for the identified London View Management Framework (LVMF) views do not follow the methodology set out in the LVMF SPG 2010.
Inclusive design and access: The ‘access’ section of the accompanying ‘Design and access statement’ lacks sufficient detail to ensure compliance with London Plan policy 7.2 on inclusive design and access.
page 25 Energy: It is not clear from the information provided whether or not the development would achieve any carbon savings from energy efficiency alone, as required by the London Plan energy policy.
Noise and vibration: Additional details are required to ensure that the noise and vibration strategy is sufficiently robust and compliant with the requirements of London Plan policy 7.15.
Transport: TfL is concerned that the navigational risks arising from the narrowing of the waterways have not been adequately assessed or quantified to enable full assessment of the corresponding mitigation measures in line with the London Plan transport policies. Further concern relates to the impact of the access brows on the movement of pedestrians along the Thames Path and the need for a construction logistics plan and a delivery and servicing plan.
127 Whilst the application is broadly acceptable in strategic planning terms, on balance, it does not comply with the London Plan.
128 The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan: Blue Ribbon Network: The applicant should expedite the submission of modelling and other outstanding information required to inform the Environment Agency’s decision to give consent for works proposed to the flood defences; provide full details to quantify the potential navigational risks, and the impacts on river hydrology and biodiversity, to address the issues more fully set out in paragraphs 41 to 63 of this report. Biodiversity: The applicant should provide the relevant updates (e.g. the fish survey and data analysis of aquatic fauna) and clarification of the potential impacts of the construction and operation of the development on the SINC and on aquatic habitats and fauna, such as commuting, foraging and migrating bats; migratory birds; and migratory and spawning fish, as detailed further in paragraph 64 to 73 of this report. Urban design: The applicant should confirm the management strategy of the area between the development and the river wall, including the shore; as the maintenance of this area has the potential to lessen the experience for visitors. Strategic views and heritage assets: As detailed in paragraphs 81 to 84 of this report, the applicant is requested to submit an assessment of the views previously excluded, using the correct methodology as set out in the Mayor’s SPG on the management of views (the London Views Management Framework) and London Plan policies 7.10 and 7.11 relating to the designated World Heritage Site; and to propose impact reduction measures where necessary. Inclusive design and access: Additional details are required to address the specific deficiencies, as outlined in paragraphs 85 to 91 above. Energy: The applicant should clarify whether and how the development would achieve carbon savings from energy efficiency alone, as required by the London Plan energy policies. Noise and vibration: To fulfil the requirements of policy 7.15, the applicant is requested to make reference to the Noise Policy Statement for England; review the assessment of non-industrial noise emanating from the pavilion (given that the BS4142 assessment is only appropriate for plant noise); confirm the time of day when the majority of deliveries are likely to occur; and accept appropriate planning conditions to restrict crowd noise on the walkways and to ensure the adherence to noise emission limits is incorporated into the design of the pavilions.
page 26 Transport: The applicant should provide full details to quantify and adequately mitigate TfL’s concerns over the navigational risks arising from a narrowing of the waterways; and the potential width reduction of the Thames Path using TfL’s Pedestrian Comfort Guidance. The proposed cycle parking should be located in a more convenient location for both staff and visitors, in order to encourage cycling as a sustainable form of transport. In addition, conditions should be imposed to secure the submission of a construction logistics plan to ensure maximum use of the river to transport construction materials; and a delivery and servicing plan to ensure that delivery takes place outside peak traffic times.
for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager -Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] David Blankson-Hemans, Senior Strategic Planner, Case Officer 020 7983 4268 email [email protected]
page 27