Proposal:

The Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Order 2014 application to discharge Schedule 3 Requirements:

KEMPF2 - Location of permanent works;

KEMPF3 - Detailed design approval for permanent above-ground structures;

KEMPF4 - Detailed design approval for signature ventilation columns;

KEMPF5 - Detailed design approval for river wall and foreshore structure;

KEMPF6 - Landscaping works;

KEMPF14 - Surface water drainage; and 

PW11 - Interpretation strategy (project-wide requirement)

Recommendation:

Discharge requirements

Update report published

Gareth Gwynne introduced the application and highlighted the contents of the update report. The application seeks approval to discharge requirements, in relation to the Thames Tideway Tunnel 2014 Order -  in accordance with approved parameter plans approved as part of the Development Consent Order.

They related to:

·       KEMPF2 - Location of permanent works;

·       KEMPF3 - Detailed design approval for permanent above-ground structures;

·       KEMPF4 - Detailed design approval for signature ventilation columns; KEMPF5 - Detailed design approval for river wall and foreshore structure;

·       KEMPF6 - Landscaping works;

·       KEMPF14 - Surface water drainage; and 

·       PW11 - Interpretation strategy (project-wide requirement)

Tanveer Rahman (Senior Planning Officer, Place) presented the application

In summary the following issues were noted:

·       Overview of the Development Consent Order and associated parameter plans.

·       Site location and the key features of the proposals before the Committee.

·       The outcome of the public consultation (38 letters in objections were received, one representation from a Councillor, 3 neutral letters and 1 in support). The main issues raised related to design, landscaping, the ventilation shafts, kiosk, the artwork, safety and security s, and amenity..

·       That the proposal would serve as a positive addition to the King Edward Memorial Park, and deliver comprehensive soft and hard landscaping.

·       Planning Officers were supportive of the scheme and raised no objections to the proposals which were generally supported by the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces,,Place Shaping, Arboriculture and Biodiversity Teams. In addition consultation responses received from the Environment Agency,the Port of London Authority (who manage the River Thames) and the Met Police Designing Out Crime Team raising no objection to the details submitted.

Overall, the development is considered to comply with relevant Requirements of the DCO and its relevant guideline documents. It was considered that the Requirements could be discharged.

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee

Hazel Parker-Brown, Amanda Day and Councillor Peter Golds raised concerns regarding the following issues:

·       The proposed kiosk – in terms of its utilitarian design, size and location,

·       It was requested that the design should be reviewed in consultation with Officers to prevent the loss of trees, and impacts on the pedestrian access route.

·       Increased security risks for neighbours - given the proximity of the kiosk to the boundary and properties at Free Trade Wharf. It was questioned why these issues had not been raised with the Safer Neighbourhoods Team?

·       The design/colour of the ventilation towers. Concerns were expressed over the use of poor materials, they would be brown not bronze.

·       Suitability of the proposed art work, and including the artwork ships. Concerns were expressed that it fails to reflect of the history of the park.

·       The proposed benefits of the scheme.

Chloe Evans and Tony Bowden, (Resident of Trafalgar Court) highlighted the benefits of the scheme including:

·       The wider benefits of the project - to provide a national significant  infrastructure project -  to reduce sewage disposal in the River Thames.

·       The benefits included: landscaping improvements to extend the park, with enhanced view of the Thames, biodiversity improvements, new public art,  bespoke ventilation columns, which were unique to the site.

·       The proposals  comply with the design principles document. 

·       The applicant is mindful of the concerns about the kiosk and the security risks. It was further noted that these plans had been carefully designed to set back the proposal from the boundary and ensure this was safe. The Metropolitan Police had not raised any issues. The applicant was also exploring further proposals in relation to the boundary wall and properties, outside the remit of this application.

·       The applicant has carried out a substantial amount of engagement with the local residents and had sought to make changes where possible to the plans. The included the creation of bespoke ventilation columns and making changes to the proposed artwork and materials, amongst other things

·       Tony Bowen also commented that the disruption from the works had been so far minimal. There had been regular contact between the applicant’s team and residents. The improvements to the park were welcomed.

The Committee asked questions of clarity of the registered speaker and Officers around the issues summarised below:

·       The issues around the safety of the nearby residents of Free Trade Wharf. Concerns were expressed that the gap between the kiosk, the boundary wall and residents properties may pose a security risk. Whilst aware that the issues of the boundary wall was outside the remit of the planning application, the Committee were keen to see any potential security issues addressed in relation to the boundary wall, and for further consideration to given to options such as increasing the height of the boundary wall. The Committee were keen to ensure the applicant’s team continue to engage with residents, particularly about their safety concerns.

·       The security has been raised as an issue. The Metropolitan Police has considered the application and had raised no concerns. Officers were satisfied with the security measures and the mitigation proposed,(landscaping works, the anti – climbing measures, the separation distances). It was also recommended that an informative should be imposed that the applicant continue to liaise with the Metropolitan Police regarding gaining secure by design accreditation.

·       The applicant’s team also confirmed that the scheme had been carefully designed in such a way to maximise security with materials to prevent climbing, graffiti, and be of a good quality appearance.

·       In view of the Committee comments, the applicant underlined their commitment to: 

·        continue to look at ways with the Council to address any security issues in relation to the height of the boundary wall and residents safety and

·        to continue to engage with the residents regarding the proposals, particularly the residents of the Free Trade Wharf about any security issues.

·     It was also stated by Bob Bennett (the Council’s Project Manager for the scheme) that the Council met regularly with Thames Tideway and they would continue to raise these issues.

·       Members also discussed the design and appearance of the kiosk, the ventilation columns, and the artwork. It was questioned how these would fit into the area and whether changes had been made to the proposals?

·       It was noted that the kiosk’ footprint would be larger than that contained in the DCO’s illustrative landscaping plan. However the design of the kiosk had also been amended to change the materials from brick to cladding – so that it would appear less intrusive and to improve its appearance

·       Consideration had been given to alternative sizes and designs- , (bearing in mind the need to comply with the DCO approved parameter plan and design documents and for the building to accommodate the essential equipment). Having assessed these options, including creating a sloping roof, it was found this the alternatives would be more intrusive. This was considered to be the most suitable option in view of the functional requirements.

·       It was noted that the design issues were to a degree subjective. It was for the Committee to decide on whether they found this satisfactory bearing in mind the limitations/need to comply with the DCO and associated documents.

·       Officers were of the view of that the design of these features would be acceptable and will reflect the local heritage. Details of the specific features were noted, including the design of the proposed artwork ships.

·       With the permission of the Chair, a member of the applicant’s team provided an overview of the merits of the design and the aims of interpretation strategy in respect of reflecting/celebrating the local heritage and culture of the area. They also advised of the plans to provide information about the site and the proposals, through for example signage.

·       Members also asked questions about the approach to the landscaping. The applicant advised that they had worked hard to incorporate as much soft landscaping into the scheme as possible, and provide public seating and areas that residents would enjoy to use. They also advised of the need for provision of the hard landscaping to meet the servicing and access, which would be very difficult to avoid.

The Committee voted on a proposal to defer the application and on a vote of one in favour and three against, this was not agreed.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

1.       That the Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Order 2014 application Schedule 3 Requirements be DISCHARGED for the following:

·            KEMPF2 - Location of permanent works;

·            KEMPF3 - Detailed design approval for permanent above-ground structures;

·            KEMPF4 - Detailed design approval for signature ventilation columns;

·            KEMPF5 - Detailed design approval for river wall and foreshore structure;

·            KEMPF6 - Landscaping works;

·            KEMPF14 - Surface water drainage; and 

·            PW11 - Interpretation strategy (project-wide requirement)

2.       Subject to the Informatives in the Committee report and the additional Informative requested by Members recommending that the applicant continue to work with residents to make security improvements outside of the scope of the DCO.