ibm itv - lambeth 2016 gb pac... · the development also comprising the erection of 2 new piers in...

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

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: 15/04314/DET; 15/05215/DET; 15/06977/DET; 15/06979/DET; 16/00249/DET;

Case Officers: Richard McFerran

Ward: Bishops

Dates Validated: 23rd January 2015 (Condition 10); 11th September 2015 (Condition 37); 4th December 2015 (Conditions 21& 23); and 15th January 2016 (Condition 9).

Proposal: Approval of details pursuant to:

Condition 9 (Piling Method Statement) 16/00249/DET

Condition 10 (Construction Noise and Vibration Strategy) 15/04314/DET

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

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

Condition 37 (Counter Terrorism Strategy) 15/05215/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 9 (16/00249/DET): Garden Bridge Off-Shore Permanent Piling Works Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) GB-BYCI-ALL-ALL-MST-CON-00313 Final 19th February 2016; Appendix A - River Works Location (drawing amended 16th February 2016 GB/BYC/ALL/ALL/DWG/CON/00475-03); Appendix B - Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA); Appendix C - General Sequence of Works; Appendix D - PLA Chart Datum Guide; Appendix E - Foundation Works Risk Assessment – Temporary Pile Installation; Garden Bridge Off-Shore Temporary Piling Works Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) GB-BYCI-ALL-ALL-MST-CON-00313 Final 19th February 2016; Appendix A – Plant Details and Specification; Appendix B - Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA); Appendix C - Foundation Works Risk Assessment – Permanent Pile Installation; On-Shore Permanent Piling Works Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) GB-BYCI-ALL-ALL-MST-CON-00314 Final 25th February 2016; Appendix A – General Arrangement Foundation; Appendix B – Indicative Programme of Works; Appendix C - Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (HIRA); Appendix D - Foundation Works Risk Assessment – Permanent Pile Installation.

Condition 10 (15/04314/DET): Garden Bridge Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Strategy (20160219) Final CNVMS dated 19th February 2016 Condition 21 (15/06977/DET): GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 13; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC- 40002 Rev 07; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40003 Rev 00; GB-MX-SLB-ALLDWG-ARC-40010 Rev 07; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40011 Rev 09; GBMX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40012 Rev 04); GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40013 Rev 00; GB-MX-SLB-

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 prior to demolition

A1/A3/D1 Flexible retail/restaurant/community use

0

Proposed floorspace

A1/A3/D1 Flexible retail/restaurant/community use

348m²

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.

ALL-DWG-ARC-40020 Rev 06; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWGARC-40021 Rev 04; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40022 Rev 06; GB-MX-SLBALL-DWG-ARC-40301 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40410 Rev 06; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40421 Rev 07; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC- 40422 Rev 08; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40430; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWGARC-40431 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40440 Rev 06; GBT-HS-LSZZ-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); GB-MXALL-DWG-ARC-40441 Rev 06; 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 06; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWGARC-40520 Rev 02; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40700 Rev 05 and unnumbered physical samples (referenced also within the South Landing Materials (January 2016) and External Envelope Appendix 1); 35355-0 Sheet 1 of 1; Luminaire Specification Sheet (unnumbered). Condition 23 (15/06979/DET): GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 13; South Landing Access Statement (dated 20th January 2016) and unnumbered list of publically available toilets near the garden bridge location (with unnumbered maps). Condition 37 (15/05215/DET): GBT CT Strategy 10th Draft 26th January 2016

RECOMMENDATIONS: Condition 9 (16/00249/DET): Grant Approval of Details (subject to an informative) Condition 10 (15/04314/DET): Grant Approval of Details Condition 21 (15/06977/DET): Grant Approval of Details Condition 23 (15/06979/DET): Grant Approval of Details Condition 37 (15/05215/DET): Grant Approval of Details

Applicant: The Garden Bridge Trust (GBT)

Agent: Emma Barnett (Adams Hendry Consulting Limited)

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) which is on this PAC agenda. 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. This condition has not been reported to PAC until now in order to allow for ongoing negotiations (including testing) between the applicant and adjacent stakeholders.

2.8 The third package of conditions, largely relating to operational issues, was submitted to

the LPA in mid-September 2015. This package included Condition 37 (Counter Terrorism Strategy) which is on this PAC agenda. The package also included the following three conditions which were approved on 15th February 2016 following PAC resolution on 9th February 2016:

15/05151/DET – Approval of details pursuant to Condition 24 (Delivery and Servicing Plan)

15/05212/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 25 (Waste Management Plan)

15/05214/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 29 (Coach and Taxi Management Plan)

2.9 The third package also included the submission of an application pursuant to Condition

46 (ref: 15/05217/DET - Illegal trading, anti-social behaviour, crowd control and General Enforcement Management Plan). Discussions remain ongoing at the time of writing between officers, the applicant and relevant consultees in relation to the submitted details. It is anticipated that this condition is reported to PAC on 12th April 2016.

2.10 The third package also included applications pursuant to Conditions 28 (Evacuation

Plan) and 38 (Crime Prevention). However these applications have subsequently been withdrawn noting that they are ‘prior to opening’ conditions as opposed to ‘prior to commencement’ conditions. The applications will therefore need to be resubmitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the opening of the bridge which is expected to be late 2018.

2.11 A fourth package of conditions was submitted in December 2015. This package

comprised the two conditions on this PAC agenda (Conditions 21 & 23) which relate to the detailed design and layout of the South Landing Building. These conditions were previously reported to PAC on 9th February 2016. Both applications were deferred by members due to issues which included the layout and provision of public toilets, the public waste bins fixed to the podium deck and the colour of metal cladding to be used across the South Landing Building including on the lift shaft, elevations and shutters. These matters are discussed in greater detail in Sections 9 and 10 of this report.

2.12 A fifth package of pre-commencement conditions, generally relating to technical matters,

was submitted in January 2016. The package includes the application pursuant to Condition 9 (Piling Method Statement) which is on this PAC agenda. Condition 6 (Scour Monitoring) is also PAC referable however the Environment Agency have advised that further clarification is required on how scour will be managed in order to protect the river wall flood defences. Subject to satisfying the Environment Agency on this matter it is anticipated that this condition will also be reported to PAC on 12th April 2016.

2.13 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).

2.14 A sixth package of conditions was submitted in February 2016. The package includes

the following three technical conditions which are not PAC referable and will therefore be determined by officers under delegated powers following input from relevant consultees including Lambeth’s Flood Risk Officer and Environment Agency.

16/00842/DET - Approval of details pursuant to Condition 33 (Details of piling works for South Bank Landing Building) [RESUBMISSION].

16/00841/DET- Approval of details pursuant to Condition 35 (Surface Water Drainage).

16/00837/DET - Partial approval of details pursuant to Condition 43 (Dredging Method Statement).

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 9 (Piling Method Statement) 16/00249/DET

Condition 10 (Construction Noise and Vibration Strategy) 15/04314/DET



Condition 37 (Counter Terrorism Strategy) 15/05215/DET

3.3 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 samples and/or plans and/or 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.

3.5 For the purposes of clarification, it should be noted that both Conditions 21 (Detailed

Design of South Landing Building) and 23 (Internal Layout of South Landing Building) were presented to PAC on 9th February 2016. Both items were deferred in order to address specific member concerns. The parts of this report (Sections 9 and 10) which deal with these deferred items specifically address the issues raised by members as well as reporting any additional correspondence or matters that have been raised in the intervening period. The original officer assessments of Condition 21 and 23 (together with any subsequent addendum items) are appended to this report for information (Appendices 2 & 3).

3.6 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.

Presentations on construction and operation details to the IROKO Housing Co-Op and WaCoCo Group.

Presentations on construction and operation details to IBM & ITV.

Presentations on technical matters associated with scour and piling to Thames Tideway Tunnel and the Environment Agency.

Local Community

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

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

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.

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.

4.3 The applications pursuant to Conditions 10, 21 & 23 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. These reports can be viewed on the Council’s website alongside the documents submitted in order to discharge the respective conditions.

4.4 It should be noted that due to the technical nature of Condition 9 (Piling Method

Statement) the applicant decided not to undertake any public consultation. Consultation was instead targeted at relevant consultees including the Environment Agency, Thames Tideway Tunnel and Thames Water. The applicant also decided not to undertake any public consultation in relation to Condition 37 (Counter Terrorism Strategy) in order not to disclose sensitive information into the public domain.

LPA Consultation 4.5 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.

4.6 The LPA’s consultation exercise for each package of PAC referable conditions 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.

4.7 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. For the purposes of clarification this includes an email to the Redwood Housing Co-Op.

4.8 In addition to the above, press notices were published on 7th August 2015 (Condition 10);

2nd October 2015 (Condition 37); 11th December 2015 (Conditions 21 & 23) and 22nd January 2016 (Conditions 6 & 9). Furthermore, 6 site notices were erected within the vicinity of the site for each package of conditions.

4.9 Consultation with external statutory organisations including the Environment Agency also

took place, together with consultation with relevant internal technical officers including Transport Planning, Urban Design and Environmental Health.

4.10 It should be noted that the 21-day (3 week) consultation period was extended to 35-day

(5 weeks) in respect of the Conditions 21 & 23. This extended period was due to the consultation period coinciding with the festive period, thereby giving interested parties additional time to make comment. In addition, the consultation period for Conditions 6 & 9 was extended by 5 working days to account for a short period when the Council’s Planning Applications Database was unavailable due to essential upgrade work.

4.11 Specific consultation responses are reported separately under each individual

assessment section within this report. 4.12 A ‘technical panel’ presentation was made on 30th November 2015, 11th January 2016

and 15th February 2016 to PAC members and ward councillors in order to explain the details pursuant to the seven 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 9 (Piling Method Statement) 16/00249/DET

6.1 Condition 9 of the parent application (14/02792/FUL) reads as follows:

No impact piling shall take place until a Piling Method Statement (detailing the location, depth and type of piling to be undertaken; the methodology and programme by which such piling will be carried out; and measures to prevent and minimise i) the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, ii) the impact on the migration and movement of fish in the River Thames and iii) the potential risks associated with the use of piling where contamination is an issue) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement. Reason: To safeguard local underground sewerage utility infrastructure, to reduce the impact of piling works within the River Thames on the migration and movement of

migratory fish species and to protect groundwater (London Plan Policies 5.14, 5.21, 7.19 and 7.29 and Core Strategy Policies S1 and PN1). [Note: The details submitted pursuant to this condition will be referred to Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee for a resolution]

6.2 Condition 9 which requires the submission of a Piling Method Statement (PMS) 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 the details of piling works within the River Thames and the potential impact upon the TTT, the migration and movement of fish and risks associated with contamination.

6.3 It should be noted that this condition relates to piling works within the river only. A

separate condition (33) deals with piling works for the South Landing Building. Submitted Document 6.4 The applicant has provided a detailed PMS in support of this application which available

on the Council’s website. The document was submitted following discussions with technical consultees including the EA and TTT. The main headlines of this document are as follows:

The submitted PMS provides detailed information in relation to the proposed ‘off-shore’ piling works which are required for crane platforms, mooring, bridge segment mooring, construction access bridge, bridge deck support and cofferdams.

The submitted document includes details of the location, type and depth of proposed piling works. Piles would be installed through either vibration or percussive hammer. Pile dimensions would range between Ø 910mm and Ø1500mm.

Off-shore piling works would take place between August 2016 and November 2017. Working hours would be as per the agreed Code of Construction Plan (CoCP) Part B (as approved under Condition 8) including the possibility of extended working hours which would require a S61 application under the Control of Pollution Act (1974).

In relation to the impact on subsurface sewerage infrastructure

In relation to biodiversity, the PMS states that all measures on biodiversity as contained within Section 6 of CoCP (Part A) which was approved as part of the parent planning permission. Mitigation of the impact on piling works upon the migration and movement of fish would include the following measures:

- Low-noise piling techniques and low noises or ‘silenced’ plant equipment will

be utilised where practicable. - Piling works and other activities likely to generate noise in the water column

or through transmission via the riverbed will be programmed outside fish migratory periods where practicable.

- Where piling is to be undertaken in the subtidal environment this will be undertaken as rapidly as practicable to limit impacts on migratory fish species.

- Where percussive piling is required in the period April to October inclusive, mitigation measures will be put in place including a soft start approach to piling to allow aquatic species to move away from the noise source; piling to take place during daylight hours to avoid species which migrate at night and noise screening techniques.

The construction programme is likely to require some percussive piling to be carried out during the sensitive period for fish (April to October inclusive). The aforementioned measures will be adopted to reduce the effects of piling noise and vibration. The temporary effects of piling on fish, macro-invertebrates and marine animals would be likely but negligible and therefore not significant.

In terms of contamination, the PMS has been developed in accordance with the Environment Agency document: ‘Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention’.

Based on various scenarios contained within this document it was concluded that risks associated with contamination are low other than a ‘low to moderate’ risk for the potential for the works to mobilise additional suspended solids into the River Thames.

In order to mitigate against this ‘low to moderate’ risk the PMS identifies a number of additional measures to be implemented by the contractor during piling operations including:

- Maintaining a visual inspection of the working area to identify any high

sediment loads within the immediate surrounding area. - Adjusting the rate of penetration to minimize disturbance. - Adjust the timings of the piling operations to periods of slack tide and

avoiding when the river is running at a high velocity.

Consultation Responses 6.5 At the time of writing the Local Planning Authority had received no letters of support or in

objection in relation to this application. 6.6 The Environment Agency were consulted on the application. They have reviewed the

application and recommend the discharge of the condition. They have stated that they recommend the use of a dampener plate if/when percussion piling is used to further mitigate the impact of piling works on fish. This is included as an informative.

6.7 Thames Tideway Tunnel were consulted on the application. They have raised no

objections. 6.8 The Port of London Authority were consulted on the application. They have made

comments in relation to the removal of temporary piles from the river but consider that this will be addressed by the River Works Licence which they are responsible for. As such they are satisfied that the condition can be discharged.

6.9 Thames Water were consulted on the application. They originally requested further

details in relation to the piling works within the exclusion zones of Thames Water assets on the south side of the Thames. Following the submission of a piling location plan by the applicant, Thames Water subsequently confirmed that they had no objections.

Relevant Planning Policy

6.10 As discussed at para 5.3 the Lambeth Local Plan now has been adopted. The policies

within the Local Plan and London Plan (2015) that are considered to be relevant to this application are listed as follows:

Lambeth Local Plan (September 2015)

Policy D1 Delivery and monitoring

Policy D3 Infrastructure

London Plan (March 2015)

Policy 5.14 Water quality and water infrastructure

Policy 5.21 Contaminated land

Policy 7.19 Biodiversity and access to nature

Policy 7.29 The River Thames

Assessment

6.11 This is a further technical condition which requires an understanding of the impact of

piling works within the river upon subterranean sewage infrastructure, biodiversity (particularly fish) and potential risks of contamination. Officer are of the opinion that the submitted details are acceptable noting the comments of technical consultees including the Environment Agency, Thames Water, Port of London Authority and Thames Tideway Tunnel who have all recommended that the condition can be discharged.

6.12 In relation to subterranean sewerage infrastructure, the submitted PMS is considered to

adequately demonstrate that the proposed location and method of piling would not result

in any damage. The comments of Thames Water and Thames Tideway Tunnel are considered to be particularly relevant in this regard and neither organisation has raised any objections. This submitted PMS accounts for foundation works and sub-surface sewerage infrastructure and is therefore considered to suitably comply with this element of the condition.

6.13 The condition also seeks to mitigate the impact on ‘in-river’ piling activity upon the

movement and migration of fish. The PMS stipulates a range of measures that wil be adopted including low-noise soft piling techniques or ‘silenced’ plant equipment, programming works outside fish migratory periods where practicable and ‘soft start’ approach to piling in order to allow aquatic species to move away from the noise source. The Environment Agency were consulted on the submitted PMS. They have raised no objections however they have suggested that a dampner plate is utilised for any potential percussion piling in order to further mitigate against the impact upon fish migration and movement.

6.14 The final element of the condition relates to mitigating against the risk of contamination.

In this respect the PMS identifies that there is a low risk of contamination associated with the proposed piling works other than an identified ‘low to moderate’ risk for the potential for the works to mobilise additional suspended solids into the River Thames. The PMS identifies measures including maintaining a visual inspection of the area, adjusting the rate of penetration and adjusting the timings of piling operations to avoid vulnerable periods. As described above, the Environment Agency have reviewed the PMS and have raised no objections.

Conclusion and Recommendation

6.15 In light of the above assessment, together with the comments received from the relevant

technical consultees, officers consider that the PMS suitably addresses the three issues associated with ‘in-river’ piling within the original condition. As such officers recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 9 of the parent permission subject to the following informative:

Informative

1 The Environment Agency have advised the use of a dampner plate if/when

percussion piling is used. 7 ASSESSMENT: Condition 10 (Construction Noise and Vibration Strategy)

15/04314/DET


No development shall occur until such time as a Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Construction Noise and Vibration Mitigation Strategy shall thereafter be operated for the duration of the construction works. Reason: To limit the disturbance to amenity and operations of neighbouring land uses (Saved UDP Policy 7 and Core Strategy Policies S1 and PN1). [Note: The details submitted pursuant to this condition will be referred to Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee for a resolution].

7.2 Condition 10 which requires the submission of a Construction Noise and Vibration

Strategy (CNVS) was considered to be PAC referable at the time of the determination of the parent application in order to ensure a robust strategy was in place prior to the commencement of construction works. This was considered necessary in order to mitigate against the impacts of noise and vibration upon general amenity and the operation of neighbouring land uses. This is considered to be IBM and ITV, ITV arguably being the most sensitive receptor noting the nature of their operation and that the South Landing Building immediately abuts their site.

7.3 For the purposes of clarification, it should be noted that the approved Code of Construction Practice (COCP) – Part B (ref: 15/04313/DET) provided details of best practice measures to mitigate against noise and vibration, together with information regarding proposed noise monitoring. This condition is considered require more specific information on the proposed mitigation measures including physical noise attenuation/mitigation measures for the site compound, specific noise attenuation measures for adjoining businesses, agreement of noise threshold levels with ITV, and details of a stop/start protocol with ITV.

Submitted Document

7.4 The applicant has provided a CNVS in support of this application which available on the

Council’s website. The document has been revised throughout the assessment period in order to take account of consultee comments and negotiations with adjoining businesses including ITV. The main headlines of this document are as follows:

The CNVS builds upon the commitments within the Environmental Statement (ES) and COCP Part A which were approved as part of the parent planning permission, together with COCP Part B which was approved in December 2015 in accordance with PAC resolution.

Works considered to constitute construction engineering will be subject to applications to the Council’s Environmental Health Team under Section 61 (S61) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. These applications will detail how the contractor will mitigate noise and vibration from the works following best practicable means and will be the primary documents for noise and vibration matters during the construction process. S61 applications will be packaged into suitable periods considering scale and phasing, likely to be for a period of 6 months or to tie in with significant phases of works in the construction programme. It is a self-regulating process with the local authority taking an overseeing role through the S61 process.

The CNVS states that contractor intends to submit a draft S61 application to the local authority at least 8 weeks prior to the start of that construction phase (unless otherwise agreed that a draft is not required). A formal application will then be made at least 4 weeks prior to construction. The application will provide:

- Contact details; - Location of works; - Works to be completed; - Equipment and numbers used; - Noise source data for plant equipment; - Methodology of proposed works; - Hours intended to operate; - Predicted noise levels at sensitive and identified receptors; - Baseline noise levels; and - Noise and vibration mitigation.

The construction criteria define the threshold levels for noise and vibration. These are the levels at which the contractor will rethink their approach to carrying out the works and are the levels at which additional mitigation needs to be considered and explored. These threshold levels are taken from the ES, other than for ITV where additional thresholds have been agreed to meet ITVs specific requirements.

Where a change occurs in the construction method, programme or equipment that may give rise to higher noise levels than predicted the contractor will apply for a variation or dispensation from the local authority to the current S61. Dispensations will be applied for giving 14 days’ notice to the local authority unless they are of a critical nature where they have the potential to delay other key activities. When a dispensation will be applied for at least 48 hours in advance of those works. A variation will be applied for where works involve a minor change to S61 consent which will not change overall predicted noise/vibration levels. An over run form will be used to notify the local authority if there is an over run of the agreed working hours.

The S61 application will define the measures taken by the contractor in identifying and adopting best practical means (BPM) as defined under Section 72 of the Control of Pollution Act (1974). The general principle for following BPM will be:

- Control at source, selecting quiet and low vibration emitting equipment, the

location of plant within the site, operational hours and enclosing by suitable and effecting means.

- Screening either by site perimeter, site welfare offices or specific hoarding or enclosure.

All construction noise and vibration predictions to be set out within the S61 applications will be made using the procedure set out within BS 5228. Predicted receptor locations will look at the worst affected façade and the worst affected floor for both airborne noise and vibration. On the South Bank these will be likely to include (but not limited to) the following:

- National Theatre; - ITV - IBM; - The Queen’s Walk; - Gabriel’s Wharf; - OXO Tower (Redwood Housing Co-Op); and - Iroko Housing Co-Op;

Predicted noise levels will be presented as an average overall noise level for each month and a worst day predicted noise level in that month for programmed activity. This will be provided for a typical 10 hour working day (Monday – Friday) and a 5 hour working Saturday period. Any proposed activities outside these working hours will be subject to a more detailed assessment within the S61 application.

Threshold levels for construction airborne noise are to be agreed with the local authority through the S61 application process. Limiting noise levels from construction activity have already been agreed with ITV to meet ITVs requirements for sensitive areas of the building during broadcasting and filming periods and to protect amenity within office areas.

Five unattended noise monitors will be installed around the ITV building. These monitors will measure average and maximum noise levels, display real time noise monitoring via a website and send alerts in the event of breaches of agreed levels. A separate ‘trigger action plan’ has been agreed with ITV studios which details:

- The agreed location and time specific internal noise and vibration limits. - The procedure for monitoring these noise levels, and the stop work protocol

should limits be exceeded. - Ongoing monthly, weekly and daily communication meetings between ITV and

GBT.

The CNVS seeks to ensure that impacts upon ITV remain are within acceptable levels noting the proximity to the construction site and the sensitive nature of their operations. Given the detailed mitigation steps and trigger action levels to meet ITV’s requirements these will in-turn address the requirements for other neighbouring receptors which are located further away from the construction site.

For nearby residential properties the CNVS specifies airborne noise trigger thresholds and includes a tiered approach to following up on breaches of these thresholds including:

- First Action Level – the contractor investigating whether BPM are being followed

in the event that trigger thresholds are exceeded for more than 3 days in any consecutive period, or 8 days in a month.

- Second Action Level – the contractor will investigate, reduce noise levels as far as reasonable practicable and propose additional mitigation measures should trigger thresholds be exceeded for more than 5 days in any consecutive 10 day period, or 20 days in a 3 month period.

- Third Action Level - construction works will cease until corrective action is agreed with the Council should trigger thresholds be exceeded for more than 10 days in

any consecutive 15 day period, or 40 days in a 6 month period. This is unless a dispensation has been granted, the exceedance has been caused by a 3rd party, continuing the work is engineering or safety critical, or the contractor can demonstrate that there is no reasonably practicable alternative method, technique or control measure that could be deployed.

Monitoring will be a mixture of manned and unmanned measurements throughout the duration of the period. Unmanned monitoring or logging will be done continuously throughout the project at agreed receptor locations. Manned monitoring will be planned and delivered as part of S61 applications.

A 4m barrier will be installed on the Queen’s Walk side of the ITV railings at the rear of the ITV building and to the east end of the compound within the site demise. Localised screening of high noise level plant items will also be used in the form of a movable baffle likely to be a 2.4m high heras fence with a noise baffle. Secondary glazing to selected rooms within ITV is also proposed. Where secondary glazing cannot be installed due to practical limitations, scheduling of works will be agreed to avoid times when studios are in operation.

A noise barrier will also be installed between 2.4m and 4m in height along the façade of the IBM building.

Consultation Responses

7.5 At the time of writing 3 objections had been made by local residents in relation to this

application. The objections are summarised within the below table together with an officer response:

Objection Summary Officer Response

The working hours will have an adverse impact on local residents. Given the history of communication on this project and its impact on this local community we are only now coming to terms with the construction issues and its negative impact on us personally and as a community.

The working hours were approved within COCP Part B (GB-BYCI-ALL-PLN-ENV-00003 Rev 09 - received 24/11/2015) which was approved in December 2015 in accordance with PAC resolution.

There is a discrepancy between the identified receptors on the North Bank which includes residential properties and those on the South Bank which doesn’t.

The CNVS was updated throughout the assessment period in order to identify additional sensitive residential receptors on the South Bank including the Iroko Housing Co-Op and Redwood Housing Co-Op (OXO Tower Development). These matters were approved as part of COCP Part B (GB-BYCI-ALL-PLN-ENV-00003 Rev 09 - received 24/11/2015) which was approved in December 2015 in accordance with PAC resolution.

The proposed felling of over 40 mature trees is outrageous in order to build a private ‘gimmicky’ development on public land.

This is not a material planning consideration in relation to the determination of Condition 10 of the parent consent.

The construction of the bridge will be ruinous for public amenity – including those in social housing - for many years with constant and persistent loud noises and constant vibration.


Lambeth Council should not allow the lease/sell the land to the Garden Bridge Trust as it is a beautiful, peaceful, non-commercial space which belongs to the public not to money making developers and vanity designers.


The lack of stipulated limit on the number of extended working days is concerning and will have a significant impact in terms of noise and vibration.

Extended working hours will only be agreed as part of the application process associated with Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act (1974). Extended hours will only be acceptable and agreed by the Council where there is a clear engineering or health and safety reason for doing so.

7.6 ITV were consulted on the proposals and have provided comments throughout the

assessment period. At the time of writing they have stated that they are unable to support the CNVS for the following reasons:


ITV/GBT have a difference of opinion on the SRL Acoustic Noise Model produced by Arup. ITV’s noise consultant have concerns over its accuracy and that there will therefore be noise related problems during the construction phase.

It is unclear what the perceived inaccuracies within the Accoustic Noise Model are, however, in response to this officers are of the opinion that the mitigation framework protects ITV’s principle concern in relation to internal noise and vibration levels. These levels are clearly defined within the CNVS and ITV have raised no objection to them. The procedure for measuring noise levels to ensure these internal levels are not breached is considered to be robust. In addition there is a suitable action plan in order to bring an immediate halt to works if the agreed noise levels are breached. Furthermore, any construction works which are predicted to breach the agreed thresholds will only be permitted with ITV’s agreement as per the separate ‘ITV Trigger Action Plan’. This will allow provide ITV with control over when these noisy works can take place as to not conflict with any of their more sensitive operations.

ITV/GBT have still not agreed the extent of the secondary glazing/acoustic treatment.

In terms of the secondary glazing, it is acknowledged that the CNVS states that this will be installed to selected windows where practical but that no details have been provided. In response to this the applicant has provided details of the windows which have been identified (through acoustic testing) as requiring secondary glazing in order to meet internal noise levels. At the time of writing further acoustic tests were being undertaken to check whether secondary glazing was required to other windows. Should

testing identify further windows which require secondary glazing to meet the internal noise levels this will be provided. The CNVS provides details on a combination of feasible mitigation measures which will help achieve the internal noise levels with the ITV building. However the key principle is the agreement on the internal noise levels for which there is a clear range of actions if they are breached, including enforcement action by the LPA.

7.7 Waterman Group were instructed to undertake and independent review of the submitted

CNVS. They have stated that the submitted details clearly set out the actions that will be taken by the contractor to consider, measure, evaluate and mitigate against noise and vibration during the construction period. They consider that the S61 applications for each significant phase of works will, in combination with the wider noise and vibration strategy, ensure that construction noise and vibration effects are satisfactorily controlled. They also state that there are particularly onerous noise and vibration trigger action levels for ITV studios which will by default reasonably address the requirements for neighbouring receptors at IBM, Gabriel’s Wharf, the National Theatre and the OXO Tower. Waterman did originally express concern with the trigger thresholds in relation to residential properties. The CNVS has subsequently been updated to a tiered trigger action level approach in order to improve the mitigation measures to the wider area.

7.8 The Council’s Environmental Health Team were consulted on the proposals. They have

raised no objections.


7.9 As discussed at para 5.3 the Lambeth Local Plan now has been adopted. The policies

within the Local Plan and London Plan (2015) that are considered to be relevant to this application are listed as follows:


Policy D1 Delivery and monitoring

Policy Q2 Amenity

Policy PN1 Waterloo

London Plan (2015)

Policy 2.1 London in its Global, European and UK Context

Policy 2.10 Central Activities Zone – Strategic Priorities

Policy 2.11 Central Activities Zone – Strategic Functions

Policy 4.1 Developing London’s Economy

Policy 4.6 Support for and Enhancement of Arts, Culture, Sport and Entertainment

Assessment

7.10 This is another technical condition. In this instance it requires the applicant to provide a

robust framework of specific measures to be undertaken during the construction phase in order to mitigate against the impact of noise and vibration. The CNVS builds upon the commitments within the Environmental Statement (ES) and COCP Part A which were approved as part of the parent planning permission, together with COCP Part B which was approved in December 2015 in accordance with PAC resolution.

7.11 As previously discussed the reason attached to the condition on the parent consent

expressly states that the purpose of the condition is to limit the disturbance to amenity and the operations of neighbouring land uses. The use of the word limit therefore recognises that there is likely to be an impact in terms of noise and vibration resultant from construction activity. The required CNVS is therefore expected to demonstrate how this ‘limitation’ or mitigation would be achieved. The fact that the condition solely

references the operations of neighbouring land uses is considered to be significant and in the main is considered to refer to ITV Studios which immediately abuts the construction site and the IBM office block which is adjacent to the west of the site.

7.12 In the context of the above, officers are of the opinion that, on balance, the submitted

details are acceptable and satisfy the purpose of the condition in relation to limiting the impact of noise and vibration generated by construction activities upon neighbouring land uses. This is noting the concluding comments received by Waterman Consultancy Group who have carried out an independent review of the submitted CNVS. The Council’s Environmental Health (Noise Pollution) Team have also reviewed the document and have raised no objections.

7.13 The CNVS establishes that the overarching method of noise and vibration mitigation to

the wider area will be the applications that will be made to the Council for ‘Prior Consent’ under Section 61 (S61) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. S61 consent application will provide predictions of noise and, where appropriate, vibration. The predictions will identify significant dominating plant and activities, which in turn will define appropriate best practice measures (BPM) in the control of noise and vibration impacts.

7.14 BPM (as legally defined under the Control of Pollution Act 1974) will be an integral

element of any S61 application and must be fully demonstrated as part of the application. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that they are doing everything possible to reduce the level of construction noise and regard must be had to predicted noise levels in determining whether BPM has been employed in practice.

7.15 The S61 approach is considered to offer significant advantages in controlling and

mitigating noise and vibration impacts from construction activity. It ensures that standards of performance with respect to the control of construction noise and vibration can be agreed in advance of the start of the works and that appropriate action can be taken by the Council should these standards not be adhered to. A consequence of breaching these agreed standards is that the Council has the ability to take prosecution under the Control of Pollution Act.

7.16 The CNVS advises that the applicant will seek to engage informally with the Council in

advance of the submission of a formal S61 application in order to resolve any issues. The formal application will be submitted to the Council (Environmental Health) at least 4-weeks in advance of the commencement of the particular works. The S61 application will be required to include details of community engagement as per the details approved as part of COCP Part B which was approved in December 2015 in accordance with PAC resolution.

7.17 The CNVS also provides a detailed framework in relation to mitigating the impact on

noise and vibration upon neighbouring developments. As previously discussed, ITV Studios are considered to be the most sensitive receptor given their proximity to the South Landing Building construction site and the nature of their business operation which primarily involves the production and transmission of television shows.

7.18 The CNVS advises that there has been an ongoing dialogue with ITV with respect to

agreeing requirements for sensitive broadcast and recording areas. This has been confirmed both verbally and in writing by ITV and there appears to be agreement between the two parties on the majority of the relevant noise and vibration issues. The specific mitigation measures include agreement on specific internal noise level limits within the ITV building as outlined in the table below:

Space

Internal noise level, dB(A)

Parameter Basis

Studios

35

Lmax To protect recording/broadcast (applicable during periods of recording/broadcast or other noise sensitive activities)

25

Leq, 1 hour

Event Space, Green Rooms.

45 Lmax

40 Leq, 1 hour

Dressing Rooms, Meeting Rooms.

40 Leq, 10 hour To protect amenity

Offices, Client Rooms.

50 Leq, 10 hour

Figure 2: ITV building internal noise level limits 7.19 A series of internal/external noise monitors will be placed around the ITV building in order

to ensure that above internal levels are not breached. For external monitors the trigger action levels have been calculated by factoring in the specific internal noise limit and the sound insulation performance of that particular part of the façade of the ITV building. In the event that noise levels are exceeded, the contractor shall stop work immediately. A separate ‘ITV Trigger Action Plan’ has also been agreed between the applicant and ITV. This outlines the procedure for dealing with essential construction activity that is expected or predicted to give rise to noise levels which would exceed the agreed thresholds. Such noisier works would only be permitted with ITV’s agreement. This protocol in effect replaces the suggested stop/start protocol between GBT and ITV which was referenced within CoCP – Part B.

7.20 The CNVS also provides details of additional mitigation measures to minimise the impact

upon ITV. This includes a 4m high barrier to be installed on the Queen’s Walk side of the existing boundary with the ITV building. A moveable 2.4m high baffle will also be used to provide localised screening for particular noise intensive works. In addition to this, the CNVS states that secondary glazing to selected rooms within the ITV building is also proposed.

7.21 It is acknowledged that, at the time of writing, ITV have objected to the proposals on two

grounds. The first of these relates to the SRL Acoustic Noise Model which has been produced by Arup. In particular ITV’s noise consultant has expressed concerns over the accuracy of the model and are therefore concerned that there will be noise related problems. It is unclear what the perceived inaccuracies within the Accoustic Noise Model are, however, in response to this officers are of the opinion that the mitigation framework protects ITV’s principle concern in relation to internal noise and vibration levels. These levels are clearly defined within the CNVS and ITV have raised no objection to them. The procedure for measuring noise levels to ensure these internal levels are not breached is considered to be robust. In addition there is a suitable action plan in order to bring an immediate halt to works if the agreed noise levels are breached. Furthermore, any construction works which are predicted to breach the agreed thresholds will only be permitted with ITV’s agreement as per the separate ‘ITV Trigger Action Plan’. This will allow provide ITV with control over when these noisy works can take place as to not conflict with any of their more sensitive operations.

7.22 In terms of the secondary glazing, it is acknowledged that the CNVS states that this will

be installed to selected windows where practical but that no details have been provided. In response to this the applicant has provided details of the windows which have been identified (through acoustic testing) as requiring secondary glazing in order to meet internal noise levels. At the time of writing further acoustic tests were being undertaken to check whether secondary glazing was required to other windows. Should testing identify further windows which require secondary glazing to meet the internal noise levels this will be provided. The CNVS provides details on a combination of feasible mitigation measures which will help achieve the internal noise levels with the ITV building. However the key principle is the agreement on the internal noise levels for which there is a clear range of actions if they are breached, including enforcement action by the LPA.

7.23 In relation to wider neighbouring land uses it is considered that given the robust

mitigation steps and trigger action level’s to meet ITV’s requirements, the CNVS will be default reasonably address the requirements for neighbouring receptors. The impact of noise and vibration will obviously decrease the further away from the construction site the receptor is located. However recognising the proximity of the IBM building to the application site, particularly the construction route through the ITV/IBM passageway, the CNVS proposes an additional mitigation in the form of a noise barrier (with an absorptive lining) between 2.4m and 4m in height to be installed along the façade of the IBM building. It should also be noted that the approach at ITV is to be mirrored at wider

receptors where specific action levels will be agreed during the S61 process. This will cover any potential periods when the more onerous requirements to be met at ITV don’t by default protect wider neighbouring receptors.

7.24 This condition is considered to specifically address the commercial land uses

immediately adjacent to the application site. For the purposes of completeness the noise and vibration considerations for nearby residential buildings (Redwood Housing Co-Op – approximately 160m from the application site and Iroko Housing Co-Op – approximately 175m from the application site) are contained within COCP Part B (GB-BYCI-ALL-PLN-ENV-00003 Rev 09 - received 24/11/2015) which was approved in December 2015 in accordance with PAC resolution. Conclusion and Recommendation

7.25 Given the above assessment of these specific issues, together the comments received

from Waterman who carried out an independent consultant and the Council’s Environmental Health Team (Noise Pollution), officers consider that the submitted details are acceptable and would suitably limit the impact of noise and vibration from the construction site to neighbouring land uses. As such officers recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 10 of the parent permission.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

8 UPDATE ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING PAC DEFERRAL ON 9th FEBRUARY 2016:



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). [Note: The details submitted pursuant to this condition will be referred to Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee for a resolution].

8.2 It should be noted that this application was previously presented to PAC on 9th February 2015. Members identified a number of issues with the submitted details and resultantly the item was deferred. The draft minutes of the meeting record that consideration of the item was deferred for the following reasons:

To investigate a lighter palette of colours for the lift shaft, shutters and metal elements of the building.

To consider providing refuse bins on posts to keep them suspended off the ground.

To reconsider the balance between public and commercial facilities.

To investigate the reconfiguration of the toilets to provide additional toilets, including two large W/Cs with baby changing facilities (one unisex, one for disabled persons), and separate male (including urinals) and female W/Cs.

8.3 In relation to the balance between public and commercial facilities and the

reconfiguration of the toilets it is considered that these matters directly relate to the layout and operation of the South Landing Building as opposed to its detailed design. As such these issues are addressed within Section 10 of this report which deals with Condition 23 (Internal Layout of the South Landing Building) which was also deferred at PAC on 9th February for these specific reasons.

8.4 As such this update assessment of Condition 21 will solely focus on the issue of the

colour of the lift shaft, shutters and metal elements of the building as well as the installation of refuse bins above podium level. For the purposes of information and ease of reference it should be noted that the officer assessment of Condition 21 (and subsequent addendum items) have been appended to this report (Appendix 2).

8.5 No further representations had been received in relation to Condition 21 at the time of

writing. 8.6 In relation to the colour of the lift shaft, shutters and metal elements it is noted that these

previously were all a ‘brown grey’ colour (RAL 7013) in order that they read as a ‘family of materials’. This approach regarding a ‘family of materials’ has been retained as part of the proposed revisions. However the colour has changed to RAL 7039 which is described as a ‘quartz grey’ colour and is considered to be a lighter tone than that previously proposed.

Figure 3: Photographs demonstrating the proposed lighter colour to the metal elements.

The previously proposed ‘brown grey’ colour is shown on the left whilst the revised ‘quartz grey’ colour is shown on the right. Concrete (SLB elevations), copper nickel (bridge structure) and paving (podium level) added for reference.

8.7 The revised colour has been reviewed by the Council’s Urban Design Officer who

considers the changes to be acceptable. The revised colour is considered to retain a successful relationship with the other main pallet of colours including the exposed copper nickel finish of the main bridge structure and the mid-grey concrete with off-white exposed aggregate of the elevations of the South Landing Building. The change in colour is not considered to have any greater impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area and the South Landing Building would remain sympathetic to its surroundings.

8.8 Officers consider that the revised colour generally responds to member concerns in that

the revised colour is lighter than that originally proposed, and lends the building a more temperate appearance given there is a lesser degree in visual contrast between materials than previously proposed. This is especially true of the metal screens and shutters which sit within the concrete bays allowing a direct comparison in materials. In particular the use of the ‘quartz grey’ colour to the tapered metal fins on the lift shaft provides it with a lighter and less dominant appearance.

Figure 4: Images showing the change in appearance resultant from the proposed

change in colour to the metal elements including the lift shaft. The previously proposed ‘brown grey’ colour is shown on the left whilst the revised ‘quartz grey’ colour is shown on the right.

8.9 With respect to the bins, members previously requested the applicant to consider that the

bins should be fixed to the lighting posts at podium level and resultantly raised above podium level. This was borne out of concerns that bins fixed to the podium level would lead to cleaning and maintenance issues around the base. In response to this the applicant has advised that fixing the bins to these lighting posts would conflict with proposed counter-terrorism mitigation. In particular the bins have been designed to provide blast mitigation in the event that an explosive device is left inside. By fixing the bins to the less robust lighting posts as opposed to the solid podium deck it would undermine the effectiveness of this blast mitigation. There are also concerns that the lamppost itself would fragment in the event of a blast increasing the risk to the public.

8.10 In relation to maintenance concerns officers are reminded that this paving material

(Hardscape Kellen – Tagenta D with Breccia Finish) was partly selected due to its ease of maintenance. Furthermore, the applicant has committed within the approved Waste Management Plan (Condition 25) to keep the public circulation areas, including the podium deck of the South Landing Building, clean to a high standard (DEFRA Code of Practice for Refuse and Litter Part 1 - Grade B). Given this and the fact that the frequency of collection from these litter bins (as approved as part of the Waste Management Plan) ensures that there would always be sufficient capacity within them, it is considered that it would be unlikely to have a scenario where litter would be left around the base of the public litter bins. Conclusion and Recommendation

8.11 Given the above assessment of these specific issues, together with the original officer

assessment of Condition 21, officers consider that the submitted details are acceptable

and would ensure a high quality finish. As such officers recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 21 of the parent permission.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

9 UPDATE ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING PAC DEFERRAL ON 9th FEBRUARY 2016:



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].

9.2 It should be noted that this application was previously presented to PAC on 9th February

2015. Members identified a number of issues with the submitted details and resultantly the item was deferred. The draft minutes of the meeting record that consideration of the item was deferred for the following reasons:

To consider providing refuse bins on posts to keep them suspended off the ground.

To reconsider the balance between public and commercial facilities.

To investigate the reconfiguration of the toilets to provide additional toilets, including two large W/Cs with baby changing facilities (one unisex, one for disabled persons), and separate male (including urinals) and female W/Cs.

9.3 In relation to the issue of the refuse bins being fixed to posts it is considered that this

relates to the detailed design of the South Landing Building. As such this issue has been addressed within Section 8 of this report which deals with Condition 21 (Detailed Design of the South Landing Building) which was also deferred at PAC on 9th February.

9.4 As such this update assessment of Condition 23 will solely focus on the issue of the

configuration of the public toilets as well as the balance between the public and commercial facilities. For the purposes of information and ease of reference it should be noted that the officer assessment of Condition 23 (and subsequent addendum items) have been appended to this report (Appendix 3).

9.5 No further representations had been received in relation to Condition 23 at the time of

writing. 9.6 The proposed public toilet offer has been reconfigured in light of the comments made by

members at PAC on 9th February 2016. The previous offer was a unisex facility comprising of 7 cubicles plus a disabled cubicle. This configuration was chosen on the basis of the success of the ‘Jubiloo’ facility between Hungerford Bridge and Jubilee Gardens. However the revised offer now provides the following:

Split male and female facilities in addition to the wheelchair accessible facility as previously proposed.

Female facilities to include four cubicles including an enlarged cubicle with a baby change facility and a door wide enough to accommodate a double pushchair.

Male facilities to include three urinals and one enlarged cubicle with a baby change facility and a door wide enough to accommodate a double pushchair.

A wheelchair accessible cubicle with a baby change facility and a door wide enough to accommodate a double pushchair.

A designated area of queuing/waiting offset from Queen’s Walk.

Figure 5: Layout of revised public toilet. 9.7 Officers maintain that the previous toilet offer was considered acceptable in planning

terms. However the proposed changes are considered to provide additional benefits and address member’s specific concerns regarding layout. This is due to the fact that there is now a male and female split within the public toilets. This split allows the introduction of 3 urinals within the male facility. Resultantly there are now 8 WC facilities (plus 1 wheelchair accessible cubicle) compared to the 7 WC facilities (plus 1 wheelchair accessible cubicle). The introduction of urinals is also considered to improve the capacity of the facility whilst there is also now a designated area for queuing.

9.8 Furthermore the changes include improved baby change facilities which are now

provided in enlarged cubicles within the wheelchair accessible cubicle and both the male and female facilities. This is considered to make it easier for parents to use these baby change facilities noting that the widened doors would allow access for a tandem pushchair and there is increased circulation space within the cubicle.

9.9 The revised public toilet offer broadly retains the same footprint as the previous

proposals. However it is noted that there has been a slight increase in the floor area which has required a 0.4m reduction in the depth of the GBT refuse store which is located immediately to the rear of the public toilet area. Officers are satisfied that this does not undermine the usability of the refuse store noting that it retains sufficient capacity for 6 ‘eurobins’ as reported within the approved Waste Management Plan (15/05212/DET – Condition 25).

9.10 It is noted that the item was partly deferred at PAC on 9th February 2016 on the basis

that members asked the applicant to reconsider the balance between the public and commercial floorspace. However it should be noted that this has not changed as part of the revised layout. Despite this officers maintain that the proposed toilet offer is

acceptable on planning grounds as per the previous recommendation and there is no need for further enlargement. The reasons for this were set out within the previous officer report and addendums (Appendix 3) together with the previous officer presentation. These reasons are summarised below:

The parent consent was for up to 410sqm A1, A3 and/or D1 floorspace with additional ancillary service and plant. Consent was not granted for a toilet block (Suis Generis).

The provision of public toilets has already reduced the amount of commercial floorspace by 62m² to a total of 348m².

The proposed public toilet offer supplements the existing provision of public toilets in the area.

The forecast demand for use of additional public toilets is anticipated to be low.

The public toilet offer is considered to exceed the minimum requirements for public toilet provision as set out within British Standard 6465. This is considered to be the most appropriate British Standard noting that it applies to parks, tourist attractions and transport interchanges.

9.11 In addition to the above, officers consider that the revisions to the layout of the public

toilets serve to strengthen the recommendation that the public toilet offer is acceptable on planning grounds noting that the overall number of WC facilities have increased from 8 to 9 and the introduction of urinals helps improve capacity.

9.12 It should also be noted that, using the figures within the Transport Assessment

approved as part of the parent application, the hourly capacity of the proposed toilets would exceed the peak number of hourly visitors to the bridge which is anticipated to be 5000. British Standard 6465 Part 4 2010: ‘Code for the practice of the provision of public toilets’ provides average user times for males and females. Based on 4 male WC facilities and 4 female WC facilities (not including the wheelchair accessible facility), and the average user times contained within the aforementioned document, the proposed toilets would be able to serve 9,600 people per hour.


9.13 Given the above assessment of these specific issues, together with the original officer

assessment of Condition 23, officers consider that the submitted details are acceptable and therefore recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 23 of the parent permission.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 ASSESSMENT: Condition 37 (Counter Terrorism Strategy) 15/05215/DET 10.1 Condition 37 of the parent application (14/02792/FUL) reads as follows: No development works shall commence until such time as a Counter Terrorism

Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be delivered and operated in accordance with the approved Counter Terrorism Strategy thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure suitable provision of counter terrorism measures (London Plan Policy 7.13, Core Strategy Policies S9 and PN1 and Saved UDP Policy 32). [Note: The details submitted pursuant to this condition will be referred to Lambeth's Planning Applications Committee for a resolution].

10.2 Condition 37 requires the submission of a Counter Terrorism Strategy (CTS) in order to

provide the opportunity for scrutiny in relation to the security issues surrounding the bridge proposal given the anticipated visitor numbers and its location and its significance due to the South Bank location.

Submitted Document

10.3 Given the security implications associated with the CTS, it should be noted that confidential and sensitive information has been withheld from the public domain. A separate “redacted” version of the CTS was therefore used for public consultation in order to ensure that the core purpose of the CTS in protecting the public is not undermined. Subsequently the assessment of the CTS does not provide details of sensitive information. The ‘full’ version of the document has been provided to officers and the Metropolitan Police for assessment. Specifically this includes the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Security Advisor (CTSA) who has been consulted throughout the process.

10.4 The ‘non-sensitive’ headlines of the document are as follows:

The CTS seeks to adhere to the ‘Protect’ and ‘Prepare’ strands of ‘CONTEST’ which is the United Kingdom’s strategy for countering terrorism activities. This will be achieved by strengthening the protection against a terrorist attack and developing measures to mitigate against the impact of a terrorist attack.

The full CTS contains all relevant information available at the time of submission to meet the requirements of the above conditions. It is a high level document which sets out the overarching approach to be adopted by the applicant in respect to terrorist activity.

The CTS will be supplemented by a more comprehensive set of plans to identify the specific approaches and policies in order to mitigate against terrorist activity. These plans will form part of the OMP and will therefore be subject to scrutiny and approval by the LPA prior to the opening of the bridge in accordance with the s106 agreement. This approach allows the applicant to take into account any changes in threat levels and reflect on lessons from any relevant terrorism incidents that may arise.

A General Security Risk Assessment has been completed which consists of identification of potential threats, identification of GB assets to be protected, and evaluation of vulnerabilities. This feeds into the CTS which seeks to protect people, property and information.

The CTS contains protective security tactics based on a combination of physical, information and personnel security measures.

The lighting system has been designed to provide enhanced levels of lighting in accordance with The Code of Practice for the Design of Road Lighting, Parts I and II (BS 5489) and Lighting Against Crime – A Guide for Professionals.

The CCTV system has been developed using the guidelines and principles set out in the Home Office publication, the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice 2013.

Protective security measures will be installed to make it more difficult to commit offences and instill a sense of safety in people who will be using the bridge.

A range of staff will be utilised to manage the operating environment of the bridge. Appropriate measures will be developed to manage the risk of staff, contractors or others with legitimate access, exploiting this opportunity for unauthorised purpose.

An overview of operational procedures is provided in relation to responding to specific terrorist related incidents and events.

Hostile vehicle mitigation (HVM) will be installed. In the first instance the HVM will seek to integrate with the proposed extension of existing HVM within the wider South Bank area. However if this is not progressed a site specific HVM option will be installed including retractable or sliding bollards within the ITV/IBM passageway. These siting of these bollards would allow a vehicle to turn into the passageway without blocking Upper Ground.


10.5 At the time of writing 4 objections had been made by local residents in relation to this application. The objections are summarised within the below table together with an officer response:


Local residents are unable to properly comment on the submitted CTS as the full version has not been made publically available.

The applicants have provided redacted and private copies of the Counter Terrorism Strategy (herein referred to as the ‘CT Strategy). In this respect, the full CT Strategy is a restricted document as it contains confidential and sensitive information relating to the completion of the Garden Bridge CT risk assessment, the development of protective security measures and proposed activity in relation to response and contingency planning. In order to void disclosing the full ‘private’ version of the CT Strategy, the Council published the redacted version on-line for public viewing, as this version would not compromise the safety and security of the bridge users and wider south bank environment than in the event where the full ‘private’ version were to be published online for all given the sensitive CT measures that are set out within the document. The redacted version provides for public commentary to satisfy the consultation exercise, whilst the MET Police Counter Terrorism experts have been provided with the full ‘private version’.

The proposed bridge will cut across a sensitive sweep of the River Thames" with a long and local river view and skyline that runs counter to all planning decisions made about this central Thames area.

This is not a material consideration of this application pursuant to Condition 37 (CT Strategy) 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.

GBT do not fully understand the impact of this bridge in this place. There is no contextual assessment of the physical situation of the proposed Garden Bridge although it is acknowledged that there is reference in the Crime Prevention Statement (Condition 38) to counter terrorism but generally they do not address security issues beyond the confines of the bridge.

Condition 38 (Crime Prevention Statement) is a ‘Prior to Opening’ submission that deals with specific Crime Prevention Measures, whilst Condition 37 (CT Strategy) is again subject to the condition being considered in this case under the parameters of Condition 46. The ‘Crime Prevention Overview’ that is contained within Appendix A refers to collaborative working with other groups and stakeholders such as the Metropolitan Police, British Transport Police, and north bank Business Improvement District and the South Bank Employers Group (SBEG).

Local authorities and the Metropolitan Police do not currently have the necessary resources to deal with the significantly increased problems of crime, crowds, pollution, refuse,

The principle of the Garden Bridge has already been previously approved under the parent planning application. Furthermore, the Council has also since received clarification from the MET

parking, coaches and traffic management in connection with delivery and servicing of a tourist attraction predicted to attract millions of visitors. It does not have the resources in current circumstances and will be even less equipped to respond to these problems with significantly reduced resources in the future.

police Counter Terrorism specialist that they raise no objections to the discharge of condition 37 which is being considered in this case. However, it should be noted that the Garden Bridge Trust will be responsible for the resourcing of the bridge and landing building operations, and the precise details of the Visitor Hosts (i.e. the number of staff to fulfil the daily operations) will be addressed within the Section 106 Operations Management Plan which is pursuant to Condition 3 of the parent planning permission.

The response of the Garden Bridge Trust to the planning conditions listed above does not in any way deal adequately with the crime, disturbance and disruption which will occur as a result of the influx of millions of extra visitors/tourists to the area. The risks associated with crowd control alone are not fully recognised by the GBT and thus, not adequately responded to in the submissions from the GBT.

Condition 46 deals with Crowd Control, Anti-social behaviour and General Enforcement aspects of the garden bridge operations. The officer report in the remaining section below deals specifically with matters pertaining to Counter Terrorism pursuant to Condition 37 of the parent planning permission.

It should also be noted that the GBT consultation process in terms of these planning conditions was characterised by poor communication with the local community and hence, poor attendance at consultation/information events. The local community is aware of no evidence to the effect that the GBT reviewed or amended its approach to planning conditions as a result of consultation with the local community.

Issues relating the GBT’s public consultation process are not material considerations of this application pursuant to Condition 37 of the parent permission.

Consultation undertaken by GBT is unacceptable and misleading noting that there was poor communication with the local community, poor attendance at consultation events and there is no evidence that GBT has amended their approach as a result of consultation with the local community.

As above. Issues relating the GBT’s public consultation process are not material considerations of this application pursuant to Condition 37 of the parent permission.

The bridge will cut across a sensitive sweep of the River Thames and disrupt local and wider views.

This is not a material consideration of this application pursuant to Condition 37 (CT Strategy) 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 events shouldn’t be necessary given the scale of the contribution from the public purse and will create significant noise and disturbance to local residents.

As above. This is not a material consideration of this application pursuant to Condition 37 (CT Strategy) 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.

It is the responsibility of the local planning authority to assess if there are enough resources to counter a terrorist attack. We have already heard from the borough Commander (South Bank Forum 4th June 2015) that extra police resources will have to be brought in from other boroughs (possibly outside of London) to attend to any threats caused by the Garden Bridge. As it is billed as ‘London’s newest tourist attraction’ the risk for using it as a high profile platform for terrorist activities is high. More spending on the security of the area surrounding the development Lambeth (and Westminster) would increase; more surveillance equipment and manpower deployed. This has been acknowledged by the police yet there are cuts to local policing in the borough with only a team of 4 in Bishop’s Ward, which consists of 10,600 constituents. Any more police/security staff would be brought in at cost to Lambeth as they would have to make use our other scant resources e.g. utilities, parking on roads (valuable public car parking spaces are already being given over to police vehicle spaces all over the capital including Lambeth), facilities etc.

The principle of the Garden Bridge has already been previously approved under the parent planning application. Furthermore, the Council has also since received clarification from the MET police Counter Terrorism specialist that they raise no objections to the discharge of condition 37 which is being considered in this case. However, it should be noted that the Garden Bridge Trust will be responsible for the resourcing of the bridge and landing building operations, and the precise details of the Visitor Hosts (i.e. the number of staff to fulfil the daily operations) will be addressed within the Section 106 Operations Management Plan which is pursuant to Condition 3 of the parent planning permission.

Would there be bollards or other road infrastructure to protect from any blasts? If so, where would they be? Would they impede free access on our streets? Would they require installation at cost to Lambeth? Is there room for such infrastructure? Who would maintain them?

Hostile Vehicle Mitigation is a matter reserved under the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement ‘The Security Plan’ which is pursuant to Condition 3 of the parent garden bridge planning permission.

Is Westminster party to similar security measures and compromises on their streets or are the risks greater in Lambeth due to the other 22 tourist attractions in the area?

Counter Terrorism measures within Westminster City Council are subject to condition 28 of the WCC consent (decision notice). The MET Police Counter Terrorism specialist has agreed to the formal discharge of Condition 37 in the case of the Lambeth application.

The maintenance requirements for the bridge are likely to be significantly greater than envisaged meaning a greater drain on finances. If this had been a real bridge the levels of delivery and servicing would not be required.

As above. This is not a material consideration of this application pursuant to Condition 37 (CT Strategy) 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.

10.6 The Metropolitan Police Counter-Terrorism Security Advisor (CTSA) was consulted on

the application. They have confirmed that they are satisfied that the submitted strategy is acceptable in terms of mitigating the impact of terrorist related activity noting that further details in terms of how the strategy will be implemented will be submitted for assessment as part of the OMP prior to the opening of the bridge. These details within

the OMP will be reviewed by the local planning authority in conjunction with the CTSA and will need to be approved in writing prior to the opening of the bridge.

Relevant Planning Policy 10.7 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:


Policy Q3 Community Safety

Policy PN1 Waterloo

London Plan (March 2015)

Policy 7.13 Safety, security and resilience to emergency

Assessment

10.8 The original condition was attached in order to provide assurance that a suitable level of

consideration went into the mitigation of terrorist activity given the anticipated numbers of visitors to the bridge and the fact that it could be viewed as a ‘soft-target’. The submitted CTS comprises an abridged version which has been used for public consultation with all sensitive information removed in order that public safety is not compromised via technical or procedural information being released into the public domain. A full version of the CTS has also been submitted for review by officers in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police CTSA as per the requirement of the London Plan. Significantly they have raised no objections to the submitted document as described at para. 11.6.

10.9 The submitted CTS is considered to include suitable measures, in proportion to the level

of risk, that deters terrorism, assists in the detection of terrorist activity and mitigates against its effects. These three principles would be achieved through each of the four key strands contained of the CTS which are listed as follows:

General Security Risk Assessment.

The provision of physical protective security measures.

Response and contingency planning.

Organisational management.

10.10 The overarching risk assessment feeds into all aspects of the CTS in terms of the aforementioned three principles. The risk assessment is wide ranging and seeks to identify a wide range of potential terrorism activity in terms of the impact on people, property and information.

10.11 The CTS is considered to suitably demonstrate that terrorism activity would be deterred

through effective methods such as a comprehensive CCTV system and lighting system. These measures, in conjunction with aspects of organisational management to include training and security awareness, will also assist in the detection of terrorism activity.

10.12 In addition to the above, a range of physical protection measures will also be

incorporated as part of the development in order to mitigate against the impact of a terrorist attack. These physical protection measures will include the installation of a robust HVM system, blast proof public litter bins and blast proof glazing.

10.13 It is noted that there are elements of the CTS which will be worked up in further detail as

part of the OMP submission in advance of opening. For example the HVM system will either comprise a ‘localised’ system to help protect the bridge and immediate surrounds. Alternatively, if the proposed wider South Bank HVM strategy progresses during the bridge construction period then there is the possibility that the applicant will be able to contribute to the installation of this system in advance of opening. The Metropolitan Police CTSA has confirmed that they are satisfied with this approach noting that these details need to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority (in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police) prior to opening.


10.14 In light of the above assessment and the support of the Metropolitan Police CTSA,

officers consider that the CTS suitable mitigates against terrorist activity and therefore recommend the approval of the details pursuant to Condition 37 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)

6 ASSESSMENT: Condition 21 (Detailed Design of the South Landing

Building) 15/06977/DET

Introduction


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.

Appendix 2: Condition 21 - Original officer PAC assessment (09/02/15) and addendum items

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

SLB) Description of item

Concrete All deck slab soffits, exposed edges & supporting columns

Mid-grey cement mix & off- white exposed aggregate (with anti-graffiti treatment)

Balustrades Podium and stairs, glazed balustrade & cactus stair central handrail

Laminate glazed balustrade with stainless steel handrail

Lift envelope Lift cladding and lift glazing Bespoke steel fin (RAL7039) and translucent textured glass

Façade (composite panel) South and west elevations of the South Landing Building

Composite insulated panels to span from ground to underside of the podium (RAL 7039)

Façade (metal fins) North elevation stair enclosure

and east Bespoke welded decorated and profiled mild steel PPC finish (RAL 7039) 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 door)

Ground floor (internal lobby area)

Double glazed curtain 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 paving Tagenta Breccia Finish

D Range with

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 13

09 South Landing Podium Plan GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40002 Rev 05

South Landing Building North and East Elevations

GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40010 Rev 05

South Landing West and South Elevations GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40011 Rev 06 South Landing South Elevation – Future Development Proposal

GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40012 Rev 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 Security Shutters


South Landing Solid Façade Details GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40410 Rev 04 South Landing North Elevation Glazed 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 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);

35355-0

External Envelope Appendix 1 Lift Cladding Rationale (January 2016) unnumbered South Landing Materials (January 2016) unnumbered

Bridge External Metal Work and Bench Detail

GBT-HS-LS-ZZ-DR-AX-33011 Rev A

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 Elevations

GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40450 Rev 04);

South Landing Lift Core, South and West 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.


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:


The Garden Bridge Consultation document was not received by people on this co-op. Seemingly, some people locally did receive it at a time when we were dealing with Operations Conditions. The distribution would have been as confusing as the previous experience of receiving operation consultation documents when we were dealing with construction conditions

The Council undertook its own public consultation exercise, which is referenced fully elsewhere in the report. However, it should also be noted that the Garden Bridge Trust undertook its own public consultation exercise, comprising the distribution of approximately 4,700 leaflets and questionnaires to residents and businesses in close proximity to the 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 not in keeping with the openness of Queens walk and the river expanse

The lift design is considered to be sympathetic to its surrounding context 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 Landing Building are poor quality and misleading. They do not illustrate the exit/entry points and whether the design and practicality is appropriate for all.

It is considered that the submitted 3D images, mock-ups together with the detailed elevations, sections and floor plans allow for a robust assessment of 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 proposed South Landing Building is inappropriate for its context

The bulk of the South Landing Building has not increased beyond the original 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 relate to local building styles

The design of the proposed South 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 building is we find it difficult to make full and proper comment beyond pointing out that charges for booking rooms at the local CSBC Neighbourhood Centre prices locals and small groups out of the building.

The approved ‘Flexible’ space within the proposed South Landing Building comprises A1/A3/D1 as per the previous planning approval. This composition of approved uses remains unaltered. Furthermore, it should be observed that 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: they are plinths. They are not designed for relaxation

It should be noted that there is no planning requirement for benches to 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 practical need. We have pointed out the need for good bin facilities in the operations process.

It should be observed that condition (21) deals primarily with the detailed design aspects rather than the practicality of 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 queuing for bridge exist. Is this an events space or a public bridge

This objection relates to the principle of the bridge as opposed to any issue 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 south landing building podium level and then onto the bridge from podium, including access for all.

The proposed lifts would facilitate access between ground, podium and bridge deck level, supplementing the staircases which is considered to be accurate and explored further in the officer report below.

The quantum of toilet provision is inadequate

Provision has been made for a total of 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 facilities

Amended plans have been secured in 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 refuse bins which are also impractical, and which will not promote general use

In terms of the proposed location and quantum of the refuse bins it should be 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 north west corner of their site. The proposals do not clearly show how that escape is to be maintained. The drawings/ details indicate that the gates will lead into the side of the 2m alley. It is not considered that this is a safe means of escape.

The parent application proposed building up to adjoin the ITV northern boundary, and so the current proposal with the set-back building line to account for the rear access route would not have a greater impact than the scheme previously approved at planning 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 proposed lighting and how this might affect ITV in terms of light pollution. Is further information to be provided / requested by the Council?

The lighting is directed towards the South Landing Building and not the ITV site. With regard to light pollution, it should also be noted that the submission 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 has been made. Will there be a public address system/alarm system? If yes what are the predicted noise levels of such equipment.

This is not a material consideration of this condition which deals with the detailed design and appearance of the SLB. The operational matters will be covered under Condition 3 (including the Operations Management Plan)

The new building appears to over-sail the boundary wall with ITV and finishes in line with the existing railings – does the Trust have the right to encroach over the boundary wall.

The proposed South Landing Building would not over-sail the neighbouring ITV site. Drawing: GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG- ARC-40001 Rev 13 clearly illustrates this.

There are limited details relating to CCTV– what proposals are in place for CCTV? Will it record? Will it cause any loss of privacy/security for ITV

This application simply provides details on CCTV housing (i.e. the detailed design as required by Condition 21). CCTV coverage will form part of the Security Plan, pursuant to Condition 3 (the OMP).

The drawings state that the ITV railings are to be reinstated – does this mean that there is an intention by the Trust to seek permission to remove the railings? No details on construction access have been indicated on the drawings/proposals.

This matter is covered by Party Wall Legislation and as such is not a planning consideration. The objection is therefore not a consideration in the assessment of this application.

The proposal would result in a loss of privacy from the rear (north facing) windows that are contained within the adjacent ITV building.

It should be noted that he principle of the SLB, including a raised podium has already been established by the parent 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.


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 ofsustainable

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 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 (RAL7039), 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 grey colour (RAL 7039) 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 7039 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. 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.

Addendum 1 pursuant to Condition 21

24 Amend paragraph 6.9 (Consultation Responses) to read:

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). Three additional objections were received from local Councillors were also received in response to the (Garden Bridge Trust) consultation exercise. All of the objections and comments are summarised below, together with a corresponding response.

NB. This is also referenced below within the ‘additional consultation responses’ section.

24 Paragraph 6.9 (Consultation Responses):

A further representation has since been received from a ward councillor reiterating the objections already relayed by another ward councillor. No new issues have been raised and an officer response has already been provided.

24 Paragraph 6.9 (Consultation Responses): In addition to previous representations, it should be noted that an additional representation in objection to Condition 21 has since been received from DP9 on

behalf of ITV Plc (dated 4th February 2016). The comments relate to matters that include (inter alia): views, overlooking/privacy, details of CCTV and lighting and interface with the ITV site. In respect of these comments, it should be observed that no new issues or objections have been introduced, therefore no further officer response is therefore required at this stage, given that these matters have already been previously addressed with the context of the officer reports for planning committee.

26 Amend paragraph 6 (within the table on Page 26) to read:

Provision has been made for a total of 8 (eight) public toilets (all unisex), one of which is accessible for disabled users and one with provision for baby/child 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 cleaners store along with the WC attendant’s room.

28 Amend paragraph 6.10 to read:

The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer has undertaken a thorough review of the submitted documents and samples, and has expressed support for the submitted details, following clarification through an additional sample submission of the Tagenta D with Breccia finish and undertaking a site visit site.

33 Amend paragraph 6.33 to read:

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. Officers have since sought clarification from the architect regarding the use of this material. The colouration of the surface (paving) material was considered acceptable, given a lighter tone of material would be appropriate for the context of the proposed South Landing Building.

40 Amend paragraph 6 (within the table on Page 26) to read:

Provision has been made for a total of 8 (eight) 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.


12/13 Amend Drawing Numbers and Documents Section as follows (Amendments in bold): Condition 21 (15/06977/DET): GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40001 Rev 13; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC- 40002 Rev 07; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40003 Rev 00; GB-MX-SLB-ALL- DWG-ARC-40010 Rev 07; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40011 Rev 09; GB- MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40012 Rev 04); GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40013 Rev 00; 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 06; GB-MX-SLB- ALL-DWG-ARC-40301 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40410 Rev 06; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40421 Rev 07; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC- 40422 Rev 08; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40430; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG- ARC-40431 Rev 05; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40440 Rev 06; 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); GB-MX- ALL-DWG-ARC-40441 Rev 06; 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 06; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG- ARC-40520 Rev 02; GB-MX-SLB-ALL-DWG-ARC-40700 Rev 05 and unnumbered physical samples (referenced also within the South Landing Materials (January 2016) and External Envelope Appendix 1); 35355-0 Sheet 1 of 1; Luminaire Specification Sheet (unnumbered)

24 Paragraph 6.9: It should be noted that two further representations have been

received since the publication of the officer report.

It should be noted that two additional representations (both dated 5th February) have since been received in connection with Conditions 21 and 23 from a local resident and from Thames Central Open Spaces (TCOS), which are summarised below together with a corresponding officer response:

The local resident refers to one concern in the case of Condition 21:

The metal shutters are unacceptable in visual terms and would create a hostile atmosphere along the River Thames at night time/early morning.

This matter has been previously addressed within the context of Paragraphs 6.28 and 6.29 (Page 33).

Thames Central Open Spaces (TCOS) raise the following objections:

The inadequacy of the proposed toilet provision;

As previously conveyed within the context of the officer report (Paragraphs 6.53 – 6.56 (Pages 40 and 41) and Paragraphs 7.12 – 7.18 (Pages 48-51), it should be noted that London Plan Policy 7.5 (Public Realm) does not specify minimum requirements for toilet provision within new development proposals (in the same way it does for internal amenity space or cycle parking provision). The objection references non-planning related guidance and Acts such as the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Whilst, it is acknowledged that access to toilets including fully accessible toilets is an important consideration, the applicants have reduced the amount of flexible commercial floor space that was previously approved by the planning committee to provide a quantum of public toilet provision that officers consider to be acceptable in this instance.

Shortcomings and missing information in the design of the South Landing Building.

Whilst contextual drawings between the proposed South Landing Building (SLB) and the adjacent ITV site have not been included as they are not required. The applicants have provided adequate information in the form of floor plans and elevation to allow officers to carry out an informed assessment of the interface between the two sites as required for the purposes of discharging Conditions 21 and 23. The matter of rainwater collection and interface with the roller shutter housing has been raised. The applicants have since advised that the use of external R/W pipes was avoided to reduce visual clutter of the external SLB facades. The down pipes will be concealed, and will include protective measures such as 150mm up-stands and sealed access plates to facilitate the safe disposal of excess rainwaters, whilst ensuring an appropriate external finish. Officers consider that the elevations and details provided are acceptable in visual terms as expressed within the officer report for committee.

How will the kitchen, WC’s and refuse stores be ventilated?

The public toilets will be mechanically ventilated, a duct will run above the waste refuse area and ventilated out through the louvers on the rear elevation. The same approach is applied to the toilet and refuse area in the flexible space and a duct runs through to the louvers in the next bay;

There are multiple versions of the proposed ground floor plan, with some inconsistencies identified.

The latest version of the proposed ground floor plan is Drawing No. 40001 Rev 11. This incorporates amendments sought by planning officers to include the annotated childcare facilities; increased the waste storage in the flexible space to include three euro bins (rather than two); Provision of cooking oil storage space; Ambulant disabled toilet grab rail; and Staff welfare shower revisions.

The objection refers to a statement from the plan 40001 Rev 11 that a ‘Design and Pricing study to be completed at a later date’. Concerns are expressed that the scheme will be value engineered at a later date once the details are approved.

The garden bridge and South Landing Building would have to be built in accordance with the approved plans and submitted materials. Officers consider that these are of high design quality and would be policy complaint. Any

future changes in respect of the proposed material palette would require the resubmission of Condition 21 for formal approval by PAC.

One of the documents on the Council’s Planning Applications Database was not readable (Document title: SLB Materials document)

It should be noted that this document did not form part of the original submission of Condition 21. The document was produced and submitted at a late stage (January 2016) for supplementary reasons in connection with the proposed materials. It should be noted that Appendix 1 (pages 1 and 2) ‘Planning Submission Samples’ provided an illustration of each external material to be used. Therefore, the consultation exercise has not been compromised as the public have had adequate documentation to fully inform their consideration of the chosen material palette. It should be noted that the technical issue with the supplementary SLB Materials document has since been resolved.

7. ASSESSMENT: Condition 23 (Internal Layout of South Landing Building)

15/06979/DET

Introduction


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 13)

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)

Appendix 3: Condition 23 - Original officer PAC assessment (09/02/15) and addendum items


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.


The Garden Bridge Consultation document was not received by people on this co-op. Seemingly, some people locally did receive it at a time when we were dealing with Operations Conditions. The distribution would have been as confusing as the previous experience of receiving operation consultation documents when we were dealing with construction conditions

The Council undertook its own public consultation exercise, which is referenced fully elsewhere in the report. However, it should also be noted that the Garden Bridge Trust undertook its own public consultation exercise, comprising the distribution of approximately 4,700 leaflets and questionnaires to residents and businesses in close proximity to the 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 not in keeping with the openness of Queens walk and the river expanse

This objection relates to the design of the lift shaft which does not form part of this 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 Landing Building are poor quality and misleading. They do not illustrate the exit /entry points and whether the design and practicality is appropriate for all.

It should be noted that this objection 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.

The detailed design and bulk of the proposed South Landing Building is inappropriate for its context

It should be noted that this objection 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.

The building is oppressive and does not relate to local building styles

It should be noted that this objection 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 building is we find it difficult to make full and proper comment beyond pointing out that charges for booking rooms at the local CSBC Neighbourhood Centre prices locals and small groups out of the building.

The approved ‘Flexible’ space within the proposed South Landing Building would be comprised of A1/A3/D1 use as previously approved under the parent application.

Benches are not benches with backs: they are plinths. They are not designed for relaxation

It should be noted that there is no planning requirement for benches to 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 practical need. We have pointed out the need for good bin facilities in the operations process.

The design of the bins is a matter for Condition 21 whilst waste management issues are a consideration under Condition 25.

Contradictory uses between events and queuing for bridge exist. Is this an events space or a public bridge

It should be observed that the principle of the proposed ‘Flexible Space’, which 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 south landing building podium level and then onto the bridge from podium, including access for all.

The proposed lifts would facilitate access between ground, podium and bridge deck level, supplementing the staircases.

The quantum inadequate

of toilet provision is Officers are satisfied with the overall 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 facilities

Provision has been made for one fully 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 refuse bins which are also impractical, and which will not promote general use

The design of the bins is a matter for Condition 21 (Detailed Design) whilst waste management issues are a consideration under Condition 25 relating to (Waste Management).

Poor design of the proposed seating. The benches do not have backs and are of a substandard design and appearance, not suitable for the full range of users.

This objection relates to the design of the South Landing Building which does not form part of this 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 South Landing Short Section (drawing ref. 40020 rev 06) illustrates that the ground level of the building is set back from the boundary with LTVC (This space is marked as “private alley”. It is important to understand how this area is controlled and what activities might occur in this area. The proximity of the podium to the LTVC rear service/entrance areas and north elevation emphasise the importance of design measures to cater for those visiting and working at the LTVC. The glass boundary treatment (as opposed to the mesh that was described at the October 2015 meeting) is preferred by ITV plc.

The applicants have confirmed in writing (email dated 27.01.2016) that the rear service corridor to the south of the South Landing Building will not be a public space and is for staff to access the waste storage areas and building facilities. The rear service corridor will be access controlled via ID passes and proximity sensors for entry/exit on both ends (east and west sides) of the building as a ’Staff Only’ area. Both entrances will also have emergency releases for escape during fire for example. The doors will be covered by internal CCTV and the corridor will be kept clear at all times e.g. no storage or left items. All doors to the 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 discussion and liaison with the Garden Bridge Trust and ITV as part of the podium place management. There will be views from the podium level into the rear office and studio areas of the LTVC, which will need to be addressed, potentially by screening.

The principle of a building with a raised podium deck in this location has already been established by the parent application. Whilst some views would be obtained from the podium deck into the ITV building, it should be noted that such overlooking already occurs from the 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 2015, the potential for some form of canopy was that might protect against items being thrown from the podium level into the rear service / entrance area of ITV could be considered. The current plans do not offer such protection.

It should be noted that there was no canopy protection forming part of the original parent permission and no planning requirement that any such feature be incorporated within the design. GB staff will be available on the 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 indicated at ground level within the rear façade of the proposed South Landing Building. However, none are proposed at podium level.

It is considered that adequate practical measures have been incorporated at ground floor level within the southern façade of the proposed South Landing 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 north west corner of their site. The proposals do not clearly show how that escape is to be maintained. The drawings / details indicate that the gates will lead into the side of the 2m alley. It is not considered that this is a safe means of escape.

The parent application proposed building up to adjoin the ITV northern boundary, and so the current proposal with the set-back building line to account for the rear access route would not have a greater impact than the scheme previously approved at planning 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.


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:

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

London Plan FALP (2015) Title

Policy 4.6 Support for and enhancement of arts, culture, sport and entertainment

Policy 7.5 Public Realm

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 Address

Male Female Disabled Access

Baby changing

Opening Information

Fee Walking Distance from SLB (metres)

National Theatre

y y y n - free 160

Royal Festival Hall

y y y - free 640

Waterloo East

y y y y - ? 640

Hole in the Wall PH

1 1 n n Mon-Sat 11.00- 23.00 and Sunday 12.00- 22.30

free 640

Waterloo Station

y y 24hrs £0.30 640

Jubilee Gardens

13 and 2 family units

y y 08.00- 21.00 (summer) 08.00- 18.00 (winter), 24hr service for disabled unit

£0.50 800

Tate Modern

y y Normal Business Hours

free 800

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 Policy7.5 (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.


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.


42 Reference to paragraph 7.4 (Consultation Responses):

A further representation has since been received from a ward councillor reiterating the objections already relayed by another ward councillor. No new issues have been raised and an officer response has already been provided.

42 Amend paragraph 7.4 (Consultation Responses) to read:

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). Three additional objections were received from local Councillors were also received in response to the (Garden Bridge Trust) consultation exercise. All of the objections and comments are summarised below, together with a corresponding response.

NB. This is also referenced below within the ‘additional consultation responses’ section.

42 Paragraph 7.4 (Consultation Responses):

In addition to previous representations, it should be noted that an additional representation in objection to Condition 23 has since been received from DP9 on

behalf of ITV Plc (dated 4th February 2016). The comments relate to matters that include (inter alia): views, overlooking/privacy, details of CCTV and lighting and interface with the ITV site. In respect of these comments, it should be observed that no new issues or objections have been introduced, therefore no further officer response is therefore required at this stage, given that these matters have already been previously addressed with the context of the officer reports for planning committee.