• 4 Assessment Of Options And Recommendations [general remarks]

Introduction

4.1 In this section we analyse the three broad locations identified in the project

brief that are shown in Figure 2.1 and develop the optimum proposal for a

bargehouse in each of the areas. We identify the merits and impacts of each

proposal and then report on the prospect of securing planning permission.

Finally we make our recommendation on whether the draft proposals should

be developed in more detail.

4.2 Having reviewed the three potential locations identified in the project brief we

then analyse the fourth option of housing Gloriana in an existing boathouse

during the winter and keeping her on a mooring in Richmond during the

summer months.

4.3 The entire study area is protected by planning policies that seek to maintain

the open character of the River Thames and the adjoining public spaces. In

addition policies seek to encourage facilities for recreation and the

development of water transport. Lastly there are policies covering a wide

range of issues including design, flood risk, heritage, ecology and

landscaping that will need to be addressed in the preparation of any planning

application. We therefore first set out the town planning policy context that

will be used in determining a planning application for any proposed

bargehouse and landing stage. We then set out the other key issues that we

use to advise on the feasibility of the four options.

Town Planning Policy Context

4.4 The development plan comprises The London Plan July 2011, the retained

policies of the Richmond Unitary Development Plan (that comprise site

allocations), the LBRuT Core Strategy adopted April 2009 and the

Development Management Plan adopted November 2011.

4.5 We identify below the key policies that we have taken into consideration for

the feasibility study and reproduce the text of each policy in Appendix 2.

London Plan July 2011

4.6 The two key policies in the London Plan are Policies 17 and 7.27. Policy 17

Metropolitan Open Land says that “..the strongest protection should be given

to Metropolitan Open Land and inappropriate development refused, except in

exceptional circumstances….” Policy 7.27c Blue Ribbon Network says that

“…new infrastructure to support water dependent uses will be sought. New

mooring facilities should normally be off line from main navigation routes, i.e.

in basins or docks.”

LBRuT Core Strategy adopted April 2009

The Spatial Strategy

4.7 The Spatial Strategy reinforces Richmond’s role as an outer London Borough

with a high quality urban and historic environment and open landscape, and

as a sport and tourist destination. The Spatial Strategy is supported by the

Core Policies set out in section 8 that include the following key policies:

• CP10 Open Land and Parks

• CP11 River Thames Corridor

• CP7 Maintaining and Improving the Local Environment

• CP4 Biodiversity

Development Management Plan adopted November 2011

4.8 The DMP includes the detailed policies that will be used when new

developments are considered. The DMP takes forward the strategic

objectives in the Core Strategy and is consistent with it and with National and

Regional Policies. Key policies include:

• Policy DM OS 2 Metropolitan Open Land

• Policy DM OS 11 Thames Policy Area

• Policy DM OS 12 Riverside Uses

• Policy DM OS 13 Moorings and Floating Structures

• Policy DM HD 1 Conservation Areas

• Policy DM OS 4 Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes

• Policy DM SD 6 Flood Risk

Twickenham Area Action Plan Publication adopted 2nd July 2013

4.9 The brief indicates that the Option 3 location is subject to the Twickenham

Area Action Plan but the site is located outside the plan area. It adjoins the

area described as Civic and Cultural Quarter – the area focused on the Civic

Centre, York House and Gardens, the Mary Wallace Theatre, Twickenham

Museum and Library.

Policy guidance given by LBRuT planning officers

4.10 Initial comments of LBRuT planning officers on the option sites are attached

as Appendix 3.

Land Ownership, Covenants and Cost of Site

4.11 Richmond Legal Services has provided details of land ownership for each of

the sites together with covenants and leases, where relevant. We review

existing covenants and leases and assess their impact on project costs and

objectives.

Loss of Public Open Space

4.12 All of the potential sites currently comprise public open space. Consultation

with Richmond planning officers has indicated that the Council would not seek

the replacement of public open space taken for the bargehouse (such as by

means of a roof terrace) but any facility should be open for public enjoyment at

no charge.

Operation of the Bargehouse

4.13 Each of the sites raises different issues regarding the practicalities of moving

Gloriana, display, maintenance and generating revenue to fund the operation

of the barge. We have consulted with the operators of Gloriana together with

other specialists on detailed matters to determine the practicalities of the

various options that we evaluate.

Navigation and Marine matters

4.14 The PLA Harbour Master, Marine Engineer, Environment Team and Planning

and Partnership officers have provided comments on each of the options (see

Appendix 4).

Heritage Issues

4.15 English Heritage has provided comments particularly in relation to Option 3

Orleans Gardens and its relationship to Marble Hill House.

Loss of trees and scope for new planting

4.16 There would be a need to remove a tree or trees on each of the option sites

and we identify the extent of the tree loss.

Visual Impact

4.17 We make an assessment of the relative visual impact of each option.

Education / Visitor Centre and Commercial Considerations

4.18 The brief refers to these additional uses and we review how they could be

provided at each of the option locations.

Flood Risk

4.19 We identify the status of each site with regard to the London Borough of

Richmond upon Thames Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) Level 1

Update August 2010 (Final Report).

Nature Conservation

4.20 We identify the status of each of the option sites with respect to their nature

conservation interest and protected species.

Synergies with local tourism, arts and education venues

4.21 We review the opportunities that a bargehouse and visitor centre would

present in relation to other local attractions and facilities.

Prospect for securing full planning permission and other necessary consents

4.22 We indicate our views on the prospects of securing planning permission for

each option site.

Cost estimates

4.23 Feasibility order of cost estimates have been prepared provided by Huntley

Cartwright Associates, Chartered Quantity Surveyors. These are attached as

Appendix 5.

________________________________________________________________________________

Extracted unabridged from Feasibility study on the location of the Royal Row Barge ‘Gloriana’ (and Boat House) within the Borough. Final Report August 2013.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s