London Borough of Barnet (Brent Cross Cricklewood)

Transcription

1 Thameslink Station Planning Strategy London Borough of Barnet (Brent Cross Cricklewood) Compulsory Purchase Order (No3) 2016 AA/PW/3 Summary Statement Paul Woods Director GL Hearn Limited

2 Contents Section Page 1 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 3 2 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 3 3 THE NEED FOR THAMESLINK STATION 3 4 EVOLUTION OF THAMESLINK STATION 4 5 THAMESLINK STATION PLANNING STRATEGY 6 6 RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS 9 7 CONCLUSIONS 9 GL Hearn Page 2 of 9

3 1 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE 1.1 My name is Paul Joseph Woods. I am a Planning Director and head of the Planning Infrastructure Team within the Development Group of GL Hearn part of Capita Real Estate. I have 29 year s town planning experience gained within the public and private sectors advising on a wide range of commercial and residential schemes as well as infrastructure and regeneration projects. 2 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 2.1 GL Hearn is the planning consultant acting for the Acquiring Authority on Thameslink Station. My role as Planning Director is to lead the planning team responsible for delivering the planning approvals for Thameslink Station. The purpose of my evidence is to set out a description of the Thameslink Station works and its associated benefits and explain the planning strategy for securing the planning approvals for the various components of Thameslink Station. 3 THE NEED FOR THAMESLINK STATION Key Features of the Order Land 3.1 Within the Railway Lands Development Zone, the railway line represents a major barrier to movement into the wider regeneration area from the Edgware Road and areas to the west and is bounded by low rise buildings which do not positively contribute to developing an attractive environment. The existing transport infrastructure creates a busy and hostile environment and is unattractive to pedestrians and cyclists. 3.2 Thameslink Station will address the lack of connectivity and poor accessibility by bringing forward delivery of the new train station from 2031(Phase 5) to delivery in 2022 (Phase 2). Need for Thameslink Station 3.3 Significant new infrastructure is required as part of the BXC Development if the area s potential to deliver much needed new homes and significant job opportunities is to be realised. 3.4 The comprehensive regeneration of BXC is reliant on the delivery of an Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS). The various elements of Thameslink Station, including the train station itself together with the improvements to the public transport network are important components of the ITS. GL Hearn Page 3 of 9

4 3.5 The delivery of the CPO3 Development will significantly enhance the accessibility and the attractiveness of the wider BXC scheme and enable the realisation of important regeneration benefits. 4 EVOLUTION OF THAMESLINK STATION Thameslink Station Details 4.1 I describe the details of each of the components below. New Thameslink Train Station 4.2 The design for the new train station has been developed in consultation with the key stakeholders, including BXS LP, Network Rail, GTR and EMT. The current indicative layout plans showing the design of the new train station at platform and concourse levels are included in the Book of Plans as BoP/20 and BoP21 respectively. The chosen option will deliver a four platform station with two island platforms serving slow and fast lines. Further details of the design are set out at paragraphs 4.5 to 4.9 of my main Statement. 4.3 Due to the decision to incorporate non passenger pedestrian and cycle access as part of the pedestrian link associated with the new train station, there is no requirement to provide for a new separate pedestrian bridge as envisaged within the s.73 Permission. There are also some proposed amendments in the alignment shown for the station overbridge and the station concourse and ticketing accommodation will be off set from the pedestrian bridge rather than provided for in a main station building. This design development approach has been accepted by the LPA through pre application discussions. It is proposed to make amendments to the Parameter Plans and the Revised Development Specification & Framework (RDSF) [CD/C13] to take account of these matters. Otherwise, it is proposed that the station proposals will be taken forward by way of a RMA. MML Bridge 4.4 The design work for the MML Bridge will follow the principles set out within the s.73 Permission and will be taken forward by way of a RMA. The new bridge is being designed in consultation with key stakeholders including the Council, TfL and BXS LP and further detail is set out at paragraphs 4.10 and 4.11 of my main Statement. Rail Freight Facility (RFF) 4.5 The original intention under the s.73 Permission was that the RFF was to be used for the movement of containerised or packaged goods as an intermodal facility which would receive containers brought to site on a train and then transfer them to road trailers for delivery. A freight GL Hearn Page 4 of 9

5 market study commissioned by Network Rail concluded that there was no longer demand for this form of facility but that there was strong demand for the importation of aggregate and the export of muck away. As a result of this work, it is now proposed to deliver an open-air facility to facilitate the transfer of aggregate and construction waste. The proposed site layout plan to form part of the application submission showing the proposed design of the new RFF is included in the Book of Plans at BoP/17. The proposal will be brought forward by way of a joint drop-in planning application between the Acquiring Authority and DB Cargo. Waste Transfer Facility (WTF) 4.6 Under the s.73 Permission, It was originally proposed to accommodate a Waste Handling Facility (WHF) as a replacement for the Hendon Waste Transfer Station (WTS), which would have received and treated recyclable and non recyclable municipal, commercial and industrial wastes. The intention was to convert waste into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). Studies undertaken by the CPO1 Development Partners concluded that a RDF powered plant was neither feasible nor viable. A different and smaller form of facility comprising a WTF is now proposed with a similar through put of waste to the current Hendon WTS. The proposed site layout plan to form part of the application submission showing the proposed design for the WTF is included in the Book of Plans as BoP/16. Further detail on the design of the facility is included at paragraphs 4.22 to 4.24 of my main Statement. It is proposed that scheme will be progressed by way of a drop-in planning application. Relocated Rail Stabling and Sidings 4.7 The proposed design of the replacement rail stabling and sidings is being developed in consultation with Network Rail, GTR and EMT as well as BXS LP. The stabling and sidings tracks are to be positioned within the general indicative location noted on Illustrative Infrastructure Drawing ref: 649 SK contained within Appendix 7 of the RDSF [CD/C13] in the area of the Railway Lands Development Zone as envisaged within the s.73 Permission. This will be served by a replacement sidings compound to include car parking, compound accommodation and shelters, storage facilities, sand silo, power supply fuel tanks and compactor. 4.8 The design and footprint of the replacement sidings compound is evolving, however the emerging proposal would be located in an area currently shown as Plot 38 and potentially a small part of Plot 47 within the Brent Terrace Development Zone as noted on Parameter Plan 029 [BoP/10]. It is proposed that the details of the relocated stabling and sidings tracks will be submitted for approval under conditions 47.5 and 47.6 of the s.73 Permission. The proposed sidings compound area will be progressed by way of a drop-in planning application. GL Hearn Page 5 of 9

6 Benefits of Thameslink Station 4.9 The benefits are set out at paragraphs 4.33 to 4.43 of my main Statement. Thameslink Station will bring forward important public transport benefits, which are an integral part of the ITS. Early delivery of Thameslink Station will act as a catalyst for the delivery of both the residential and commercial accommodation within BXS. The Thameslink Station elements are closely linked in terms of delivery and the implementation sequence and it is important that all the CPO3 Order Land is acquired to realise the objectives of bringing forward these important public transport benefits. The various components of Thameslink Station form an integral part of the comprehensive development of BXC National and development plan policy in respect of the transport and waste components of Thameslink Station are summarised at Section 10 of the Project Synopsis. The transport and waste components are supported by the planning policy context. 5 THAMESLINK STATION PLANNING STRATEGY Re-Phasing Application 5.1 A re-phasing application for Thameslink Station and certain works to support the new train station was submitted to the LPA on 7 June 2017 [CD/C27 to CD/C32]. The detailed approach to the application in relation to the creation of two new sub phases within Phase 2 (South) is outlined at paragraphs 5.6 to 5.29 of my main Statement. It is expected that the LPA will make a decision on the re-phasing application under delegated powers in August, subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the s.106 Agreement. 5.2 BXS LP submitted its own re-phasing application on 25 April 2017 [CD/C21] to enable the rephasing of various components of Phase 1A (South), Phase 1B (South), Phase 1C and Phase 2 (South). This application was reported to planning committee on 22 June [CD/C26] when the committee resolved to grant permission, subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the s.106 Agreement. The submitted update to the ICP under condition 4.4 as noted above takes account of the BXS LP re-phasing application as well as approved changes to re-phasing at BXN. 5.3 An application under Section 96A was submitted by GL Hearn on behalf of the Council on 21 July 2017 to make non material amendments to the s.73 Permission to introduce new planning conditions and definitions and to make alterations to existing conditions to reflect the re-phasing proposals [CD/C36]. The application was validated by the LPA on 1 August and is currently under consideration. Rather than submit two separate applications, the application addresses GL Hearn Page 6 of 9

7 the consequential changes resulting from both the Thameslink Station and BXS LP re-phasing applications. A draft combined Deed of Variation to the s.106 Agreement has also been submitted to the LPA and will be completed to take account of both applications [CD/C37]. Drop In Applications for RFF and WTF 5.4 The revised proposals for the RFF and WTF are being pursued as drop-in full planning applications and the approach to the applications is included at paragraphs 5.30 to 5.38 of my main Statement. The grant of permission for two separate developments on the same site is not uncommon. It does not create any difficulty because only one can be implemented. The respective proposals for the RFF and WTF will not prejudice the delivery of the remainder of the BXC development. The proposed changes to the RFF and WTF will not have any adverse impact on the wider BXC Development as both proposals result in a smaller land take than initially envisaged. 5.5 The applications for both the RFF and WTF are due to be submitted in August. The revisions to the RFF and WTF will require consequential amendments to be made to the s.73 Permission and it is proposed to make these changes pursuant to an application under Section 96A of the Town and Country Planning Act In my opinion that there is every prospect of these applications being granted planning permission. Reserved Matters Applications for Station and MML Bridge 5.6 The design proposals for the Station and MML Bridge will be taken forward as RMAs. The approach to the applications is outlines at paragraphs 5.39 to 5.46 of my main Statement. The applications will be supported by the required information as noted within the s.73 Permission. The s.73 Permission sets out a number of Pre-RMA conditions which will need to be addressed prior to or at the time of submission of the first RMA submission. The BXT project team has engaged with the LPA to determine the scope of works required to address these Pre RMA requirements and the submissions will be made in time to allow the RMAs to come forward. 5.7 It is expected that the RMA for the Station will be submitted in October. With respect to the MML Bridge, the design is continuing to be developed in consultation with key stakeholders and it is expected that the RMA will made towards the end of Applications for Relocated Rail Stabling and Sidings 5.8 The approach to the applications for is included at paragraphs 5.47 to 5.59 of my main Statement. The MML Train Stabling Facility benefits from outline planning permission and its delivery is controlled by conditions 47.5 and 47.6 of the s.73 Permission. Paragraph 16 of Appendix 2 to the RDSF [CD/C/13] notes that the exact location of the rail operations boundary GL Hearn Page 7 of 9

8 is to be agreed with Network Rail. The proposed location of the rail stabling and tracks is in the general location identified within the s.73 Permission and the detailed design of the tracks, along with the final position of the operational railway boundary in this location, will come forward by way of an application to discharge conditions 47.5 and 47.6 of the s.73 Permission. 5.9 The proposed sidings compound area is not within the confines of the parameter plans and land uses for the Brent Terrace Development Zone, although the development is of a type approved in principle by the s.73 Permission. The proposed sidings compound will therefore be progressed by way of a drop-in planning application The requirements for the proposed sidings compound have been discussed with the LPA and it has been agreed that masterplanning work should be undertaken to consider the effect of locating the sidings compound within the Brent Terrace Development Zone. Allies and Morrison have been briefed to undertake this work I consider that it should be possible to substantially compensate for the loss of the residential floorspace that would have been provided on Plot 38 and potentially part of Plot 47 by redistributing this within the remainder of the Brent Terrace Development Zone as provided for in the s.73 Permission. I consider there is no reason why the proposed sidings compound should have a detrimental impact on the remainder of the Brent Terrace Development Zone, including the delivery of the Spine Road and the linear park The drop in application will be supported by the masterplanning work and all necessary supporting documentation to comply with the LPA s planning application validation guidelines, including a Supplementary ES. The application proposals will require some consequential amendments to be made to the s.73 Permission which will be effected by submissions pursuant to the conditions of the planning permission and an application under Section 96A if necessary There is no obvious reason why the drop-in application should not be granted planning permission. I consider that the proposed location of the sidings compound facility in this area will not compromise the delivery of the comprehensive development of BXC. Conclusion 5.13 The structure of the s.73 Permission as described in the evidence of Peter Alsop allows for a flexible framework in delivery over the life of the BXC regeneration project. This is a common approach for large regeneration schemes where circumstances are likely to change over the life of a project. The proposed changes envisaged as part of Thameslink Station have been brought forward to facilitate early delivery of these items of infrastructure to the wider benefit of the scheme and to respond to changes in requirements for the RFF and WTF as well as the GL Hearn Page 8 of 9

9 Cricklewood down Sidings. The changes proposed respond to present day requirements and have been developed in close consultation with the LPA, relevant stakeholders and the local community. I do not consider that the nature of the proposed changes in relation to the early delivery of the Thameslink Station works would be likely to give rise to any planning impediment to the delivery of the CPO3 Development. 6 RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS 6.1 I address the specific CPO3 objections relating to the WTF raised by Ms Gina Emmanuel of 94 Brent Terrace (Objector 14) and Mr Fletcher of 92 Galley Lane (Objector 17) at section 6 of my evidence. 7 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 I am aware of the DCLG Guidance on compulsory purchase [CD/A10]. My evidence has focused on the planning strategy for delivering Thameslink Station and how this forms a key part of the BXC Development in delivering important items of infrastructure. I have described the planning strategy for bringing forward Thameslink Station. The principle of development is supported through the development plan policy context and established through the grant of the 2010 Permission and the subsequent s.73 Permission. An application has been made to re-phase the Thameslink Station works to allow early delivery of the new train station. 7.2 There have been changes to elements of Thameslink Station in response to changing requirements since the grant of the 2010 Permission and s.73 Permission. However, the scheme designs have been developed in close consultation with the LPA and other key stakeholders and I consider that these changes can be addressed either under the terms of the s.73 Permission or through the submission of drop-in applications which link back to the principles of the s.73 Permission. I conclude therefore that there is a very good prospect of the CPO3 Development going ahead and that it is unlikely to be blocked by any planning impediments to implementation. GL Hearn Page 9 of 9