APPENDIX D
TOWN PLANNING POLICIES IN RELATION TO BUILDING
A PVIC ON VICTORIA TOWER GARDENS[46]
This section provides, in tabular form, an analysis
of the planning policy related to the proposed options for building
on Victoria Tower Gardens (whether for the full ideal PVIC or
a reduced version).
The tables indicate each planning policy in
the London Plan, the adopted City of Westminster Unitary Development
Plan (UDP) and the City of Westminster Revised Unitary Development
Plan (RUDP) which is likely to be considered relevant to the proposal
by the City of Westminster and the Greater London Authority (if
appropriate).
The tables provide a brief analysis of how each
policy relates to the proposals as identified at time of writing
and an indication of what view the City of Westminster may take
of the proposals. A brief forecast indication of whether the proposal
is likely to be acceptable to the City of Westminster under each
policy is included with "+" indicating the proposal
is likely to be acceptable under this policy, "-" indicating
the proposal is unlikely to be acceptable under this policy, "?"
indicating that it is difficult to forecast the likely view of
the City of Westminster, and "0" being neutral or not
applicable.
LONDON PLAN
The London Plan was published in 2002 by the
Mayor of London and sets out planning policy at a London regional
level. Its overarching objectives are to make London a better
city to live in; to make it a more prosperous city with a strong
and diverse economic growth and to make London a more attractive,
well-designed and green city.
The London Plan is generally supportive of the
proposals to improve the tourism offer in London, in particular
relating it to the city's heritage. Design policies require high
standards of design, sustainability and accessibility. The design
needs, in particular, to take account of the policies related
to the protection of heritage resources and the relationship of
the proposal with its surroundings. The proposal site will also
be within the scope of the protected views of the Palace of Westminster
from Lambeth Bridge and Albert Embankment (adjacent to St Thomas'
Hospital).
| Policy No | Policy Purpose
| Commentary | Score
|
| Objective 2 | To make London a better city to live in
| Likely to be considered compliant | +
|
Objective 3 | To make London a more prosperous city (includes sub objective relating to enhancing London's world role through tourism)
| Likely to be considered compliant | +
|
Objective 6 | To make London a more attractive, well-designed, and green city
| Likely to be considered compliant—dependent upon design
| + |
Policy 3B.10 | To improve the tourist environment, visitor information and management to provide a better visitor experience and management pressure on key tourist attractions
| Proposal will improve interpretation for Parliament
| + |
Policy 3D.6 | Improve the quality, variety and distribution of visitor accommodation and facilities
| The proposal will improve the quality of visitor facilities at the Palace of Westminster
| + |
Policy 4B.1 | Development should maximise the potential of sites, improve public realm, accessible development, sustainable, permeable for all users, attractive, respect local context and community
| Depends on design | +? |
Policy 4B.2 | Seek to promote world class design
| Depends on design | +? |
Policy 4B.5 | Development to meet highest standards of accessibility and inclusion
| Depends on design | +? |
Policy 4.10 | Protect and enhance London's historic environment and increase benefit of historic environment to economy of London
| Project may enhance historic environment if it includes removal of facilities in front of St Stephen's entrance
| +? |
Policy 4B.13 | The Mayor will prepare management plans for world heritage sites
| Proposals accord with WHS draft management plan
| +? |
Policy 4B.14 | Mayor will support the identification, protection, interpretation and presentation of archaeological heritage
| Compliance depends on archaeological potential of site
| -? |
Policy 4B.16 | The Mayor will protect important views and prospects through a View Management Plan
| View of Palace of Westminster from Lambeth Bridge and Albert Embankment (St Thomas') indicated as protected views
| - |
Policy 4C.10 | Mayor seeks to guide boroughs to give careful consideration to relationship between new development and historic environment
| Relationship depends on design | +?
|
Policy 5B.2 | Boroughs should accommodate commercial development related to tourism within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ)
| Victoria Tower Gardens site within CAZ |
+ |
| | |
|
WESTMINSTER ADOPTED
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (UDP)
The current adopted UDP for Westminster was adopted in 1997.
The City Council's Revised UDP, as agreed by Full City Council
13 December 2004. WCC indicate that other that the RUDP carries
significant weight as a material consideration.
The Westminster Urban Development Plan and Revised Urban
Development Plan support the principle of development of tourism
and limited café uses within the Central Action Zone. However
these policies are caveated and dependent upon design issues and
the effect of the proposed development on neighbours and the local
environment, including the heritage environment. The UDP and RUDP
contain strong policies against development on or (in the case
of the RUDP, under) existing parks and open spaces. In the case
of the Victoria Gardens site, there are also significant adverse
planning policy issues related to the protected views of the Palace
of Westminster, and the protection of the environs of the River
Thames and the Thames Path.
| Policy No | Policy Purpose
| Commentary | |
| STRA1 | Promote CAZ including historic & cultural character, and national and international uses
| Likely to be considered compliant | +
|
STRA8 | Maintain major facilities in CAZ, minimising effect on residents
| Residents further away than College Green site so potentially less impacted
| 0 |
STRA24 | Ensure highest standards of design
| Design important factor | +?
|
STRA25 | Preserve listed buildings and settings, character of conservation areas and archaeological heritage
| Design important factor | +?
|
STRA26 | Protect important views
| View from Victoria Tower Gardens could be seen as important
| -? |
STRA28 | Improve environmental quality, access to and environment of River Thames
| The Thames Path passes through Victoria Tower Gardens and will be indirectly affected by the proposal
| -? |
THE8 | Entertainment use limited to CAZ—not permitted where negative effects on services, traffic, residents, character of area
| Café and Members and Peers entertainment use could be considered under this policy
| ? |
SS13 | Premises where food and drink served assessed on amenity, environmental health (noise etc), traffic issues, effect on amenity of area
| No significant issues at this stage, issues to be considered in detail during design stage
| 0 |
DES1 | Ensure high standards of design, relate to existing materials, character, scale
| Design important factor | +?
|
DES3 | Local views of import protected views around Royal Parks and Thames especially important
| Design important factor | +?
|
DES7 | Protection of conservation areas—will resist proposals that fail to preserve or enhance character and appearance of conservation area
| Design important factor | +?
|
DES11 | Protection of open spaces and public gardens—applications affecting these will be refused
| Victoria Tower Gardens is a registered park and garden—will require exception to policy
| - |
DES12 | Resist the loss of trees unless dangerous
| Victoria Tower Gardens contains existing shrubs and trees
| - |
DES19 | Protection of World Heritage Site using "all of [City Council's] powers"
| Victoria Tower Gardens is adjacent to the boundary of the World Heritage Site
| - |
SC15 | Requirement for refuse storage facilities
| Difficult with underground building but dependent on detailed design
| 0 |
SC16 | Prevention of noise and other pollution
| Air extract equipment etc will be required to be within the building— dependent on detailed design
| 0 |
| | |
|
WESTMINSTER EMERGING
REVISED URBAN
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
| Policy No | Policy Purpose
| Commentary | |
| STRA1 | Foster key world class city roles, including entertainment and tourism, and to allow sustainable developments promoting this
| Likely to be compliant, depending on design
| +? |
STRA2 | Seek to foster capital city roles and seat of government and national administration
| Likely to be considered compliant | +
|
STRA3 | Protect and enhance strategic role, historic character, social and cultural importance of central Westminster
| Likely to be considered compliant | +
|
STRA12 | Maintain and improve range of tourist facilities and visitor attractions
| Likely to be considered compliant | +
|
STRA13 | Improve range or arts, culture and entertainment uses in City
| Café and Members & Peers entertainment use could be considered under this policy
| + |
STRA19 | Preserve and enhance built heritage in City, particular emphasis on historic character, appearance, cultural importance and ecological value
| Compliance depends on design | +?
|
STRA20 | Preserve and enhance listed buildings and settings, historic parks and gardens and surroundings and archaeological heritage
| Victoria Tower Gardens is adjacent to listed buildings and in archaeological protection area, and is a registered historic park and garden
| - |
STRA31 | Protect Thames and its surroundings, including Thames Path
| Thames Path passes through Victoria Tower Gardens and could be indirectly affected by the proposal
| -? |
CENT1 | Development in CAZ encouraged where appropriate to character and function of that part of CAZ
| Likely to be considered compliant | +
|
TRANS25 | Permit loss of off street parking depending on alternatives, usage of car park and impact on surrounding on street parking and traffic
| Not applicable to Victoria Tower Gardens |
0 |
TACE4 | Permit conference facilities in CAZ only if no adverse effect on residential amenity or character/function of residential areas
| Day educational use could be considered under this policy
| +? |
TACE8 | Permission for cafés <500 sq m gross granted where no adverse effect on local environmental quality—noise, vibration, smells, increased late night activity, traffic and parking, function and character of area
| Café and Members and Peers entertainment use could be considered under this policy, depending on the size of the proposals
| -? |
TACE10 | Permission for cafés <500 sq m gross granted only in exceptional circumstances where no adverse effect on local environmental quality—noise, vibration, smells, increased late night activity, traffic and parking, function and character of area
| Café and Members & Peers entertainment use could be considered under this policy, depending on the size of the proposals
| -? |
ENV5 | Reduce air pollution from traffic and air handling units
| Possible increase in traffic from visitor coaches; air extract equipment etc will be required to be within the building—dependent on detailed design
| -? |
ENV8 | Presumption in favour of development of contaminated land
| Victoria Tower Gardens unlikely to be considered contaminated
| 0 |
ENV9 | Conservation of water and protection of ground and surface water quality
| Victoria Tower Gardens close to Thames; conservation of water dependent on detailed design
| -? |
ENV10 | Minimise light pollution
| Detailed design issue—relevant for outside lighting and for area around light wells
| +? |
ENV12 | Storage of waste and allowance for recycling
| Difficult in underground building—dependent on detailed design
| -? |
ENV15 | Permission will not be granted for development on, or under public or private open space unless essential and ancillary to maintaining of enhancing that area
| Victoria Tower Gardens is a registered historic park and garden—will require exception to policy
| - |
ENV16 | Protection of trees and shrubs from development
| Some trees and shrubs on College Green |
- |
DES1 | Seeks highest standards of design reflecting scale and urban grain of surroundings
| Depends on design | +? |
DES9 | Seeks to protect the character to Conservation Areas, including recorded familiar local views into, out of, within or across the area
| Proposal within a Conservation Area; view from Victoria Tower Gardens to Palace of Westminster could be considered a familiar local view
| - |
DES10 | Resist building where it would adversely affect immediate or wider setting of listed building, recognised/recorded views of a listed building or spatial integrity or historic unity of listed building curtilage
| Building will affect views of Parliament from Victoria Tower Gardens
| - |
DES11 | Permission for proposals affecting Scheduled Ancient Monuments or settings granted provided archaeological interest and value preserved
| Not applicable to Victoria Tower Gardens |
- |
DES11 | Seek to retain archaeological remains of national importance in situ and local important remains in situ where possible
| Disturbance of remains likely | -
|
DES12 | Development not permitted on or under parks and open spaces where they are important in townscape, setting of listed building or characteristic of conservation areas
| Victoria Tower Gardens is a registered historic park and garden—will require exception to policy
| - |
DES16 | Permission will only be granted for developments that protect and conserve the character, appearance, setting and ecological value of the World Heritage Site
| Victoria Tower Gardens is adjacent to WHS boundary
| - |
| | |
|
46
Information from the report "Parliamentary Visitor and Information
centre. Environmental & Transport Appraisal/Feasibility Report",
October 2006, by Atkins. Back
|
