DLR Woolwich Arsenal Extension

Messrs Bircham Dyson Bell Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents 50 Broadway Westminster London SW1H 0BL

Ellis Harvey Head of the TWA Orders Unit Zone 3/11 Great Minster House 76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR Direct line: 020 7944 2483 Fax: 020 7944 2479 e-mail: transportandworksact@dft.gov.uk Our Ref: TWA 02/APP/04 Your Ref: RJO/Y029707 26 February 2004

Dear Sirs

Transport and Works Act 1992

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Applications for the Proposed Docklands Light Railway (Woolwich Arsenal Extension) Order and for Deemed Planning Permission

1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for Transport ("The Secretary of State") to say that consideration has been given to the report of the Inspector, Mr A S Jeapes, CB, OBE, MC concerning the applications made by your clients, Docklands Light Railway Limited ("DLRL") on 10 July 2002 for:

• the Docklands Light Railway (Woolwich Arsenal Extension) Order ("the Order") to be made under sections 1 and 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the TWA"); and
• a direction as to deemed planning permission ("the planning direction") for the development provided for in the Order, to be issued under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The Inspector held a public local inquiry into these applications between 28 January and 27 June 2003. Concurrently with that inquiry he held a public local inquiry into your clients' related applications for listed building consent under section 17 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; and for an Exchange Land Certificate under section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Separate decision letters on those applications are today being issued on behalf of the First Secretary of State.

3. The Order, if made, would authorise the construction and operation of a 2.5km extension of the DLR from King George V station, North Woolwich, via bored tunnels under the River Thames, to a new, partly sub-surface, station adjacent to the existing Woolwich Arsenal station. The proposed new line would extend the line authorised by The Docklands Light Railway (Silvertown and London City Airport Extension) Order 2002 (SI 2002 No 1066) which is being constructed between Canning Town and North Woolwich. The proposed Order would also, amongst other things, confer on DLRL powers to acquire compulsorily land and rights required for the construction and operation of the railway, to alter and stop up streets, to maintain apparatus in streets, and to carry out works in the River Thames and King George V Dock. The planning direction which has been sought would give deemed planning permission for the development provided for in the Order.

4. A copy of the Inspector's report of the inquiry is enclosed. His conclusions are set out in paragraphs 6.0.1 - 6.30.2. Annexed to the Inspector's report is a copy of the report of Mr C J Ball, DArch(Dist), DArchCons, RIBA, IHBC, FRSA who sat with the Inspector to advise him on the applications for listed building consent.

Summary of the Inspector's recommendations

5. The Inspector recommended in section 7 of his report that the Order be made, with modifications, and that planning permission be deemed to be granted, subject to conditions.

Summary of the Secretary of State's decisions

6. For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State has decided to make the Order, subject to modifications, and to direct that planning permission be deemed to be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Annex. The proposed Order modifications and planning conditions are discussed later in this letter.

7. In the separate decision letters referred to at paragraph 2 above, the First Secretary of State has decided to grant the related listed building consent, subject to conditions, and to give the Exchange Land Certificate.

Secretary of State's consideration

8. Careful consideration has been given to all the arguments put forward by or on behalf of the parties. The Secretary of State's consideration of the Inspector's report is set out in the following paragraphs. The relevant paragraph numbers of the report are enclosed in brackets at the end of the section headings.

Need and justification for the scheme and its consistency with planning and transport policies (6.4.1 - 6.5.8; 6.3.0 - 6.3.5)

9. The Inspector concluded that the scheme would provide a badly needed link between North Woolwich on the north side of the Thames with Woolwich on the south side. It would cross a part of London where few crossings exist, and link the comparatively affluent north with a part of south London which suffers from high unemployment and has been subject to decline over the past 20 years. Many thousands of additional jobs would be brought within easy travel time of Woolwich town centre, including access to the Royal Docks and to London City Airport, whilst in Woolwich town centre some 1,170 additional permanent jobs could be expected, besides those generated during construction.

10. The Inspector considered that the scheme would bring about considerable reductions in travel times, to places such as London City Airport, Canary Wharf, Stratford and to wider areas of London. He was satisfied that it would be consistent with the Mayor's Transport Strategy and with the relevant development objectives of the London Boroughs (LBs) of Newham and Greenwich; and that it would be beneficial to every aspect of LB Greenwich's regeneration strategy. Furthermore, he considered that the scheme would be consistent with planning, transport and regeneration policies at the national, regional and local Government levels, including policies in the adopted UDPs for the LBs of Newham and Greenwich and the draft LB Greenwich UDP.

11. The Inspector was also satisfied that the scheme would achieve socio-economic benefits in terms of attracting developments of higher value and prestige to Woolwich; acting as a catalyst to accelerate the rate of development, improve business confidence and attract inward investment; and stimulating greater employment and retail opportunities. He did not accept the arguments of H E Thomas & Co that the extension would not help to achieve the regeneration of Woolwich and that the destruction to properties would outweigh any benefits of the scheme. Neither did he share their view that the DLR extension to Lewisham played little part in that town's regeneration. Overall, the Inspector concluded that the proposed extension was badly needed and that it was consistent with policies at all levels.

12. The Secretary of State accepts the Inspector's analysis of the need and justification for the scheme. He agrees with the Inspector that the proposed extension of the DLR to Woolwich Arsenal would bring substantial transportation, regeneration and socio-economic benefits, particularly for Woolwich but also for a wider catchment area, and he agrees that the scheme is supported by policies at the national, regional and local levels.

Consideration of alternative routes and justification for the selected route (6.6.1 - 6.6.8; 6.1.1 - 6.1.3)

13. The Inspector noted that four alternative routes were considered: three approaching Woolwich Arsenal station from the east and one from the west. There were, in his view, relatively few differences between the routes on environmental grounds. All would produce similar environmental gains from a modal shift away from the motor car. Options 1 and 3 would require the demolition of a limited number of locally listed buildings in Woolwich town centre and Option 1 would have a minor effect on two statutorily listed buildings. There was also little between the options in terms of costs, although Option 1 would be the least expensive and had the best benefit/cost ratio. In the Inspector's view, the main difference between the options lay in the proposed location of the station at Woolwich and the consequent linkages with the town centre's main shopping area, the Royal Arsenal residential area and the interchange with other forms of public transport.

14. The Inspector found that Option 1 was superior to the other options in terms of its economic effects and the effects it would have upon accessibility and upon transport integration. Whereas Options 2 to 4 involved building an extension to Woolwich Arsenal Station on its present site, Option 1 would extend the station westwards to a point directly opposite the main town centre shopping area at Powis Street. It would reduce the walking distance to Beresford Square Market and to the new residential development on the Royal Arsenal site. Option 1 would also be the best in terms of integration between the DLR, the proposed Greenwich Waterfront Transit project and local bus services. Experience of other DLR schemes had shown how important it was that the station entrance should provide direct and attractive linkages into town centres and major developments, so encouraging greater use of public transport instead of the motor car.

15. The Inspector noted that there was overwhelming support for Option 1 and remarkably little objection to it. Its main disadvantage was the effect it would have on some locally listed buildings. However, whilst he noted that the Woolwich and District Antiquarian Society deplored the loss of such buildings under Option 1 and preferred Option 4, he considered that the many disadvantages of Option 4 outweighed the benefits of retaining those buildings, which had no statutory protection. Overall, the Inspector concluded that Option 1 was markedly superior to the other three options.

16. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, for the reasons given above, Option 1 has been shown to be clearly the best of the four options considered.

Likely effects on local residents and businesses and proposed mitigating measures (6.2.0 - 6.2.3; 6.9.1 - 6.13.3; 6.22.2)

17. The Inspector considered that whilst in the short term the scheme would be bound to have adverse impacts and cause disruption to the highway network, in the longer term the likely impact of the scheme on the vitality of Woolwich town centre, and therefore upon the local community, could only be positive. He saw no reason to doubt that the replacements for those buildings that would be demolished would be of high quality. The development of land above and adjacent to the railway and its terminus would afford opportunities to prospective new enterprises as well as to displaced businesses.

18. The Inspector also considered that the likely effect upon current and proposed residential building would be positive. Extensive housebuilding was taking place at the Royal Arsenal site and to the east, and the advent of the DLR would be beneficial to the purchasers of new properties.

19. The Inspector noted that a small part of Beresford Square would be occupied for up to 9 months to allow a shaft to be sunk for a major sewer diversion. LB Greenwich had confirmed that the market operations would not be affected by the works and that places would be found for displaced market stalls. Your clients had sought power to enable them - if necessary - to move any stalls before taking temporary possession of the market, with provision for compensation. LB Greenwich was content with this arrangement.

20. The Inspector also noted that, of those households which responded to your clients' consultation about the proposed extension, 95% expressed support for the scheme and 90% were in favour of Option 1. Whilst there had been a substantial number of objections to the demolition of St James Medichem Pharmacy, DLRL had reached agreement with the Pharmacy to ensure that its services could be retained, and most of those objections had now been withdrawn.

21. With regard to potential impacts from noise and vibration, the Inspector was satisfied that the DLR was fundamentally less noisy than traditional railway systems. DLRL's Noise and Vibration Policy and Standards and the Code of Construction Practice ("CoCP") set out very clear limits for hours of working, noise and vibration, and the codes and standards to be followed. Some residual noise disturbance would, in his view, remain during unavoidably noisy activities and potentially at night when some limited construction work would be necessary, but no significant residual noise or vibration impacts were predicted once the scheme became operational. With regard to Miss Klotzbucher's concern about the effect of railway tunnels beneath her house, the Inspector noted DLRL's evidence that, with the top of the tunnel some 28m below the house, there should be no effect on it from vibration. He accepted that, as the tunnels were bound to run under somebody's property, it was reasonable for DLRL to choose the shortest and cheapest route.

22. In regard to traffic impacts, the Inspector considered that the number of lorries involved in construction would be relatively small and would have little effect on traffic operations. Although a number of streets would need to be temporarily or permanently stopped up, in all cases apart from two small stub roads either alternative roads or diversions would be provided to allow traffic to continue to flow. The Inspector considered that, in the long term, the effect of the scheme upon traffic could only be positive.

23. The Secretary of State agrees with the above conclusions of the Inspector. He accepts that construction of the extension would be bound to cause disruption to businesses and to existing traffic arrangements in Woolwich town centre, and that some buildings would be lost. He is satisfied, however, that arrangements will be put in place to keep disruption to traffic, and the impacts of noise and vibration, to the minimum, and he sees no reason to doubt that replacement buildings will be of suitably high quality. Moreover, in view of the clear long term benefits which the scheme would bring both to the town of Woolwich and to the wider area, the Secretary of State does not consider that the short term disruption that would arise from the construction of the proposed DLR extension presents sufficient justification for refusing to make the Order.

Effects on Grade II listed buildings (6.16.1 - 6.16.5)

24. The Inspector noted that DLRL would need to carry out survey, monitoring and settlement mitigation works to two Grade II listed buildings - Equitable House and 18/19 Greens End - and that an access ramp in the service yard at the back of Equitable House would need to be demolished and reinstated. Two listed building consent applications had been made, to which neither LB Greenwich nor English Heritage had objected.

25. In the First Secretary of State's separate decision letter on these two applications, referred to at paragraph 2 above, he has decided to accept the recommendation of the Inspector that listed building consent should be granted, subject to conditions.

Other environmental effects and mitigation measures (6.17.1 - 6.22.3; 6.12.1 - 6.12.2)

26. Impacts on townscape. The Inspector considered that the visual impact of the scheme would be confined mainly to the area between the present Woolwich Arsenal station and Greens End, where a number of buildings - five of which are locally listed - would be demolished. However, having regard to the Woolwich Interchange Planning Brief, which sought to ensure high quality design of the overstation development and its integration with the heritage of the area, and to LB Greenwich's excellent record of achievement in securing good quality design, the Inspector was confident that the design of replacement buildings would be of high quality and would be integrated with the design and construction of the new station entrance.

27. Air quality implications. As the main source of air pollution in Woolwich town centre was road traffic, the Inspector considered the scheme would, by reducing reliance on the motor car, help LB Greenwich to pursue the objectives of its Air Quality Action Plan and the targets in the Mayor's Air Quality Strategy. He noted that LB Greenwich was confident that arrangements could be made with the concessionaire to mitigate any major environmental impacts of the construction works and achieve the Council's local air quality standards. Dust emissions would be mitigated by good site practice.

28. Nature conservation interests. The Inspector noted that a full Environmental Impact Assessment had been carried out and that there was no extant objection to the Environmental Statement submitted with the application. He was satisfied that nature conservation interests would be protected by a Schedule of Works to be agreed with the Environment Agency in advance of the start of construction and by the proposed planning conditions, which would provide for bat and black redstart surveys to be conducted before work began. With mitigation, no significant residual effects were predicted.

29. Effects on usage of River Thames and King George V Dock. The Inspector noted that the concessionaire would be given the opportunity of removing spoil in barges from the Dock. Relevant interested bodies had agreed to inclusion in the Order of appropriate powers and protective provisions in respect of the use of the lock from the Dock into the river and for protecting navigation interests along the River Thames. Agreement had also been reached with the Environment Agency that no part of the proposed intervention shaft would be constructed in the river inlet without the Agency's consent, and with the Port of London Authority that there would be no effect on the stability of the river bed. As a result, both bodies had withdrawn their objections.

30. Waste material. The Inspector noted that some 500,000 tonnes would need disposal, with the option of removing by barge through King George V Dock. The CoCP required the concessionaire to develop a management plan to identify waste categories and quantities of materials, opportunities for recycling, re-use and disposal and routes and licensing requirements. Contaminated soil would be disposed of at a licensed site.

31. The Inspector concluded that LBs Greenwich and Newham and DLRL were well aware of their responsibilities for avoiding, reducing or remedying any major adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed works. He had no reason to doubt that a combination of the Order's provisions, the planning conditions and the CoCP agreed between the three parties would provide the necessary measures and remedies. It was apparent that with respect to ecology, water resources, dust, air quality and contaminated land, there should be no significant residual effects following these mitigation measures.

32. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's conclusions on the above matters. He is satisfied that the Environmental Statement, together with the evidence subsequently adduced at the inquiry, provides him with sufficient information to assess the likely environmental impacts of the Order proposals; and he confirms that, in reaching his decisions, he has complied with the requirements of paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 14(3A) of the TWA. For the purposes of section 14(3AA) of the TWA, the Secretary of State considers that that the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy any major adverse environmental effects are those set out in the attached planning conditions and in the CoCP. He is satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the adverse environmental impacts of the scheme to an acceptable level. To the extent that some residual adverse effects may remain, he is satisfied that these will be outweighed by the very clear long term benefits of the scheme.

Loss of public open space (6.14.1 - 6.14.2)

33. The Inspector noted that DLRL would need to acquire compulsorily an area of existing public open space ("POS") to provide an emergency intervention shaft. He considered that the proposed replacement open space provided for in the Order would, compared to the existing POS, be of greater size, comparable quality and equally advantageous to existing users. There were no objections to the loss of POS or to the proposed exchange land.

34. The Secretary of State notes that the First Secretary of State has decided to give the exchange land certificate sought by DLRL, hence the Order will not need to be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provisions in the Order regarding the provision of replacement open space are necessary and justified. In particular, he accepts that it would not be practicable in this case to require the replacement open space to be provided before the existing open space is lost.

Funding (6.8.1 - 6.8.2)

35. The Inspector noted that the immediate cost of construction was to be met by the concessionaire, to whom DLRL would make staged capital payments during construction and availability payments once the link was operational. He was satisfied that DLRL had been allocated sufficient funding through the TfL Business Plan and that the scheme was fully capable of attracting the necessary funding.

36. In determining a TWA Order application, the Secretary of State is concerned to establish that there is a reasonable prospect of funds being secured to meet the costs of implementing the scheme and its associated liabilities. He does not, however, expect applicants to have secured required funds before the application is determined, and his decision to make an Order does not imply that any required funding will necessarily be forthcoming. With this in mind, and without prejudice to any funding decisions that may fall to be taken, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the scheme is reasonably capable of attracting the funds necessary to secure its implementation.

The case for the proposed compulsory acquisition powers (6.7.1 and 6.28.1)

37. The Inspector accepted that DLRL had sought to limit the extent of the land they required for temporary occupation for the purposes of the construction and the extent of the land and rights they needed to acquire permanently. He was satisfied that all the land for which compulsory acquisition powers had been sought were necessary for the proposed works.

38. The Inspector confirmed that he had considered the proposals in the light of ODPM Circular 02/2003 ("Compulsory Purchase Orders"), which was published during the course of the inquiry. He was satisfied, in this regard, that:-

• there had been no objection on the ground that the Order would interfere with anyone's human rights;
• DLRL had made it clear how they intended to use the land, and had demonstrated that resources were likely to be available to achieve that end within a reasonable time scale;
• adequate funding would be available to complete the compulsory acquisitions within the statutory period and to cope with any blight notices;
• there was no evidence of any impediment to the implementation of the scheme, which had the enthusiastic support of both the relevant local authorities; and
• a compelling case had been made out for the scheme (Option 1) as being in the public interest.

39. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that all the land that is subject to compulsory acquisition and temporary possession powers has been shown to be necessary for the scheme, and that there is a compelling case for giving those powers in the public interest.

Work sites (6.15.1 - 6.15.2)

40. The Inspector noted that 11 main work sites would be established, 8 associated with the bored tunnel intervention shaft or sewer diversion works and 3 for work on the new Woolwich Arsenal station. He concluded that the number of proposed work sites was appropriate and not excessive. The Secretary of State agrees with this view.

Likely effects on statutory undertakers and public services (6.23.1 - 6.23.2)

41. The Inspector reported that your clients had reached an agreement with the various railway stakeholders which would mitigate the impact of construction works upon the operation of Woolwich Arsenal station and on train services. As a result, those parties had withdrawn their objections and DLRL no longer sought a disapplication of statutory procedures and safeguards in the Railways Act 1993. Your clients had also reached agreements with a number of other parties which had led to the withdrawal of their objections. These included an agreement with BT and others to enable continuous and uninterrupted operation of the Woolwich Telephone Exchange; an agreement with London City Airport Ltd and others to enable the airport companies to operate the airport during construction works; and an agreement with Consignia and Post Office Ltd to minimise disruption to the delivery of mail.

42. The Secretary of State notes that all the earlier objections from statutory undertakers and from others responsible for providing a public service have been withdrawn, following successful negotiations with your clients. He is satisfied that, as a consequence, there should be no unacceptable effects on the carrying out of those undertakings and services.

Justification for wide powers of deviation in the draft Order (6.24.1 - 6.25.5)

43. The Inspector noted that the 5m vertical deviation limit was principally required for the construction of the bored tunnels and related works. It would allow the concessionaire to avoid unforeseen obstructions or unfavourable geology, whilst still leaving a safe distance between the top of the tunnel and the bed of the river. DLRL's justification for the various lateral limits of deviation was given at paragraph 3.21.2 of the report. Bearing in mind that the concessionaire's ability to take advantage of the deviation limits would be conditioned by the employer's requirements, such as those laid down in the CoCP and DLRL's Noise and Vibration Policy - and since there were no objections - the Inspector concluded that the deviation limits set out in Article 5 of the draft Order were justified.

44. The Secretary of State is satisfied that, in this case, the vertical and lateral limits provided for in the Order and in the deposited plans and sections are justified.

Justification for disapplication of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 (6.26.1 - 6.26.2)

45. The Inspector noted that DLRL had sought powers to disapply the above Act in relation to certain properties which they believed could occasion risk to the procurement of the proposed extension. They had argued that a minor dispute with a single adjacent land owner could cause long delays with attendant costs, whereas the draft Order would provide a simplified procedure offering equivalent protection. The Inspector concluded that the request seemed reasonable to him and that, since there were no objections to it, the disapplication powers should be granted.

46. The Secretary of State does not agree with the Inspector that the proposed disapplication of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 is justified. He would require exceptional reasons to justify disapplying, through a TWA Order, statutory provisions of general application which have been endorsed by Parliament. In this instance, he is not satisfied that there are compelling reasons to exempt DLRL from the normal statutory arrangements provided by the 1996 Act for informing, and resolving any disputes with, adjoining property owners in relation to planned construction activities at or near property boundaries. He does not accept that the proposed Order provisions would provide equivalent protection for property owners.

Inspector's overall conclusions and recommendations (6.30.1 - 7.4)

47. The Inspector considered, overall, that there was a compelling case for the scheme in the public interest. He recommended that the Order should be made, with the modifications incorporated in the final modified draft Order submitted on 26 June 2003. He did not consider that any of the changes included in that draft amounted to a substantial change in the proposals within the meaning of section 13(4) of the TWA.

48. The Inspector also recommended that planning permission should be deemed to be granted for the development provided for in the Order, subject to the conditions set out in Annex D, Appendix 5 to his report. He was satisfied that these conditions, which had been agreed with both relevant local planning authorities and the Environment Agency, met the tests set out in Circular 11/95 ("The use of conditions in planning permissions") issued by the former Department of the Environment.

The Secretary of State's overall conclusions on the Order

49. For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that this scheme would provide a much needed public transport link across this part of the River Thames. It would bring thousands of jobs within easy travelling reach of an area of south London which suffers from a high level of unemployment, and he expects it to act as a catalyst for regeneration on both sides of the river, helping to bring new jobs, homes, shops and other facilities to these areas. Overall, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the substantial transportation, regeneration and socio-economic benefits of this scheme outweigh by some margin any adverse impacts on the local community or on the environment, which should be kept to an acceptable level by the proposed mitigation measures.

50. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the particular powers sought by DLRL in the Order, subject to the modifications described below, are reasonable, appropriate and justified in the public interest. Accordingly, the Secretary of State has decided to make the Order, subject to some modifications described below, and to issue a planning direction, subject to the conditions set out in the Annex.

51. With regard to section 5(6) of the TWA, the Secretary of State is satisfied that in every instance where the Order will authorise the extinguishment of a public right of way over land, either an alternative right of way has been or will be provided or that the provision of an alternative right of way is not required.

52. The modifications to the Order that the Secretary of State intends to make, in addition to those contained in your clients' revised draft of June 2003 and recommended by the Inspector, are as follows:-

• to delete the proposed article 23 disapplying the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, for the reasons given in paragraph 46 above (which deletion necessitates the re-numbering of other articles);
• to delete the words "in the London Gazette or" in the draft article 26(3), which sets out the requirement for publication of vesting declaration notices. He considers that the Order should specify the method of publication rather than leaving your clients to choose; and in this particular case he considers that publication of notices in a local newspaper should be a more effective means of alerting affected landowners than the London Gazette;
• to amend draft article 41(2), regarding trespass on the authorised railway, to require a notice to be clearly exhibited and maintained at the station on the authorised railway nearest to the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed;
• to make amendments to Schedule 12 consequential on the coming into force of the Communications Act 2003;
• to make certain minor drafting amendments which do not affect the substance of the Order.

53. The Secretary of State is of the opinion that these changes will not make a substantial change in the proposals.

Planning Direction and Conditions

54. As stated above, the Secretary of State has decided to issue a direction that planning permission shall be deemed to be granted for the development for which provision is made in the Order, subject to the conditions set out in the Annex to this letter. The letter conveying the planning direction will issue shortly, at the same time as the Order is made. This will follow publication of a notice of the determination in the London Gazette.

55. The conditions generally follow those agreed between DLRL and the local planning authorities and recommended by the Inspector, subject to a few small drafting changes. The only changes of significance are that:-

• in condition 2 "siting" (of buildings etc.) has been added as a matter requiring the approval of the relevant local planning authority, in addition to design and external appearance. This is in the interests of enabling the local planning authorities to exercise satisfactory control over the details of the development;
• in condition 12, in the interests of clarity, a definition of "designated Archaeological Protection Area" has been inserted.

Notice under section 14 of the TWA

56. A notice of the Secretary of State's determination given pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the TWA is enclosed.

Challenge to decisions

57. The circumstances in which the Secretary of State's decisions may be challenged are set out in the note enclosed with this letter.

Distribution

58. Copies of this letter, the section 14(1)(a) notice and the Inspector's conclusions and recommendations are being sent to those who appeared at the inquiry. Copies of this letter and the section 14(1)(a) notice are being sent to others who made representations about the Order application but who did not appear at the inquiry.

Yours faithfully,

Ellis Harvey
Head of TWA Orders Unit

Annex

Conditions which the Secretary of State Intends to Attach to the Deemed Planning Permission

In these conditions, unless the context otherwise requires:-

"building" means any structure or erection, or any permanent gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure, above the surface of the ground, but does not include any plant or machinery;

"the code of construction practice" means the code referred to in an agreement between Docklands Light Railway Limited and the Council of the London Borough of Greenwich dated 23 January 2003 ;

"the deposited plans" and "the scheduled works" have the meanings given in the Order;

"the development" means the works authorised by the Order;

"the environmental statement" means the environmental statement accompanying the application for the Order submitted on 10 July 2002;

"the local planning authority" means the Council of the London Borough of Newham in relation to any part of the development within its area, and the Council of the London Borough of Greenwich in relation to any part of the development within its area, but in relation to conditions 10, 11 and 14 below it means both Councils acting jointly;

"the Order" means the Docklands Light Railway (Woolwich Arsenal Extension) Order 2004 ;

"the relevant limits" means the limits within which, under the deemed planning permission to which these conditions relate, the development concerned may be carried out; and

"retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the details submitted to and approved by the local planning authority under condition 4 below;

and references to articles and numbered works are references to the articles of, and the works set out in Schedule 1 to, the Order.

1. Time limits

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date that the Order comes into force.

Reason : To comply with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Design and external appearance of buildings

Approval of the siting, design and external appearance within the relevant limits of the following items of development shall be obtained from the local planning authority before that development is commenced:

(i) any building comprised in Work No. 1 (railway between North Woolwich and Woolwich);

(ii) any building comprised in Work No. 5 (intervention shaft adjacent to the River Thames);

(iii) Work No. 16 (footbridge at Woolwich Arsenal station);

(iv) the station at Woolwich Arsenal and any related buildings provided pursuant to articles 4 and 6, insofar as they are above the surface of the ground; and

(v) any item of development not in Appendix 1 to the request for this direction which is a building.

Reason: To enable reasonable and proper control to be exercised over aspects of the details of the development.

3. Materials

Details of the materials to be used in any external surface of any element of the development above ground level shall be submitted to and their external appearance approved by the local planning authority before that element of the development is commenced.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory external appearance in the interests of visual amenity.

4. Tree survey

Before any works commence the following details relating to all of the existing trees within the relevant limits (having a stem diameter of 100mm or greater) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority:-

a) their location, species, girth, stem diameter, crown spread and assessment of condition;

b) existing ground levels at the base of the trees (where nearby changes in level, or excavations, are proposed); and

c) the trees to be removed and pruned, lopped or topped in conjunction with the proposed development (being clearly marked as such on a plan).

The positions and details of fencing or hoardings, prohibited areas and physical means of protecting the trees to remain, during the construction period, shall be submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any works on site.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to ensure adequate protection of existing trees.

5. Retained trees

Until the expiration of five years from the commencement of the operation of the authorised railway-

(a) no retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the approval of the local planning authority; and

(b) if any retained tree is removed, uprooted or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and at such time as may be specified by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

6. Landscaping scheme

No landscaping works or related development shall take place until a scheme of landscaping relating to the authorised works has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

For the avoidance of doubt the scheme of landscaping to be submitted should include:

Hard landscaping proposals

• proposed finished levels;
• vehicle and pedestrian access, parking and circulation areas;
• hard surfacing materials;
• minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting);
• proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power, communications cable, pipelines, etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc.);
• retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant;

Soft landscaping proposals

• schedules and plans of proposed planting noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers /densities;
• written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); and
• implementation timetables;

and shall be formulated with a view to providing a habitat for birds and other fauna wherever practicably possible.

Reason: In order to provide a suitable setting for the proposed development in the interests of visual amenity and to protect and enhance fauna.

7. Laying out of replacement open space

No works for laying out the replacement open space pursuant to article 36 of the Order shall take place until a scheme in that respect has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority (which may be part of the scheme submitted pursuant to condition 6 above).

Reason: In order to provide satisfactory replacement open space in the interests of recreation by members of the public.

8. Implementation and maintenance of landscaping

All hard and soft landscaping works (including those comprising the scheme submitted pursuant to condition 7 above) shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the implementation timetable forming part of the approved scheme.

Any tree or shrub planted as part of the approved landscaping or replacement open space scheme that, within the period of five years after planting is removed, dies or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or seriously diseased shall be replaced in the first available planting season with specimens of the same species and size as those originally planted unless the local planning authority gives its consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscaping in accordance with the approved schemes.

9. Highway accesses

The prior approval of the siting, design and layout within the relevant limits of the formation and laying out of any new permanent means of access to a highway used by vehicular traffic, shall be obtained from the local planning authority before that element of the development is commenced.

Reason: To ensure highway safety.

10. Groundborne noise and vibration modelling and isolation

Within a period of eighteen months from the commencement of any development relating to Work No. 1 an acoustic modelling study shall be carried out by a recognised consultant acceptable to the local planning authority in order to inform the design of the track vibration isolation system. The report of the study shall include an assessment of its results and identify the design of the track vibration isolation system which the consultant considers necessary to provide vibration isolation at sensitive locations sufficient to comply with the standards set by Docklands Light Railway Limited, as described in the environmental statement , which design shall be submitted for approval by the local planning authority within that eighteen month period. Any design so approved shall be executed before the authorised railway comes into operation for the use of fare-paying passengers.

Reason: To avoid impacts from ground vibration and ground-borne noise on adjacent buildings close to the railway tracks.

11. Airborne noise modelling and attenuation

Within a period of eighteen months from the commencement of any development relating to Work No. 1, noise modelling shall be carried by a recognised consultant acceptable to the local planning authority in order to determine the need for noise barriers on any surface or sub-surface part of Work No. 1. The report of the modelling carried out, which shall be submitted for approval by the local planning authority, shall include an assessment of the results of the modelling and identify the particular locations where noise barriers are considered by the consultant to be necessary so as to comply with the standards of the Docklands Light Railway Noise and Vibration Policy, and their proposed dimensions. Any works so approved by the local planning authority shall be implemented before the authorised railway comes into operation for the use of fare-paying passengers.

Reason: To avoid impacts from airborne noise caused by the running of trains.

12. Archaeology

No development within or immediately adjacent to any designated Archaeological Protection Area shall commence until a scheme to deal with any archaeological remains on the site has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

The scheme shall identify areas where a watching brief is required and also the appropriate measures to be taken should any significant archaeological remains be found. It shall also provide that any archaeological works carried out on site shall be by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the local planning authority.

In this condition, "designated Archaeological Protection Area" means an Area of Archaeological Potential as referred to in the Unitary Development Plan for the London Borough of Greenwich and an Archaeological Priority Area as referred to in the

Unitary Development Plan for the London Borough of Newham.

Reason: To ensure adequate protection and recording of archaeological remains.

13. Bats survey

No development shall take place until the results of a survey and monitoring for the purpose of establishing the presence of bats in trees and structures to be removed within the relevant limits, and any programme of mitigation measures, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The survey and monitoring, together with any programme of mitigation measures, shall be undertaken and prepared in consultation with English Nature and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Reason: To ensure that any bat population that may be found is suitably protected.

14. Contaminated land and ground

Before the development commences a desktop study, and site investigation to the extent required, appropriate to the development proposed, shall be carried out with respect to land affected by the development (including land within the limits of deviation that has already been remediated), in order to determine groundwater characteristics and assess any risk arising from the presence of contaminants causing or likely to cause significant harm to persons, pollution of controlled waters or significant harm to the environment.

A land assessment report shall be prepared by a recognised consultant acceptable to the local planning authority, which shall identify any necessary remediation measures to render the land fit for the intended purpose and any long term measures that are necessary with respect to contaminants remaining on the site shall be set out in a management plan. The land assessment report and management plan shall be prepared in accordance with the principles set out in the code of construction practice, or other such principles as may be subsequently agreed with the local planning authority.

Both the land assessment report and the management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before the development commences; and any remediation measures approved by the local planning authority shall be implemented before the development commences or within such other period as the local planning authority may agree.

Reason: To ensure that any necessary site investigation and remedial action is undertaken in relation to contaminated land.

15. Loading, unloading, turning and parking facilities

Before the commencement of any item of the development consisting of the provision of permanent facilities clear of the highway for the loading, unloading, turning and parking of vehicles, a scheme detailing those facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To avoid the obstruction of surrounding streets.

16. Fill and capping material

Before any fill or capping material is brought on site for the purpose of the development the developer shall certify to the local planning authority that the material is from sources free from contamination so far as can be reasonably ascertained.

Reason: In the interests of public safety and for the protection of the environment.

17. Working hours

(a) (a) Except in an emergency due to security of the works or health and safety, construction work shall only be carried out as follows -

In the London borough of Newham:

Mondays to Fridays:	0800 to 1800 hours; and
Saturdays:	0800 to 1300 hours,

In the London borough of Greenwich:

Mondays to Fridays:	0800 to 1830 hours; and
Saturdays:	0800 to 1300 hours.

(a) (b) There shall be no construction work outside of these hours or on Sundays or Bank Holidays, except -

(i) (i) by the use of plant and equipment which is required to operate continuously;

(ii) (ii) in an emergency;

(iii) (iii) for bored tunnelling activities; and

(iv) (iv) for works in the vicinity of Network Rail's Woolwich Arsenal station that are required to be undertaken during possessions of Network Rail's railway network,

unless previously agreed with the local planning authority.

(c) In the London borough of Newham during weekdays there will be a 30 minute start-up period from 0730 to 0800 hours and a 30 minute shut-down period from 1800 to 1830 hours, when no works other than works preparatory to or ancillary to the construction activity during the core hours of 0800-1800 hours shall be undertaken.

(d) In the London borough of Greenwich during weekdays there will be no 30 minute start-up period but there will be a 30 minute shut-down period from 18.30 to 1900 hours, when no works other than works ancillary to the construction activity during the core hours of 0800 - 1830 hours shall be undertaken.

(e) In both the London borough of Newham and the London borough of Greenwich on Saturdays there will be no 30 minute start-up period but there will be a 30 minute shut-down period from 1300 to 1330 hours, when no works other than works ancillary to the construction activity during the core hours of 0800-1300 hours shall be undertaken.

(f) Maximum permitted noise levels in the London borough of Newham are:

Monday to Friday, 0800 to 1800:	LAeq 10 hours	75 dBA
Monday to Friday, 0730 to 0800 and 1800 to 1830:	LAeq 30 mins	65 dBA
Saturday 0800 to 1300:	LAeq 5 hours	75 dBA
Saturday 1300 to 1330:	LAeq 30 mins	65 dBA

(g) Maximum permitted noise levels in the London borough of Greenwich are:

Monday to Friday, 0800 to 1830:	LAeq 10½ hours	75 dBA
Monday to Friday, 1830 to 1900:	LAeq 30 mins	65 dBA
Saturday 0800 to 1300:	LAeq 5 hours	75 dBA
Saturday 1300 to 1330:	LAeq 30 mins	65 dBA

Reason: To protect the amenity of residents.

18. Surface water drainage system

No part of the development comprising a surface water drainage system shall commence until design details of those works and an implementation programme have been submitted to the local planning authority and, in consultation with the Environment Agency, approved by the local planning authority.

Reason: To prevent pollution and harm to the environment, including to ecological interests.

19. Black redstart

No development in, or within 16 metres of the top of the banks of King George V Dock and the River Thames shall take place until the results of a survey and monitoring for the purpose of establishing the presence of black restart have been submitted to the local planning authority and, where deemed necessary by the local planning authority in consultation with English Nature, until a programme of mitigation measures has been agreed by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that any black redstart that may be found are suitably protected.

20. Approval under these conditions

Where under any condition set out above the approval, agreement or consent of the local planning authority is required that approval, agreement or consent shall be given in writing.

Reason: To provide for certainty in the approvals process.

21. Execution in accordance with written approval

With respect to any conditions set out above that requires the approval of the local planning authority, the works or matters thereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with that approval unless subsequently otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To secure that any development carried out complies with requisite approvals.