From: Rachel Jones
<Rachel@simply-planning.com>
Sent: 26 February 2016 15:35
To: Markwell, Jonathan
Subject: FW: The Oracle Riverside,
Reading
Attachments: 97.201C_Roof_Plan.pdf;
97.300E_Section_AA.PDF; 97.301E_Elev_1.pdf; 97.302E_Elev_2.pdf;
97.304C_Elev_4.pdf; 97.305D_Section_BB.PDF; Planter costs 170216.pdf; Reading
Oracle Riverside EA Final Resp 090216.pdf; 19699-RG-L-32C Planting Plan.pdf;
19699 A1 JH pf 160224 Letter to Jonathan
Markwell.pdf
From: Rachel Jones
Sent: 26 February 2016 15:25
To: Markwell,
Cc: Michelle.Kidd@environment-agency.gov.uk
Subject: The Oracle Riverside, Reading
Dear Jonathan,
As you know, the recent correspondence from the EA (dated 11th
February 2016) raised two outstanding issues in respect of our scheme: first,
the width of the proposed voids; and secondly, the proposed scope of
biodiversity improvements. Dealing with each of these in turn.
Width of the proposed voids
The EA’s concerns relate to the detailed design of the
voids; the concern being that their width would slow the flow of flood water
and there would be a build-up of silt/debris. In response to this, please see
attached correspondence from Barton Willmore and the following amended
Pavillion drawings:
�.
Proposed Section AA – drawing no.300 rev E;
�.
Proposed South Elevation – drawing no. 301 rev E;
�.
Proposed West Elevation – drawing no. 302 rev E;
�.
Proposed East Elevation – drawing no. 304 rev C;
and
�.
Proposed Section CC – drawing no. 305 rev D.
As you will note from these drawings, the detail of the
timber cladding below the Pavilion building has been amended to 50mm x 35mm
with a 25mm gap (i.e. an increase of 10mm); this addresses the concerns of the
EA. It has not been possible to increase the voids within the public realm for
the reasons set out by Barton Willmore (safety risk to children, visibility of
void).
The Oracle, including the Riverside, is an actively managed
area and a planning condition along the lines of ‘the voids/openings
to the public realm and the Pavilion building shall be regularly maintained,
not used for storage and not be allowed to be blocked’ would address
concerns regarding the voids acting as a ‘trash screen.’ Given the
importance of the Riverside to Hammerson as an area of public realm, we
actually think concerns about a build-up of litter and debris are unfounded.
Access to the void space under the Pavilion building is via doors integrated
into the vertical timber cladding. The structural steel work supporting the
proposed timber steps would not have an impact on the voids.
Biodiversity improvements
We have not had a formal response from the EA regarding
biodiversity following our meeting – that said, we understood well the points
raised and our Design Team has reviewed the option to provide planters within
the River Kennet. This option has, however, been discounted on the basis of:
�.
Cost – please see attached a breakdown of the
cost of the two planter options that has been provided by our QS. As you will
see, these are:
-
Option 1: submerged planter – £900,000
-
Option 2: floating planter on poles - £600,000
The above render the Options cost
prohibitive and would be entirely disproportionate to the scale of this scheme.
�.
Constructability constraints – our Structural
Engineer has serious concerns regarding the ability to build planters below the
water line. The only option would be to construct a temporary continuous sheet
pile wall to allow them to be built ‘in-situ’ – there is significant risk and
cost involved in this process (reflected in the costings above). We have also
been advised that there are two large existing sewer pipes (c.800mm diameter)
that sit on the river bed; this would limit the ability to drive piles and/or
sheet piling into the river bed in order to achieve the above.
Please find attached a Note from our Ecologist that sets out
our position in respect of the biodiversity enhancements proposed – these
include: a green roof to the Pavilion, green wall (on the HoF elevation of The
Oracle) and swift boxes. I attach the following drawings which reflect
these amendments to the scheme:
�.
Landscape Planting Plan – drawing no.
19699-RG-L-32-C; and
�.
Proposed Roof Plan – drawing no. 201-C.
The amendments to the scheme, we consider, address the
outstanding concern of the EA. Given the now critical timescales involved
with delivering the public realm improvements, Hammerson would like to meet
with yourself and Lynette/Giorgio to discuss how to move this planning
application forward. I would be grateful, therefore, if you could please let me
have your collective availability for next week, the week after?
For ease, I have copied this email to Michelle at the EA.
Kind Regards,
Rachel Jones
Director
25 Manchester Square, London, W1U 3PY
Tel. 0207 935 5880
M. 07776 132313
This email and any attachments are confidential and may be legally
privileged. It is intended solely for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender and delete the message from your system immediately. Internet
communications are not secure and Simply Planning Ltd is not responsible for
their abuse by third parties, nor for any alteration or corruption in
transmission, nor for any damage or loss caused by any virus or other
defect. Simply Planning Ltd is registered in Northern Ireland with number
NI610511. The registered office is 49 High Street, Holywood, County Down.
Click here
to report this email as spam.