The Margate Pier (Turner Centre) Order
|
Messrs Sharpe Pritchard For the attention of Mr A Lewis |
Ellis Harvey Direct line: 020 7944 2483 Our Ref: TWA/03/APP/04 18 March 2005 |
Dear Sirs
Transport and Works Act 1992: The proposed Margate Pier (Turner Centre) Order
1. I am directed by the Secretary of State for Transport to say that consideration has been given to the application made on 27 February 2004 by your clients, Kent County Council ("the Council"), for the proposed Margate Pier (Turner Centre) Order ("the Order") to be made under sections 3 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the TWA").
2. The Order, if made, would authorise the Council to construct and maintain an extension to the existing stone pier at Margate Harbour, comprising a new building to be used as an art gallery and for leisure and educational purposes, and a vehicular and pedestrian bridge linking that building to the stone pier. In addition, the Order would authorise the construction of mitigation works for wading birds, consisting of a concrete apron located adjacent to the Pier. The proposed Order would also confer various ancillary powers on the Council in relation to those works.
3. It is noted that the Council have already sought, and obtained, detailed planning permission and listed building consent in respect of the proposals.
Representations received
4. The Secretary of State initially received six objections and other representations, of which five were subsequently withdrawn. The remaining objection was considered under the written representations procedure set out in Rule 25 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2000 (SI 2000 No. 2190).
5. The principal issues raised by the remaining objector, Mrs J Hinton of Sandwich, Kent, and by the Council are summarised below, followed by the Secretary of State's consideration of these issues.
Summary of the Secretary of State's decision
6. The Secretary of State has decided to make the Order, with some minor drafting modifications. The reasons for his decision are given below.
Case for the objector
7. Mrs Hinton's objections to the proposals may be summarised as follows. Mrs Hinton accepted the need for regeneration in Margate, but was concerned at the rising cost of the project from £7m in 2001, to the current estimate of £25m. She also noted that only 53% of project costs had so far been raised, and was concerned that the remainder of the project costs would fall on Kent ratepayers.
8. Mrs Hinton expressed concern about the effects of the project on the existing Rennie's stone pier. In particular, she questioned the ability of the pier to support the proposed new restaurant and shop buildings, and commented that the pier road would need to be strengthened with concrete. Mrs Hinton also questioned whether further planning applications were required to take account of the proposed alterations to the design of the proposed gallery building. In addition, she commented that the environmental statement (ES) stated that the existing sandy beach was thin and that relatively small changes in sand distribution would significantly alter the appearance of the beach.
9. Mrs Hinton acknowledged that the local authority would ensure that the risk of a destructive fire within the proposed gallery would be properly evaluated. However, she still had concerns in connection with the evacuation of the gallery building in the event of a fire, especially at high tide and in inclement weather conditions. Mrs Hinton also believed that in severe adverse weather conditions there would be uneven movement between the Gallery building and the stone pier and that this would place stresses on the proposed bridge structure.
The Applicants' response
10. Your clients' response to Mrs Hinton's objections may be summarised as follows. The Council acknowledged that the costs of the project had risen substantially since 2001. They explained that this resulted from developments to the design, including the incorporation of the findings of extensive testing for the ground, wind and wave conditions that would affect the building. The Council were satisfied that the financial case for the project was robust. In relation to the current funding shortfall, the Council contended that this was quite usual on a project of this nature, and that it had a funding strategy in place to raise the remainder of the funds required. They explained that the proposed gallery was a culturally led regeneration project which was intended to complement the wider Thanet District Council Regeneration Programme. The Council cited a number of similar art gallery projects that had successfully provided regeneration benefits. They stated that they would strive to ensure that the impact of the project of Kent ratepayers would be overwhelmingly positive in terms of quality of life and the local economy.
11. The Council commented that as a direct result of the proposed Turner project, the condition of the existing Rennie's Pier had been investigated, and that they would be carrying out general improvement and strengthening works to the pier. In addition, the Council confirmed that the foundations of the proposed new restaurant and shop buildings had been designed to minimise load transfer into the pier structure. The Council was also of the view that some of the existing development on the pier was in need of improvement, renewal or removal, and believed that the construction of the proposed gallery would lead to subsequent improvements by others to the pier as a whole in this regard. The Council stated that, far from damaging the pier, their aim was to enhance and extend the life of the pier.
12. The Council advised that the design alterations, as detailed in the addendum to the ES, could be dealt with by way of amendments to the original planning permission and as part of the process of discharging the original planning conditions. The Council said that they had submitted a separate new planning application to the local planning authority for a proposed covered walkway along the pier. However, this did not form part of the TWA Order application as the walkway would not interfere with rights of navigation.
13. With regard to the appearance of the beach, the Council explained that studies carried out for the project had found that changes in the beach's appearance was an on- going process and that historically there had been a lowering of beach levels. The assessment in the ES concluded that the project would have no effect on the overall movement of sediment along the coast and that any scour effects, which would only be likely to occur close to the gallery building and pier, would be mitigated through protective measures.
14. The Council stated that all fire safety regulations would be complied with, both during and after construction of the proposed scheme. From the outset of the design process, the Council had engaged specialist fire experts who had actively contributed to the project design. In addition, the fire authority had been consulted throughout the design process and would continue to be consulted. The Council concluded that, if the fire authority were not happy with the evacuation arrangements from the building, then the building would not be able to be opened to the public.
15. As regards any relative movement between the proposed gallery building and the Pier, the Council advised that this had been considered in the structural design of the scheme, and that the bridge bearings had been designed to accommodate any possible movement.
Secretary of State's consideration
16. For the purposes of determining this TWA Order application, the Secretary of State needs to assess whether it is in the public interest to confer on the Council the powers set out in the proposed Order, which seeks statutory authority to interfere with rights of navigation. This involves balancing any adverse impact on navigation and other rights which may result from the exercise of those powers against any benefits which would be likely to arise from the works. In making this assessment, the Secretary of State considers that it is appropriate to take into account the likely environmental impact of the proposals described in the ES and the Addendums to it. He may also take into account other matters which may have been relevant to the local planning authority's decision to grant planning permission for the scheme, provided that they are relevant to the powers being sought. He wishes to make clear, however, that it would not be appropriate for him in this context to review or question the decision of the local planning authority to grant planning permission for the Turner Centre, which establishes that the scheme is considered acceptable in planning terms in this proposed location, or to interfere in their responsibility to determine detailed design matters.
17. Following his consideration of the arguments presented for and against the proposed Order, the Secretary of State has reached the conclusions set out below.
18. The Secretary of State has noted Mrs Hinton's concerns regarding the cost of the scheme and the potential financial impact on Kent ratepayers. He considers that the question of whether or not the projected cost of the scheme represents good value for money is not a matter for him to determine in the context of this TWA Order application; rather, this is a matter for prospective funders of the scheme to consider. It is however relevant for the Secretary of State to consider, before making a TWA Order giving statutory powers for a scheme, whether that scheme is reasonably capable of attracting the necessary funds, so that there is a reasonable prospect of it being implemented if he gives those powers.
19. In this case, the Secretary of State is satisfied from the Council's evidence that there is a reasonable prospect of the scheme being delivered if he makes the Order. Furthermore, he is satisfied from the evidence that the project is likely to deliver significant regeneration benefits for the area, which is a factor to which he attaches significant weight in addressing whether it is in the public interest to sanction the proposed interference with navigation rights.
20. The Secretary of State has noted Mrs Hinton's concerns about the effects of the scheme on the appearance and structure of the existing Rennie's pier, as well as the Council's response that the project has been designed to minimise its physical impact on the pier structure and would bring about wider strengthening and improvement works to the pier structure. He has also noted the Council's view that scheme would be likely to lead to subsequent improvements to appearance of other parts of the pier by others. The Secretary of State concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed scheme would have an adverse effect on the existing pier. On the contrary, he sees every likelihood that it will result in improvements to the pier.
21. With regard to Mrs Hinton's comments regarding the appearance of the beach, the Secretary of State notes that the ES concluded that the project would have no significant effect on the overall movement of sediment along the Kent coast and that any local scouring effect could be mitigated by local mitigation measures. He is satisfied from the evidence before him that the project would be unlikely to have any significant effect on the appearance of the beach.
22. The Secretary of State has noted Mrs Hinton's concerns in connection with evacuation of the building in a fire. He has also noted that fire safety was considered from the outset of the project design process and that the relevant fire authority was involved in that process. He notes further that the proposed gallery would only be allowed to be open to the public if the fire authority was content with the fire evacuation arrangements. In the circumstances, the Secretary of State is satisfied that fire safety issues have been properly addressed by the Council.
23. With regard to the issue of relative movement between the proposed gallery building and the pier, the Secretary of State sees no reason to question the Council's view that the design of the link bridge would be able to accommodate any such potential movement.
24. The Secretary of State has, in accordance with section 14(3A) of the TWA, considered the ES submitted with the application and he is satisfied that it fulfils the requirements of the TWA and contains sufficient information on environmental impacts to enable him to determine this application. The Secretary of State is also of the opinion that, having regard to section 14(3AA) of the TWA, none of the impacts of the proposed works would have major adverse environmental effects.
25. In all the circumstances, the Secretary of State concludes that there would be significant public benefits in making the Order, which outweigh any adverse effects. He can therefore see no good reason why he should not make the Order applied for. He does, however, intend to add an extra paragraph to Article 17 (which enables the Council to transfer its powers under the Order to another person) to ensure that, in the event of such a transfer, any agreement or undertaking entered into by the Council in connection with the promotion of the Order will be binding on the transferee.
Secretary of State's decision
26. For the reasons given above, the Secretary of State has decided to make the Order, subject to the drafting amendment referred to at paragraph 25 above and to some minor drafting modifications which do not affect the substance of the Order.
27. A notice of the Secretary of State's determination given pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the TWA is enclosed. A notice of the determination will shortly be published in the London Gazette, following which the Order will be made.
28. The circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State's decision may be challenged are set out in the note enclosed with this letter.
29. A copy of this letter and the section 14(1)(a) notice are being sent to Mrs Hinton.
Yours faithfully,
Ellis Harvey
Head of the TWA Orders Unit
