|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 6, 2016 12:20:26 GMT
Another sad and thoughtless reduction in boating facilities planned, in the drive to increase East End property development: -
BUILDING MAGAZINE
2 November 2016
Chinese firm vying for major Royal Docks job
Property investor ASF is one of three firms in the running to take on a multibillion-pound project to redevelop Albert Island in east London
by Louise Dransfield
Chinese property investor ASF is one of three firms vying to take on a multibillion-pound project to redevelop Albert Island in east London’s Royal Docks.
ASF has been shortlisted to become the mayor of London’s development partner for the 10ha site, with London & Regional Properties believed to be one of the other two bidders. A winner is expected to be appointed by the end of the year.
Albert Island is located to the east of London City Airport and Royal Albert Docks business park, which is under construction and being developed by another Chinese firm, ABP. The site was first earmarked for commercial development by former London mayor Boris Johnson in May 2015.
ASF is listed on the Australian stock exchange and is best known for ploughing Chinese money into Australian development deals.
The firm is working with Chinese contractor China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC) on the Albert Island bid, alongside architect Farrells, agent Savills and consultant Urban Space Management, according to statements issued to investors.
ASF has said its proposed scheme would “blend Eastern and Western trade and cultural links” by providing a place to showcase Chinese products to UK and European buyers.
CSCEC and then joint venture partner Interserve had been lined up to build Chinese developer Wanda’s debut UK project – the £1bn One Nine Elms twin tower scheme in London – but parted company with Wanda in April after failing to agree a main build contract. Balfour Beatty was later signed up for a pre-construction agreement on the job.
Progress on the redevelopment of Albert Island is dependent on City Hall resolving a dispute with one of the site’s existing tenants, the Miller family, who own the island’s Gallions Point Marina.
A spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: “The redevelopment of Albert Island forms a key part of the regeneration of the Royal Docks, creating an international business district and supporting local jobs and growth. There is an ongoing court process regarding the tenancy of one temporary occupant.”
London & Regional declined to comment.
Source: Shutterstock/Zoltan Gabor
Coming so close on the heels of the GLA's own recent Report on boating facilities in London, urging local Boroughs to do more in providing mooring facilities in this crowded area, it is ironic that the central authority should be flying in the face of its own Blue Ribbon Network Policies in the ‘London Plan’.
Whether significant or not, a meeting is scheduled for December for GLA members of the Waterways Commission to discuss this element of the core planning document and its future. As one of those on the committees promoting the original policies, I have been dismayed by the almost universal disregard for them; it is probably too much to hope that this will be turned around in light of the GLA’s evident ambitions.
|
|
|
Post by tomsk on Nov 6, 2016 12:28:32 GMT
Thanks for this Nigel.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 6, 2016 15:57:16 GMT
This was the GLA announcement back in 2015, advertising for development partners, ostensibly desirous of achieving “ new employment generating uses, potentially including industrial and a commercial boatyard.” - www.albertisland.london Back then, it claimed that the redevelopment could include: “ The redevelopment of the existing marina in the northern part of the site to provide a facility which supports the transformation of the area through increased leisure traffic, opens up dockside access, provides boat storage facilities and integrates the marina with other complementary surrounding development uses permissible under the PSZ;” So why not carry on with that laudable ambition? The aims set out in that booklet are largely excellent; the Adams Hendry Report on Thames Boatyards back in 2007 was far better than the BW-driven London Canals travesty of a Report, and this was apparently updated in 2013 to take account of increased commercial traffic on the Thames. The idea of new large scale boatyard facilities [as recommended in the GLA Hendry Report] to cater for those is a no-brainer, and given the circumstances of the situation here, the site is ideal for this. What could be more in tune with such development than an adjacent marina?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 6, 2016 16:14:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 6, 2016 16:49:58 GMT
For those who might either have forgotten about, or never heard of, the GLA Report into moorings in London, I have recommended using that report as supportive back-up for the Marina’s case. www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Moorings%20report%20agreement%20draft%20FINAL.pdf Amongst other recommendations are: “ Recommendation 1: - . . . On the Thames, the Port of London Authority and Environment Agency should look to increase the supply and accessibility of moorings where possible, including visitor moorings.” “ Recommendation 2: - Planning authorities should use the development control process to apply the London Plan Blue Ribbon Network policies more strongly, to ensure that waterside developments enhance and do not detract from the waterways and their uses, including residential mooring use. The Mayor should, in the next set of amendments to the London Plan, more fully reflect the residential value of London’s waterways, and include a policy to increase the number of moorings.” Booting boats off existing moorings without even offering alternative [hopefully temporary] facilities while new ones are constructed, hardly seems to accord with the policies urged on the LPA's.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 6, 2016 16:56:28 GMT
The PLA, the GLA and their predecessor the GLC always had an abysmal record on moorings.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 6, 2016 16:59:06 GMT
Blue Ribbon Network Policies – the introduction: -
Policy 7.27 Blue Ribbon Network: supporting infrastructure ... Policy Planning decisions
A Development proposals should enhance the use of the Blue Ribbon Network, in particular proposals:
a that result in the loss of existing facilities for waterborne sport and leisure should be refused, unless suitable replacement facilities are provided
b should protect and improve existing access points to (including from land into water such as slipways and steps) or alongside the Blue Ribbon Network (including paths). New access infrastructure into and alongside the Blue Ribbon Network will be sought.
c should protect and enhance waterway support infrastructure such as boatyards, moorings, jetties and safety equipment etc. New infrastructure to support water dependent uses will be sought. New mooring facilities should normally be off line from main navigation routes, ie in basins or docks.
LDF preparation
B Within LDFs boroughs should identify the location of waterway facilities and any opportunities for enhancing or extending facilities, especially within opportunity areas and other areas where a particular need has been identified.
Supporting text
7.80 In order to make the maximum use of the Blue Ribbon Network, particularly for effective transport, a range of supporting infrastructure is required. The infrastructure includes, but is not limited to; boatyards, jetties, moorings, slipways, steps and water side paths/cycleways. Their need and provision should be assessed by local authorities.
7.81 The Mayor commissioned research in 2007 to investigate the provision of boatyards in London. From this it is clear that there is a particular shortage of boatyard facilities that are capable of inspecting, maintaining and repairing the larger passenger craft on the Thames. One of the actions in the Implementation Plan (see Chapter 8) will be to promote such a new facility.
7.82 Similarly, the historic steps and slipways to the Thames foreshore are often overlooked, neglected or even removed. These facilities are vital for enabling access to the Thames foreshore given the huge tidal range of the river and the Mayor wishes to see these facilities retained, improved and where disused, brought back into use.
7.83 The promotion of the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for leisure facilities is an important objective. Water provides opportunities for particular types of leisure and sporting activities such as rowing, canoeing and sailing. Water-based sport and recreation should be prioritized and facilities that enable or enhance these activities should be supported.
7.84 The range of permanently moored vessels, for example residential barges, restaurants, bars and offices can add to the diversity and vibrancy of waterways and London in general. However, their siting needs careful consideration so that the navigation, hydrology and biodiversity of the waterways are not compromised. Consents for and the use of new moorings should be managed in a way that respects the character of the waterways and the needs of its users. The BRN should not be used as an extension of the developable land in London nor should parts of it be a continuous line of moored craft. [my bold]
|
|
|
Post by bettina on Nov 6, 2016 17:28:59 GMT
Hi Nigel,
Hope you don't mind a couple of basic questions.
Have any of the developers included a marina in their proposals?
And I don't understand how the family/business that is currently running the marina be made to leave the property if they have a lease? Seems I had more protection when I was renting a house?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 6, 2016 17:46:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 6, 2016 17:58:45 GMT
Hi Nigel, Hope you don't mind a couple of basic questions. Have any of the developers included a marina in their proposals? And I don't understand how the family/business that is currently running the marina be made to leave the property if they have a lease? Seems I had more protection when I was renting a house? My mother was known, on occasions when she felt some utterance of mine was ‘close to the bone’, to despair “You are so basic”. I could hardly, therefore, mind a couple of such questions from a young lady at this stage of my life. The essential point just now, is that there have been NO proposals that we know of at this stage – marina inclusive or not; the eviction is not to allow a specific development to go ahead, it is simply prematurely pre-emptive protection of the GLA’s position vis-a-vis potential partners. You very possibly did have more tenancy protection when renting a house. Unfortunately we do not know under what terms the family business is operating. The fact that they were urged to sign a new ‘agreement’ last year, involving their moving out after 12 months, suggests that the lease under which they are holding over did offer some protection – but I really don’t know.
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Nov 6, 2016 18:20:58 GMT
Our marina was under threat at one point, the council planned to develop the opposite bank the scruffy boats would have to go said Paul from the council. Guess who owned the land where they wanted to build..............BW as was anyway the crash happened, and the land opposite is still let to a big building company and a plumbing supplier, and the development? that has been forgot about
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 6, 2016 18:26:30 GMT
Galleons Marina has been under considerable pressure for many many years from it's neighbours. Since the encroachment of developments it has been highly restricted on the types of works that can take place on boats in the Marina. (nothing really apart from touching up your paintwork and the like)
I was considering moving there some 15 or more years ago but the restrictions (and the cost of locking) put me off.
(I was leaving Barking at that time which is another area of moorings and boat repair facilities in the East End that have been devastated by development)
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Nov 6, 2016 18:32:32 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 6:49:47 GMT
I went down to Gallions Point marina a couple of weeks ago (by car and foot) for a nose around and to see if they do craneage. The woman at the desk said not for canal boats or barges.
Archimedes and Ara are there but I think their owner may know the marina owner so gets preferential treatment.
Anyway I didn't know the whole area was going to be redeveloped but its certainly quite a knackered area overall - which I liked !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 6:51:56 GMT
Galleons Marina has been under considerable pressure for many many years from it's neighbours. Since the encroachment of developments it has been highly restricted on the types of works that can take place on boats in the Marina. (nothing really apart from touching up your paintwork and the like) I That might explain my experience then ! Very sad if the yard is lost although as they don't deal with canal boats or barges its not much use to e anyway.
|
|