Location

Date & Time

Environment Agency Office - 10 Albert Embankment, London, Room 4

16^th January 2007

Present at Meeting

Company / Organisation

External Attendees

Paul Lemar (PL)

Evelyn Chan (EC)

Beata Libiszewska (BL)

Richard Simmons (RS)

Caroline Dawson (CD)

Internal Attendees

Andrew Graham (AG)

Colin Woodward (CW)

Owen Peat (OP)

Ruth Hanniffy (RH)

Jack Hayes (JH)

Gladedale

Waterman Environmental

Waterman Civils

Waterman Civils

Planning Potential

Environment Agency - Waterways Operations Manager - Lower Thames

Environment Agency - Recreation

Environment Agency - Development Control

Environment Agency - Conservation

Environment Agency - Planning Liaison

Minutes Prepared By

Jack Hayes

Agenda Number

Item

Action

1.0

Introductions

All present introduced themselves and their involvement in the development.

It was agreed that all future correspondence and queries would be sent to CD who will act as the central point of contact for the development.

It was also agreed that all queries to the EA would come through JH from now on as the central point of contact co-ordinating the EA responses.

2.0

Overview of Project & Timings

CD and PL gave an overview of the proposed scheme. The site boundary consists of three areas of land under different ownership. These are the Hampton Court Station building, `Jolly Boatman' pub site and the adjacent car-park.

RH asked whether the site was allocated within the LPA's UDP and /or LDF.

There was a planning development brief compiled in 1999 (the brief states that the station should be redeveloped as well as the surrounding parameters) for the site which continues to stand and is relevant for this development proposal.

The proposals are for a range of uses covering Leisure, Housing, Shops, Restaurants and a Hotel. The proposals include basement car parking which are of interest to the EA and the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The proposals also include a riverside area for recreation purposes, access to the adjacent `Cigarette Island' park and other areas of landscaping adjacent to the river Thames and (more directly) the River Ember which are all matters of interest to the EA through its remit in the planning system.

RS & BL gave further overviews of the scheme including details of the FRA and its progress including details on the `storm block' solution and the proposals to ensure no increase of flood risk and potentially improve flood storage capacity. It was stated that the FRA will take into consideration the new national Planning Policy Statement on development and flood risk (PPS25) including consideration of the Sequential and Exception test concepts.

OP explained the EA position of flooding of underground car parks and stated that they must be completely prevented from flooding due to the fact that they will not drain after a flood event. The underground car park for this development is being sealed to prevent water getting in, and the access road threshold is being raised to above the predicted climate change flood level.

OP also explained the EA position on provision of voids underneath buildings. These areas are allowed to flood, but will not be counted as effective compensation as EA experience shows that they become filled or obstructed over time and the EA cannot control future maintenance as we are not the competent authority for enforcing planning conditions. Although voids underneath buildings have not be proposed at this development, the EA would still be supportive of their inclusion in any future designs, because it would provide some betterment at least in the short term.

The current FRA has proposed to use a storm block structure (consisting of `milk crate' like blocks under parts of the buildings) which will allow the inundation and discharge of water in a flood and these may be acceptable as flood plain compensation if they can be suitably maintained.

OP asked whether Groundwater modelling would be considered in the FRA. The current plan is not to model groundwater as the conditions on the site are known from other research. However, this information will be incorporated into the FRA.

OP stated that the draft FRA could be submitted to the EA for comment.

AG & CW explained their interest and remit with regard to the river usage and recreation duties. CW asked whether a `map' showing people and transport movement would be produced within the application. It was stated that this would be considered. CW explained the relation to his role and the to the various landscape strategies for the area. This also includes the direct treatment of the riverside section of the development which is of interest to his function.

EC explained the current survey work and research and proposals for ecological mitigation and compensation.

RH explained her remit within the planning system and asked about the possibilities of environmental enhancement for biodiverstiy on the site. It was agreed that further discussion can take place after a site meeting and information relating to EA requirements for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can be submitted to the applicants in due course.

PL & DC asked whether the EA would have interest in works on the river frontage (Thames side) such as river wall set back to improve access. All EA functions consider that this is an excellent opportunity for environmental enhancements and future meetings with designers, landscapers and architects etc were requested in order to input into these proposals.

RH asked about the possibility of `softening' the access road (owned by Surrey CC) which runs along the Thames river frontage into the park, but there are currently no plans to alter this route as it is needed for emergency access to the development and for maintenance access to the park.

Gladedale have produced a draft set of proposals and a consultation exercise has been carried out with relevant parties, including local residents.

The development is within the domain of Elmbridge BC but near to the border of the LB of Richmond.

PL stated that Elmbridge BC wanted the site to be an integrated development but the designs and proposals had to be viable for the developer in order to build on the site. PL stated that Elmbridge BC want the development to `relate' to the local area which includes the Rivers, Park, Hampton Court Palace, the Railway and the urban area of East Molesey.

The intention is to submit a Full planning application by the end of February 2007.

3.0

Local Authority Development Allocation Information (i.e. LDF & UDP context)

This aspect was covered during discussions on the outline of the scheme. In summary, it was confirmed by CD & PL that Elmbridge BC have designated this site for re-development and a planning development brief was last compiled in 1999. Further information will be obtained through discussion with the relevant planning officers from the LPA.

4.0

Environment Agency Issues & Involvement

The Environment Agency will be consulted on the application by the LPA during the planning permission process because the EA is primarily a statutory consultee for sites needing an EIA and for sites in areas vulnerable to flood risk (as well as some other factors). The EA teams for Development Control, Conservation, Recreation and Groundwater Contaminated Land will be consulted. There concerns and functions relate to the assessment of flood risk, environmental enhancement for biodiversity, enhancement of the site for recreational activities and the assessment of risk to groundwater and potential remediation of contamination respectively. This is a basic definition for the purposes of these meeting minutes and is subject to change and is also without prejudice to any further information which may be received at planning application submission stage which may raise other issues.

5.0

Pre-Application Response from the Environment Agency

It was agreed that a site visit will be arranged ASAP before any formal pre-application response will be sent from the EA.

All EA Staff

6.0

Date of next meeting

To be arranged ASAP.

The site visit should allow for a better understanding of the environmental constraints associated with the site and the development. This site visit can also be combined with a meeting with the landscapers/designers/architects on the details which will be of interest to the EA.

JH & CD

JH to arrange a site meeting with a possible boat trip around the area in order to view the site from the river.