You are on page 1of 4

Secretary of State for Transport

Great Mister House


33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1 4 DR
30th November 2015

The London City Airport (King George V Dock) Compulsory Purchase Order 2015.
The Airports Act 1986 and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
Number on Map

Description of Land

L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7 , L8,


L9

Approximately 4763 square metres of land, access roads, service yard and
private highway in the vicinity of London City Airport and the London City
Airport Docklands Light Railway Station.

L10, L11, L12a, L12b, L12c,


L12d, L12e, L12f, L12g, L13

Approximately 94537 square metres of land comprising o0f dock and bed
thereof within King George V Dock, including dolphin structures and located to
the east of London City Airport, south of the existing East Pier at London City
Airport and north of private highway (Hartmann Road)

L14, L15, L16, L17

Approximately 12574 square metres of private highway (Hartmann Road) to


the south of King George V Dock.

L18

Approximately 124 square metres of public adopted highway (Hartmann Road)


at its junction with Fishguard Way.

Executed by London City Airport Limited on 15 October 2015.

Dear Sir,
I wish to state my objection to the London City Airport Compulsory Order (CPO) 2015 as stated
above.
The CPO would allow London City Airport (LCA) to implement the planning application CADP1
13/01228/FUL in full, if the Mayor of London Boris Johnson's (MoL) ruling is overturned following the
Public Enquiry APP/G5750/W/15/3035673 due for hearing in March 2016.

Even if the MoL Decision is upheld, the CPO of the land could allow LCY to fulfil and complete
13/01228/FUL partly, or in full, carried out under the permitted development process or other
planning rules.
The CPO could result in the devaluation, or making valueless, surrounding lands owned by GLA Land
and Property Ltd as well as land and home owner assets not included in this application.
The approach of covering over the Docks is in conflict with paragraph 7.84 of the London Plan which
confirms that Londons waterspaces should not be used as an extension of Londons developable
land. The proposed extension of the Airport over the docks would be contrary to the development
plan.
The LCA expansion plan is in breach of the London Plan Policy on the Blue Ribbon Network
The King George V Dock is part of the Blue Ribbon Network (BRN) and the proposed development
over the dock is contrary to Policy 7.28 and 7.84 of the London Plan (and hence the Development
Plan). The London Plan states development proposals should enhance the BRN . Para 7.28 relates to
the restoration of the BRN and development proposals should restore and enhance it by preventing
development and structures into the water space unless it serves a water related purpose.
Policy 7.15 requires development proposals to reduce noise and minimise the existing and potential
adverse impacts of noise, on, from, within, or in the vicinity of development proposals. Separate new
noise sensitive development from major noise sources wherever practical.
The Mayor of London is one of the largest public sector landowners in London and, by default,
Londoners. 34 parcels of this land is in the Royal Docks and surrounding area and any increase in
land value due to a RODMA development strategy will benefit London as a whole. This CPO may
devalue and erode this strategy.
The KGV Dock is part of the Royal Docks, which regional and local planning policy identifies as a Site
of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC).Newham Core Strategy, Policy 4, seeks to protest,
enhance and create habitats for biodiversity across Newham. Expansion of LCA over a large area of
KGV Dock is not in keeping with this policy.
Newham Core Policy S3 allocates the docks as a unique and high quality waterfront urban quarter.
The areas key assets, namely the open water and remaining historic buildings and structures of the
docks, riverside views and access, and Victorian heritage of North Woolwich around the station and
Royal Victoria Gardens, will be re-valued and enhanced, ensuring that they form an integral part of
the areas future in line with Newham Policies SP5 and INF7
The LCA Masterplan (2006) sets out development plans through to 2030, proposing that the airport
will have 8 million passengers per annum (p.a.) by 2030. This equates to approximately 180,000 air

traffic movements p.a. LCA propose this is accommodated by maximising the use of the existing
runway, improving flight occupancy and creating better facilities for passengers. Such an increase
would also necessitate an enlarged Public Safety Zone and may impact adversely on the
development potential of sites around the Royal Docks. Future growth at the airport in line with the
Masterplan will need to be carefully considered to ensure the potential impacts on the Royal Docks
and its future role and function are taken into account.
The proposals also conflict in terms of Heritage impacts. Whilst the preservation of the existing dock
has not merited statutory protection as confirmed by English Heritage, the loss and alteration of part
of the dock will have a local heritage impact that cannot be mitigated against.
English Heritage have advised the proposed development would cause harm to the significance of
the dock arising from the paving over which would obscure appreciation of a significant part of the
impounded water. The current visible scale and extent of the water is a key aspect of its historic
interest relating to the form and function of the dock.
Policy 7.8 of the London Plan 2011 details that development affecting heritage assets should strive to
conserve their significance and, furthermore, states that new development should make provision for
the protection of significant memorials. Part B of Policy 7.30 of the London Plan (Canals and other
Rivers and Waterspaces) seeks to protect the vitality, attractiveness and historical interest.
Policy SP5: Heritage and other Successful Place-making Assets of Newhams Core Strategy, outlines
the value of heritage and other assets which contribute to local character and successful places will
be recognised by protection, conservation, and enhancement of the assets and their settings.
Therefore, proposals that address the need to conserve and enhance designated and non-designated
assets will be supported.
It is my view that the Secretary of State should reject any Compulsory Purchase for the reason I have
listed above.

Yours faithfully

You might also like