From: cad [mailto:cad@dcfw.org] Sent: 06 June 2014 16:42 To: Swansea Tidal Subject: Ref EN010049 Written Representation Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay FAO Katherine Chapman Case Manager Dear Colleague Please find attached copies of our correspondence and Design Review Reports as written representation from the Design Commission for Wales as an interested party relating to successive dialogue and engagement on the project with TLSB plc. All documents are easily ordered by date. Please confirm receipt. Please let us know if you require further information. The Commission would emphasis the commitment and positive engagement with our process from TLSB throughout. Many thanks for your assistance. Best wishes Carole-Anne Davies Prif Weithredwr Chief Executive T +44 (0) 29 2045 1964 M +44 (0) 7779 802784 E cad@dcfw.org dcfw.org Comisiwn Dylunio Cymru Design Commission for Wales 4th Floor, Cambrian Buildings Mount Stuart Square, Cardiff, CF10 5FL

1

23 May 2013 BY EMAIL Alex Herbert, Head of Planning Tidal Lagoon Power Dear Alex DCFW NSIP Project Ref: PINS02/13:Tidal Lagoon, Swansea Bay Thank you for meeting with us at the Design Commission for Wales on Friday 3rd May to introduce the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Proposal. We were pleased to welcome you and Alister Kratt of LDA. As you know this meeting was exploratory and was not intended as a formal Design Review. For ease and consistency, members of the DCFW team attending are nevertheless referred to here as the Panel. The purpose of the meeting was to gather an overview of the project. It falls within the threshold of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) as set out by the Planning Act 2008. It will be determined by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) and we understand that the following processes apply:

The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q3 2013. Following receipt of the application by PINS, there will be 28 days during which PINS will review the application and decide whether or not to accept it. If the application is accepted, PINS will advise the timescales when interested parties can register to make a representation.

If the application is accepted, PINS will:

Publish all the application documents on its project page

Publish the date from which interested parties will be able to register to put their case

on the application

Publish the date on which registration will close.

Further details of the meeting and attendees are set out in Appendices to this letter. Overview:

The Severn Estuary holds the second highest tidal range in the world, with Swansea Bay

benefitting from spring tides of up to 10m. The stated aim of the project is to harness this

tidal resource for energy/power generation. The proposal offers 250MW of installed tidal

power capacity, with 120 year life, capable of 16 hours generation, daily.

http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/

2

An outline of the proposal was provided by Alex Herbert along with the application

and process timescales. The preparation of preliminary investigations and scoping

were carried out in 2012.

The SoCC (Statement of Community Consultation), and the PEIR (Preliminary

Environmental Information Report), is due at the end of June 2013. We are aware

that the SoCC would normally be published at the same time as the EIA scoping,

with the PEIR (in effect the baseline content of the EIA) following say 6 months later.

We wonder whether there is yet sufficient information to produce a comprehensive

PEIR given that it seems consultants are still being assembled.

Formal consultation periods will extend from July 2013 with a view to submission of

the application to PINS in October 2013. (Details of the subsequent PINS process

are briefly outlined above).

Key points:

From the Panel’s experience of NSIPs a period of around 12 months typically is allowed by developers for the consultation necessary to comply with the SoCC and to allow sufficient development of the design, the EIA and associated mitigation proposals. We would question whether Tidal Lagoon Power has allowed sufficient time to develop a robust proposal and thus a robust and acceptable application for a Development Consent Order. It was acknowledged that informal consultation outside of the SoCC process had been undertaken and the Commission was given to understand that the local public had so far responded positively.

DCFW asked for an indication of what were considered to be the most significant environmental impacts based on feedback with the statutory consultees and the public consultation that had taken place. Key issues it seems centred on coastal processes and water quality. Landscape and visual impacts did not seem to be a significant issue to date.

DCFW requested that detailed information of the identified need and business case for the project should be made available. Viability will be a key factor given the scale of waterside and landside works required to realise the wider sporting and leisure aspirations of the proposals as well as its power generating function. This would include an understanding of the sensitivity of the project viability to the renewable electricity price and support mechanism. The Panel were keen to understand how great is the risk that the wider vision, as outlined at the meeting, would not be economic to deliver.

The exploratory meeting did not allow a full discussion and examination of the projects likely environmental effects, especially on coastal processes and thus on marine and terrestrial ecology. At further meetings it would be helpful to have a more detailed presentation on these issues, the views to date of Natural Resources Wales and most importantly, on the opportunities identified for habitat and wider ecological enhancement within the project arising from good practice environmental design.

Priorities for greater consideration were identified including access to a) the city b) the water c) the university d) the SSSI. Whilst these have yet to be defined in detail, the Commission emphasised that the success of these connections and relationships

4

Appendices Appendix 1 Information provided subsequent to the meeting: Subsequent to the meeting, on the 9 May 2013 Alex Herbert kindly provided further information which we have included here: In relation to Welsh Government the project has so far been presented to:

Ron Loveland, Energy Adviser to Welsh Government

Wendy Boddington, Head of Sustainable Energy & Industry Group, Sustainable Futures at Welsh Government

Rhodri Griffiths, Head of Energy and Environment Sector, Dept Economy Science and Transport at Welsh Government

Jayne Stephens, Business Development Manager, Energy & Environment Sector (Renewables) at UK Dept of Health

Alex Herbert also set out their understanding of the development in navigable waters: Act of Parliament for impounding tidal waters: Historically an Act of Parliament, or a Transport and Works Act 1992 Order was required for works which may interfere with navigation. (The former was used for the Cardiff Bay Barrage). Since then items that can be authorised by a Development Consent Order under the Planning Act of 2008 are works that interfere with navigation (see para 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 and s120 PA 2008). Hence, it is no-longer necessary to obtain separate authority. Alex Herbert also provided further information regarding suitability for sailing/watersports: As discussed during the meeting there will be an exclusion zone around the turbine housing of approximately 300m. Maximum water velocities at 300m will be c.2knots and will dissipate very quickly thereafter, so no major issues are anticipated for boating in the lagoon. We have spoken to many sporting federations who have looked closely at our designs. The waters have been seen by sailing and rowing federations as an ideal site (even with the exclusion zone). The winds in this area are westerly and an Olympic sailor has looked at the practicalities and thinks the site has huge potential on the sailing side as a training and competition venue for the smaller classes of boats. Work is ongoing.

5

Appendix 2 DCFW Attendees at the meeting: Wendy Richards (Meeting Chair) Andrew Linfoot, Simon Power, Ben Sibert, Carole-Anne Davies Full declarations of interest were made and recorded: For Ben Sibert and Simon Power of ARUP declarations were made regarding previous involvement with the Severn Barrage and Hafren Power which is not contractual, but may be subject to press comment connecting ARUP to the project. In relation to the Lagoon there has been some involvement on the landside masterplanning. For Andrew Linfoot of Halcrow CH2MHill declarations were made regarding sub-consultancy of LDA Exeter office dealing with a coastal defence project on the south east of England and a previous involvement with the Severn Barrage project and Hafren Power. All present at the meeting recorded their agreement that these did not represent material barriers to engagement and that all were content to proceed on this basis. The Purpose of the meeting: This meeting convened by DCFW as a wholly controlled subsidiary of Welsh Government and their advisor on deign related matters, is exploratory one, where in the first instance the Commission will receive an update and introduction of the scheme at this stage. The Commission is not examining advance material or carrying out a formal Design Review. The purpose of the meeting is to achieve: a) A full update b) An understanding of the status of each project is in the NSIP/PINS process c) An update as to which statutory agencies have so far been consulted and with what outcome d) To identify and prioritise design issues of importance to the Commission. d) To agree future engagement, identifying the material we expect to be available and when.

Design Commission for Wales Attendees:

The Commission’s Chief Executive, Carole-Anne Davies attended along with the following design professionals.

Wendy Richards: Development Director at the Commission, Wendy is qualified in both Urban Design and Landscape Architecture with extensive experience in professional practice across both private and public sectors in Wales, the UK and internationally.

Andrew Linfoot: Andrew Linfoot is a Chartered Landscape Architect and Urban Designer. He is an Associate Director at Halcrow where he leads the Landscape Architecture team. Trained at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and the University of the West of England, Andrew has a broad range of landscape and urban design experience from the assessment of major infrastructure projects through to contract administration. Andrew has worked in the middle-east on large scale master planning projects, and has more recently specialised in the design of the public realm with his work featuring in Streets for All published by the DfT and English Heritage.

6

Simon Power: Simon leads Arup’s Planning West team, comprising c50 creative staff including environmentalists, town planners, economists, landscape architects/urban designers, and sustainability professionals. This team is based in the South West of England, Wales and Northern Ireland but works across the UK as our clients and projects demand. Simon also co-leads Arup’s Consulting business in the West. He leads and supports a range of projects, proposals, business planning and marketing initiatives within his areas of expertise across the UK, acting as Project Director for a wide range of commercially challenging projects. He is passionate about leading multi-disciplinary teams. Simon is part of the management executive for the Arup UK Planning Business and is one of Arup’s most experienced environmentalists and planners. In his 20 year career he has worked on a wide range of studies, infrastructure consents and planning commissions. These include a range of development types including grid connected energy but also transport (particularly highways), water and urban mixed use development. Simon has given evidence at Planning Appeals and various committees, and speaks at conferences and events and has led a number of policy research projects for central government.

Ben Sibert: Ben Sibert is an Associate Director with Arup based in Cardiff. Ben has 17 yrs experience in bridge design and construction with highway and rail projects both nationally and internationally. Ben specialises in bridge design and has particular interest not only in the design of high value, landmark structures, but in how to make more modest structures sit comfortably within their surroundings and make the most of the resources available to deliver balanced, holistic design. Ben's approach to design applies to highway schemes in their own right and to the review of projects in other disciplines. He has a balanced knowledge of the sustainability merits of different structural materials and aims to balance whole life sustainability considerations in structures.

End

1

AGENDA & BRIEFING NOTES DECLARATION OF INTERESTS:

Panel members and observers are reminded that they are required to declare, in advance, any interests they may have in relation to agenda items.

2nd Consultation Meeting: 10.00am on Thursday 11 July 2013

Venue: Design Commission for Wales

4th Floor, Cambrian Buildings, Mount Stuart Square Cardiff, CF10 5FL

Project/s: NSIP, Ref: DCFW/PINS02/13

Tidal Lagoon, Swansea Bay, 2nd DCFW Consultation

Convene at 09.30am the meeting will start promptly at 10.00am

Meeting chair Carole-Anne Davies

Andrew Linfoot, Simon Power, Ben Sibert

Background:

The Severn Estuary holds the second highest tidal range in the world, with Swansea Bay benefitting from spring tides of up to 10m. The stated aim of the project is to harness

this tidal resource for energy/power generation. The proposal offers 250MW of installed tidal power capacity, with 120 year life, capable of 16 hours generation, daily.

http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/

Notes for Attendees of the DCFW Meeting Thursday 11 July 2013 10.00am

This meeting follows an earlier exploratory meeting held on 3rd May at the Design Commission for Wales. Information regarding the project has been promoted online and

in the wider public domain. A copy of the DCFW response to that meeting is included here in Appendices.

Material has been circulated in advance in hard copy.

2

The purpose of the meeting of 11 July is to:

a) Further prioritise and comment upon important design considerations b) Receive an update, at this formal consultation stage

c) A status update regarding the NSIP/PINS process/& other Statutory Agencies

d) To agree the appropriate form and timing of further engagement

APPENDIX 1

Copy of correspondence containing the main points made by DCFW in response to the meeting of 3rd May 2013.

23 May 2013

BY EMAIL

Alex Herbert, Head of Planning, Tidal Lagoon Power

Dear Alex

DCFW NSIP Project Ref: PINS02/13: Tidal Lagoon, Swansea Bay

Thank you for meeting with us at the Design Commission for Wales on Friday 3rd May to

introduce the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Proposal. We were pleased to welcome you and Alister Kratt of LDA.

As you know this meeting was exploratory and was not intended as a formal Design

Review. For ease and consistency, members of the DCFW team attending are nevertheless referred to here as the Panel. The purpose of the meeting was to gather an

overview of the project. It falls within the threshold of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) as set out by the Planning Act 2008. It will be

determined by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) and we understand that the following processes apply:

The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q3 2013.

Following receipt of the application by PINS, there will be 28 days during which

PINS will review the application and decide whether or not to accept it. If the application is accepted, PINS will advise the timescales when interested parties

can register to make a representation.

If the application is accepted, PINS will:

Publish all the application documents on its project page

Publish the date from which interested parties will be able to register to put their

case on the application

Publish the date on which registration will close.

3

Further details of the meeting and attendees are set out in Appendices to this letter.

Overview:

The Severn Estuary holds the second highest tidal range in the world, with Swansea Bay benefitting from spring tides of up to 10m. The stated aim of the project is to harness

this tidal resource for energy/power generation. The proposal offers 250MW of installed

tidal power capacity, with 120 year life, capable of 16 hours generation, daily. http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/

An outline of the proposal was provided by Alex Herbert along with the application

and process timescales. The preparation of preliminary investigations and scoping were carried out in 2012.

The SoCC (Statement of Community Consultation), and the PEIR (Preliminary

Environmental Information Report), is due at the end of June 2013. We are aware that the SoCC would normally be published at the same time as the EIA scoping,

with the PEIR (in effect the baseline content of the EIA) following say 6 months later. We wonder whether there is yet sufficient information to produce a

comprehensive PEIR given that it seems consultants are still being assembled.

Formal consultation periods will extend from July 2013 with a view to submission of the application to PINS in October 2013. (Details of the subsequent PINS

process are briefly outlined above).

Key points:

From the Panel’s experience of NSIPs a period of around 12 months typically is

allowed by developers for the consultation necessary to comply with the SoCC and to allow sufficient development of the design, the EIA and associated mitigation

proposals. We would question whether Tidal Lagoon Power has allowed sufficient time to develop a robust proposal and thus a robust and acceptable application for

a Development Consent Order. It was acknowledged that informal consultation outside of the SoCC process had been undertaken and the Commission was given

to understand that the local public had so far responded positively.

DCFW asked for an indication of what were considered to be the most significant environmental impacts based on feedback with the statutory consultees and the

public consultation that had taken place. Key issues it seems centred on coastal processes and water quality. Landscape and visual impacts did not seem to be a

significant issue to date.

DCFW requested that detailed information of the identified need and business case

for the project should be made available. Viability will be a key factor given the scale of waterside and landside works required to realise the wider sporting and

leisure aspirations of the proposals as well as its power generating function. This would include an understanding of the sensitivity of the project viability to the

renewable electricity price and support mechanism. The Panel were keen to

4

understand how great is the risk that the wider vision, as outlined at the meeting,

would not be economic to deliver.

The exploratory meeting did not allow a full discussion and examination of the projects likely environmental effects, especially on coastal processes and thus on

marine and terrestrial ecology. At further meetings it would be helpful to have a

more detailed presentation on these issues, the views to date of Natural Resources Wales and most importantly, on the opportunities identified for habitat and wider

ecological enhancement within the project arising from good practice environmental design.

Priorities for greater consideration were identified including access to a) the city b)

the water c) the university d) the SSSI. Whilst these have yet to be defined in detail, the Commission emphasised that the success of these connections and

relationships with adjacent landowners would undoubtedly be important to the Local Authorities and vital to the success of the project, given its wider leisure

objectives

It is important that the team moves quickly to define and communicate what exactly would be delivered and how. It is particularly important that the team are

clear what would form the core Development Consent Order based around the

power generating barrage, and what might be considered Associated Development i.e. development that would require separate consent under the Town and Country

Planning Act process.

It would be very helpful to be clearer about the aspects of the ‘masterplan’ for the project that would not be delivered by the Development Consent Order but

facilitated by it. This is so that the Commission is clear about the role and obligations that may form around other parties e.g. Local Authorities. This would

include details of the proposed grid connection to the project and the means of its delivery by the District Network Operator or National Grid.

The team considered the amount and balance of detail required for an

NSIP/Development Consent Order, how far the project should be defined, the nature of value adding activities, and how compensation may be handled.

The Commission requested that for completeness of communication Alex Herbert confirm details of members of the Welsh Government with whom they were

consulting. The Commission also had some additional questions about suitability for water sports. (NB This information was provided via email, subsequent to the

meeting – see Appendix 1).

The Design Commission for Wales considers it important to remain involved in advance of the submission to PINS, of this very significant piece of Welsh Infrastructure. We

would suggest that this should be in the form of two further meetings which will form more detailed reviews. The exact timing for these are yet to be confirmed however they

will be most effective a) in advance of the Planning Act Section 42 Consultation on PEI and b) in advance of the submission of the consent to PINS. It is at these stages we are

5

able to add value and make the most useful contribution to the project’s design

development in advance of formal consultation.

The Commission very much welcomed this early consultation and we look forward to meeting the team again in due course and as the project progresses through the PINS

process.

Yours sincerely,

Carole-Anne Davies Chief Executive

E: cad@dcfw.org

W: dcfw.org

Cc: PINS; Natural Resources Wales; Welsh Government Planning Division

Information provided subsequent to the meeting of 3rd May 2013:

Subsequent to the meeting, on the 9 May 2013, Alex Herbert kindly provided further information which we have included here:

In relation to Welsh Government the project has so far been presented to:

Ron Loveland, Energy Adviser to Welsh Government

Wendy Boddington, Head of Sustainable Energy & Industry Group, Sustainable Futures at Welsh Government

Rhodri Griffiths, Head of Energy and Environment Sector, Dept Economy Science and Transport at Welsh Government

Jayne Stephens, Business Development Manager, Energy & Environment Sector (Renewables) at UK Dept of Health

Alex Herbert also set out their understanding of the development in navigable

waters:

Act of Parliament for impounding tidal waters:

Historically an Act of Parliament, or a Transport and Works Act 1992 Order was required

for works which may interfere with navigation. (The former was used for the Cardiff Bay Barrage). Since then items that can be authorised by a Development Consent Order

under the Planning Act of 2008 are works that interfere with navigation (see Para 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 and s120 PA 2008). Hence, it is no-longer necessary to obtain

separate authority.

6

Alex Herbert also provided further information regarding suitability for sailing/watersports:

As discussed during the meeting there will be an exclusion zone around the turbine

housing of approximately 300m. Maximum water velocities at 300m will be c.2knots and

will dissipate very quickly thereafter, so no major issues are anticipated for boating in the lagoon. We have spoken to many sporting federations who have looked closely at

our designs. The waters have been seen by sailing and rowing federations as an ideal site (even with the exclusion zone). The winds in this area are westerly and an Olympic

sailor has looked at the practicalities and thinks the site has huge potential on the sailing side as a training and competition venue for the smaller classes of boats. Work is

ongoing.

DCFW Attendees at the meeting of 3rd May 2013 were:

Carole-Anne Davies, DCFW Chief Executive Wendy Richards, DCFW Development Director (Meeting Chair)

Specialists: Andrew Linfoot, Simon Power, Ben Sibert

Full declarations of interest were made and recorded.

4th Floor, Cambrian Buildings,

Mount Stuart Square, Cardiff, CF10 5FL

T: +44 (0) 29 2045 1964 W: dcfw.org

2

Overview:

The Severn Estuary holds the second highest tidal range in the world, with Swansea Bay benefitting from spring tides of up to 10m.

The stated aim of the project is to harness this tidal resource for energy/power generation. The proposal offers 250MW of installed

tidal power capacity, with 120 year life, capable of 16 hours generation, daily. http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/

Correspondence of 23 May 2013 provides further background to the

NSIP/PINS process through which this project is proceeding.

Key points: The Commission was updated regarding the proposal and the Single

Stage Consultation Process selected. The formal public consultation period runs from 4 July – 5 August 2013, with a view to submission of the

application to PINS in October 2013. We were informed that c130,000 mailings had been issued to consultees in addition to public events,

statutory consultation and early discussion with the relevant Local

Authorities, principally the City & County of Swansea and its neighbouring authorities.

The Commission was also provided with the SoCC (Statement of

Community Consultation) Newsletter and the PEIR (Preliminary Environmental Information Report, DVD format), which includes baseline

and other data, to inform environmental assessment. The Commission acknowledged the considerable efforts the team were making to consult

widely on the project.

The principle of the scheme: The Commission promotes resource and energy efficiency and is

broadly supportive of renewable energy, as part of its commitment to promoting good design for sustainable development. The

Commission therefore revisited its earlier questions regarding the identified need and business case for the project and suggested this

could be more clearly communicated.

The team responded that their case centres on the urgent need to

increase energy efficiency and renewable energy generating capacity as part of the energy mix required to meet demand and

achieve significant carbon reduction targets. In their view lagoons offer an alternative to offshore wind if broad cost parity can be

achieved, with tidal energy growing as an efficient means of generation whilst offering the potential to reduce negative visual

and other environmental impacts.

3

The overall megawatt output achievable with this proposal

outweighs the cost of offshore turbine installation and reduces the potentially adverse visual impact.

The Commission suggestion that the positive aspects of

enhancement, facilities and the amenity value to the city, along with compelling figures could be highlighted and communicated with

greater clarity in project material.

This is a unique opportunity to use an NSIP as a catalyst to facilitate urban regeneration.

General Comments:

The Commission reinforced the need for the team to consider the amount and balance of detail required for an NSIP/Development

Consent Order, how far the project should be defined, the nature of

value adding activities, and how compensation may be handled.

Adopting a single stage consultation on a preferred option for the lagoon is noted. A project of this scale might well benefit from a two

stage consultation i.e. (1) issues and options, then 2) preferred option/design. Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay (TLSB) should therefore

consider whether the current approach allows sufficient testing of reasonable alternatives and whether enough meaningful options

were presented for public and stakeholder consultation.

It was also noted that an end of 2013 submission date remains challenging in terms of allowing sufficient time to respond to any

design changes/issues arising from the current single stage consultation.

The opportunities identified for habitat and wider ecological enhancement and betterment within the project, arising from good

practice environmental design, need to be captured and clearly expressed. The landside potential and public realm proposals might

also be more clearly articulated and the extent defined.

It follows that the content of the application should clearly reflect the above. It should identify and include details of vital delivery

elements which add value to the project, above and beyond its power generating capacity.

The positive impact of the lagoon as a catalyst for tourism and

leisure facilities, marine park, coastal walk, visitor centre and overall enhancement of the waterfront is crucial and will need to be

secured in the Development Consent Order (DCO), mindful all the

while of the Local Authority’s ambition, aspiration and parallel

4

decision making processes under the Town & Country Planning Act,

outwith the PINS DCO.

Discussion and meaningful negotiation with Associated British Ports (ABP) is needed to ensure key elements of the project are in place

and to address matters of access and completeness of public realm and public access. These are particularly important around SA1, the

Queens Dock and the Prince of Wales Dock.

Highway alignment, adoption and other matters as well as the establishing of the principle of pedestrian and cycle routes/access

will need to be secured in the DCO in order to provide security of access needs as well as additional benefits in terms of the quality of

the space and the experience of the lagoon. Could be combined with essential maintenance and construction access.

Summary: The following points require detailed consideration at this stage and in

advance of the next meeting with the Commission in the form of a more traditional Design Review Process, scheduled for the 12th August 2013.

Greater clarify on essential mitigation and other enhancement

proposals Form/nature of the proposed beach areas within the lagoon and any

proposed ecological function Consideration of offsite habitat enhancement and mitigation e.g of

the Crymlyn Burrows, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) especially in the light of any geomorphological/coastal process

changes to sand supply and thus ecological carrying capacity Decommissioning proposals (as required by the EIA

regulations/Directive)

The Commission very much welcomed this second consultation and we

look forward to meeting the team again in due course and as the project progresses through the PINS process.

1

Design Review Report DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

Panel members, observers and other relevant parties are required to declare in advance any interests they may have in relation to the Design Review Agenda items. Any such declarations

are recorded here and in DCfW’s central records. Review status PUBLIC

Meeting date Monday 12 August 2013

Issue date 3 September 2013 Scheme location Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon Scheme

description Tidal Power Generation Scheme reference number PINS02/13 - 17 Planning status Pre-application PINS NSIP Process

Declaration of interests

The Commission was informed of the involvment of Knights Architects, working for the client/scheme promoter on bridge design. Martin Knight is a member of DCFW’s Design Review

Panel and has had no involment in the assessment of this scheme. Andrew Linfoot has previously recorded his interest in an earlier review of this project.

Consultations to date

The project has been subject to wide public consultation of both formal and informal nature. Project consultation documentation has been mailed to almost 200,000 addresses and this has

been supplemented with public meetings and events. Consultation has included informal consultation on issues and options during the period

Autumn 2011 to June 2013; statutory consultees and the wider public were included in the process.

Formal consultation on the preferred option and Preliminary Environmental Information Report took place during the period 4 July to 5 August 2013 in accordance with advice in para 52 of

Guidance on the PINS NSIP pre-application Process, DCLG, January 2013. Consideration is now being given to follow-up consultation on Environmental Impact Assessment findings planned

for early October 2013. Formal submission is planned by 6 December 2013 allowing for two further consultation

events. A meeting with PINS/NRW to discuss this is scheduled for 14 August (TBC). The formal submission in December will be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

2

Correspondence of 23 May 2013 and 21 July 2013 provides further background to the NSIP/PINS process through which this project is proceeding, and to two prior consultations with the Design Commission for Wales, focussing on the energy generation and coastal

aspects.

This Design Review of 12 August 2013 looked more closely at the landside ambitions, land ownership and associated design issues. The Commission welcomed this third meeting at formal Design Review and expects to receive further presentations at Review later in the

Autumn, prior to submission.

Representatives of the local authorities of the City & County of Swansea and of Neath Port Talbot CBC were welcomed to the Review meeting.

The Proposals

The Severn Estuary holds the second highest tidal range in the world, with Swansea Bay

benefitting from spring tides of up to 10m. The stated aim of the project is to harness this

tidal resource for energy/power generation and capture regeneration and tourism benefits. The

proposal offers a nominal rated capacity of 240MW with 120 year life, capable of 14 hours

generation, daily. http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/

Summary of the presentation and discussion: This is the third meeting with DCFW and the first formal Design Review meeting. The

Commission is broadly supportive of what is an ambitious scheme in terms of energy generation, regeneration and tourism with the potential for large scale water sport events, as

well as the provision of traditional Oyster and Lobster beds within the lagoon. The Panel recieved a further presentation covering the principles of the project and its wider

aims for water/coastal activity beyond the primary power generation purposes. These include watersports, boating, visitor facilities for interpretation and turbine viewing and public access,

and links with the University Science Campus. The City & County of Swansea Officer Stephen Smith informed the Panel that a number of

specialists were considering the project and would report to Council at the end of August contributing to the decision making process.

A key issue is the western link, the success of which is critical to the success of the wider regeneration objectives of the project. While other routes require further detailed

consideration in order to ensure 24hr vehicle access, navigation rights into the Prince of Wales dock needed to be protected.

Neath Port Talbot CBC stated their broad support for the principles of the project and its

regeneration ambitions, subject to further detail on what exactly is to be delivered. The Panel noted that the Preferred Strategy stage of the Local Development Plan will be published in August of 2013, and that the Local Impact Report, required by the NSIP process requires the

early engagement of the project team with the affected Planning Authorities.

The following items were highlighted in detail:

Matters of land ownership and interests require swift resolution given their critical impact

on access and movement.

Agreement with all parties on access points is critical along with the need to fix key elements in order to clarify items for the EIA and to assess mitigation.

3

The Panel recognised the stage the project has reached and that this is a critical point in

its progress, but with several important unknowns and uncertainties yet to be addressed

in a short timescale.

The Panel highlighted the need to make tangible progress on the land side design issues which are critical to the succes of the wider ambitions of the project.

The Panel would expect greater detail on the following aspects, at the next meeting:

Quality of public spaces arising from further design work and understanding of constraints;

Relationship of public realm to planned buildings and movement strategy;

Details of the western link, assuming agreement is achieved; The nature of landscape treatment, walkways/boardwalks and the nature

and quality of the experience at high and low tide; Detailed information on access to the eastern landfall building; Connections with the University Campus public realm and balance of

student use ; Details of design procurement;

Sections of lagoon enclosure and landward beach and park; A clear understanding of what will be contained within the DCO and what

will be excluded for later consideration.

Panel Discussion in full:

Discussion concerned the key role of adjacent land interests, particularly where access is required for operational and visitor use. The proposed University Energy and Innovation Centre

abuts the proposed new dune landscape and the University may take responsibility for the planned Burrows Interpretation Centre. But it was not clear what the relationship might be

between the public realm, to be delivered by the University, and the planned access to the centre, the sea wall and fishing beds, to be provided by the Tidal Lagoon project. It was suggested detailed discussion would be helpful to both parties, particularly as the University

occupation date and the construction programme for the Tidal Lagoon were likely to overlap.

Future plans for the Swansea Dock estate, lying north of the lagoon, need to be co-ordinated with the operational requirements for the lagoon. Connections and access are particularly

important. The preferred link at the west side of the docks to the city centre involves land belonging to ABP. ABP believe that vehicle and pedestrian access across a new bridge to the west would limit use of the quayside and constrain access to the docks. The planned provision

of a visitor reception centre, boat centre and associated parking and service areas, are also partly shown, on the current masterplan, within the retained ABP estate. Alternative access

along the south side of the dock estate via the seawall also lies within ABP ownership. The Panel noted that vehicle access is required for transporting visitors by ‘eco’ bus to the

visitor centre located by the turbine building, for operational requirements along the lagoon wall and for the fishing beds located at the eastern side of the lagoon. All of these movements

will need to be considered as part of the public realm strategy. A construction compound will be required for works and transport on site during the build

period of 30 months starting in Spring 2015. Discussion is ongoing with ABP, on a number of possible sites, together with the consideration of visitor and event parking requirements which

may be accommodated in the same area, on completion. Location of this is uncertain. The Panel considered that relationships with ABP are crucial and that agreement on permanent and temporary land take within, or outside, ABP dock estate need to be resolved.

4

Highway junction capacity, vehicle and pedestrian movement through the site, and event management, require more detailed consideration. The Panel notes that early agreement with all parties, including the relevant Highway Authorities, needs to be reached with some urgency.

The travel impact needs to consider large number of potential visitors. A proposed extreme sailing series could attract 10ks of visitors, requiring remote off site park and ride facilities.

Smaller events may be accommodated on site or using existing Fabian Way park and ride which has land available for possible expansion.

The proposed boating centre is now associated with the western landfall building while the main visitor centre is now located at the turbine hall. The boating centre, to be designed as a

gateway building, may become a wider recreational centre for visitors as well as for formal boating use.

The landward urban park: Connections are not yet finalised however this area is intended to include a visitor reception

building, new beaches, promenade and seafront along with slipways from the boating centre. A flood defence/seawall is currently required to protect from extreme waves on the west side. The team preferred to see its removal arguing that the lagoon structure effectively diminished

wave action. This may be subject of further consideration.

Boardwalks and seaward park: Electric buses are envisaged to take visitors to the visitor centre in addition to walkways and cycle access along the broader seawall. Areas of interest will be achieved through landscape

design to break up the wall and include the provision of boardwalks.

Questions were raised around the internal lagoon tidal range and how the parks respond to this range. It will be important to understand how the experience differs at different times. The Panel requested further information on the lagoon enclosure and landward park in the form of

sections to illustrate both the relationship of access and levels and the effect of tidal levels in these areas.

Narrow seaward park: This is the least hospitable area and most exposed with the furthest point off shore providing

opportunity for fishing in deep waters from the walkway.

Landward ecological park. The location of the ‘landing’ of the sea wall avoids the boundary of the SSSI at the east side.

Habitat creation opportunities include new area of dunes in front of the campus, area of new saltmarsh and grassland (foreshore of former dockland). The area could be designed as a recreational area for students. Mariculture elements are proposed within the lagoon.

Design Approach:

The scope of LDA’s work is currently masterplanning and dealing with public realm design, as well as coordinating the design procurement of the scheme. The Panel were informed that architects were in place, with detailed briefs having been issued,

for each lagoon building, up to Stage D RIBA. These teams are procured via LDA on behalf of the client.

The proposed designs aim to link maritime heritage and high tech materials, aiming for lightweight striking character that creates a landmark at the western landfall with the offshore

buildings (ie turbine building and visitor centre) designed to be more robust.

The Panel acknowledged that operational priorities were a principle concern to the team but wanted to understand more about detailed procurement and the protection of design quality beyond the DCO application and its scope.

5

The Panel also advised that a public art strategy should be developed now to ensure integrated teams and to inform a structured programme with schools in due course.

Ecological design is not part of LDA’s scope but they are working closely with all other design parties and with Atkins’ marine engineers who are also part of this collaborative process.

The Panel welcomed this presentation and urged that dates be agreed with the Commission for future consultation before PINS submission and in relation to post-DCO work around detailed

design and delivery.

End DCFW is a non-statutory consultee, a private limited company and a wholly controlled

subsidiary of the Welsh Government.

The comment recorded in this report, arising from formal Design Review through our Design Review Service, is provided in the public interest for the consideration of local planning authorities as a material consideration, and other users of the Design

Review Service. It is not and should not be considered ‘advice’ and no third party is bound or required to act upon it.

The Design Review Service is delivered in line with DCFW’s published protocols, code of conduct and complaints procedure, which should be read and considered by users

of the service.

A Welsh language copy of this report is available upon request.

Appendix 1 Attendees

Client/Developer Alex Herbert, Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon power

Charles Coombs , LDA Design

Design Review Panel Chair

Lead Panellist

Observing

Alan Francis Roger Ayton

Andrew Linfoot Angela Williams

Carole-Anne Davies, DCFW

Recording Sue Jones, DCFW Local Authority Observers Stephen Smith, City & County of Swansea

Nicola Lake, Neath Port Talbot CBC

Design Review

Report Swansea Tidal Lagoon

22nd November 2013

2 | P a g e

Declarations of Interest

Panel members, observers and other relevant parties are required to declare in advance

any interests they may have in relation to the Design Review Agenda items. Any such

declarations are recorded here and in DCFW’s central records.

Review Status CONFIDENTIAL

Meeting date Wednesday 6th November 2013

Issue date 22nd November 2013

Scheme location Swansea Bay

Scheme description Energy generating tidal lagoon

Scheme reference number 17 (PINS02/13)

Planning status Pre-DCO application

Declarations of Interest

Andrew Linfoot is currently employing LDA as sub-consultants to Ch2MHill on a project

on the south coast of England.

Carole-Anne Davies’ husband was asked to tender for public art work on this scheme,

but is not currently involved.

Consultations to Date

The project has been subject to wide public consultation of both formal and informal

nature. Project consultation documentation has been mailed to almost 200,000

addresses and this has been supplemented with public meetings and events.

Informal consultation included issues and options during the period autumn 2011 to

summer 2013. Statutory consultees and the wider public were included in the process.

In October 2012, Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd (TLSB) submitted a Scoping Report to

the Planning Inspectorate, which was also distributed to key stakeholders and local

authorities. In November 2012, a formal scoping opinion was issued which established

the scope for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Formal consultation on the preferred option and Preliminary Environmental Information

Report took place during the period 4th July to 5th August 2013 in accordance with advice

in paragraph 52 of Guidance on the PINS NSIP pre-application process, DCLG, January

2013.

TLSB held an event on 17th October 2013 at which findings of the EIA were presented to

statutory consultees, non-statutory consultees and the wider public. The presentation

included potential impacts and proposed mitigation strategies, and highlighted the

benefits of the project.

3 | P a g e

Formal application for Development Consent Order (DCO) to authorise the construction

and operation of the Tidal Lagoon and associated works is planned for late January 2014,

allowing for two further consultation events. The formal submission in January will be

accompanied by an Environmental Statement, which will present the full findings of the

EIA including measures to reduce effects or provide benefits.

Correspondence with Design Commission for Wales (DCFW) of 23rd May 2013, 21st July

2013 and 3rd September 2013 provides further background to the NSIP/PINS process

through which this project is proceeding, and to three prior consultations with DCFW,

focussing on the energy generation, coastal aspects and the landside ambitions, land

ownership and associated design issues.

Key issues arising from earlier presentations to DCFW

The following summary gives the key points identified during the presentation on 12th

August 2013:

Matters of land ownership and interests require swift resolution given their critical

impact on access and movement.

Agreement with all parties on access points is critical along with the need to fix

key elements in order to clarify items for the EIA and to assess mitigation.

The Panel recognised the stage the project has reached and that this is a critical

point in its progress, but with several important unknowns and uncertainties yet

to be addressed in a short timescale.

The Panel highlighted the need to make tangible progress on the land side design

issues which are critical to the succes of the wider ambitions of the project.

The Panel would expect greater detail on the following aspects, at the next

meeting:

Quality of public spaces arising from further design work and understanding

of constraints;

Relationship of public realm to planned buildings and movement strategy;

Details of the western link, assuming agreement is achieved;

The nature of landscape treatment, walkways/boardwalks and the nature

and quality of the experience at high and low tide;

Detailed information on access to the eastern landfall building;

Connections with the University Campus public realm and balance of student

use ;

Details of design procurement;

Sections of lagoon enclosure and landward beach and park;

A clear understanding of what will be contained within the DCO and what

will be excluded for later consideration.

4 | P a g e

The Proposals

The Severn Estuary holds the second highest tidal range in the world, with Swansea Bay

benefitting from spring tides of up to 10m. The stated aim of the project is to harness

this tidal resource for energy/power generation and capture regeneration and tourism

benefits. The proposal offers a nominal rated capacity of 240MW with 120 year life,

capable of 14 hours generation, daily. http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/

Summary

There were several key points specifically identified by the Panel:

The Panel is supportive of the tidal lagoon proposal in principle

The Panel was disappointed to hear that the western link through the port would

not be possible, but was pleased to see the team’s commitment to the ferry link

which will provide an important link to the city centre.

The sense of arrival will be very important, and the opportunities to provide a

good visitor experience should be explored and addressed in detail. This includes

the route from the McDonalds roundabout and arrival by ferry.

A good travel plan will be crucial. The Panel would have liked to have seen more

details about transport interchange and coordination, particularly at the western

landfall.

The Panel was encouraged to hear proposals for the cycle link from Baldwin’s

Bridge, which would provide a good connection to the University Campus.

The team provided a convincing explanation for the location of the western

landfall building. However, the Panel thought the surroundings required more

design work to integrate and link the arrival points, lagoon wall paths and the

building. The public realm surrounding the building needs better explanation.

The Panel was encouraged by progress on the offshore building design. The brief

for this building, which combines elements of the turbine operation and

maintenance, is exciting. The Panel appreciated that the design was only at RIBA

Stage 2 (formerly Stage C) and that further work on the proposal was needed. A

more detailed plan of the area surrounding the building and the turbine platform

is required to demonstrate the relationship between the building, landscape and

turbine equipment. The Commission will reserve further comment on the lagoon

buildings themselves until designs have progressed.

The Panel is interested in the processes involved in producing the Environmental

Statement, but does not intend to comment on the contents of the document

The team’s ongoing commitment to public art will be important.

5 | P a g e

A holistic design approach and solution to the site, which incorporates

engineering and public realm, will be important in creating a desirable

destination.

Discussions and Panel Response in Full

A presentation by the team was followed by discussion of the key design issues.

Presentation

Alex Herbert of Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd. (TLSB) gave an introduction and update

on recent progress. The programme has changed since the previous Design Review,

with the intended submission of the DCO application postponed until late January 2014

to allow all chapters of the draft ES to be reviewed by the various stakeholders and

authorities prior to submission. He confirmed that everything presented in this review

will form part of the DCO application.

Alister Kratt, LDA, explained progress on land ownership, access and transport matters.

Despite positive discussions with ABP, the team had not been able to secure land access

to the west, through the port. Instead, a ferry/water taxi is proposed, which would

provide the important link with the city centre. Travel Plan Frameworks form the basis

of ongoing development, and strategies are being developed alongside consultation with

Highways Department. The roads within the SA1 development are not yet adopted, but

are intended to be, and it may be possible for the lagoon access road to link to SA1 in

the future.

There is an aspiration to improve pedestrian and cycle access to the coast, and there

may be opportunities to improve the route of the Wales Coastal Path. The team are also

looking at the possibility of integration with the Coed Darcy travel plan.

Main vehicle access is proposed from the park-and-ride (McDonalds) junction on Fabian

Way, avoiding the Baldwin Bridge which would compound existing problems with heavy

traffic to the port. This 23m wide route will have separated vehicle, cycle/pedestrian and

port traffic lanes with a central swale to collect and filter rainwater before draining it into

the port. A cycle route from Baldwin Bridge is proposed to provide an important link to

the University campus. The car parking strategy has been scaled to the profile of events

intended. A gate system has been devised to control access to various parts of the

scheme at night and/or during bad weather.

A visual impact exercise has been carried out which considers long-range views from 2-

3Km away. This study has informed the scale of proposed buildings, the lighting design

(by Michael Grubb) and minimising of the sea wall height.

Alister explained progress on the masterplan. The scheme is considered as a marine

park with different character areas, and the design team are now focusing on key areas

and aspects of public realm. The various parts of the scheme have been considered at

high and low tide conditions.

Paul Newman, architect for the off-shore building, gave a presentation of the concepts

and design of the building so far. Designs have reached RIBA Stage 2 (formerly Stage

C), and therefore still require further work. The building, inspired by an oyster shell, is

designed to respond to and provide shelter from the harsh, exposed environment. It

6 | P a g e

aims to be self-sustaining, not requiring connection to the grid and employs passive

environmental design strategies. Concrete is proposed for the building shell which will

use local blast-furnace slag to improve its environmental credentials. The form will allow

concrete casting moulds to be re-used. Two levels of the building will be sunk into the

platform. The lighting design is informed by the natural rhythms of the moon and tides.

Alister Kratt described the design for the landscape around the building, which is tiered

to provide access to the water, and includes artificial rock pool habitats.

Alister also explained progress on the western landfall building which forms a ‘gateway’

visitor centre. This building, designed by Faulkner Brown, must accommodate a wide

variety of activities requiring differently scaled spaces. Therefore, it is conceived as a

simple, well-tailored extruded building which can be divided up along its length. Passive

environmental design will be incorporated where possible.

At the eastern landfall, a SSSI visitor information point is now proposed rather than a

building.

A section through the western wall was shown to demonstrate the scale of routes for

vehicles and pedestrians. The western wall will be punctuated with ‘pearls’ of interest

along the route, including art installations. The lighting strategy is still being developed.

Discussions

The Panel expressed its particular disappointment at the loss of the western access

through the Dock. This physical link to the city centre would have been ideal, and would

form an important part of the previously stated aspirations to support wider

regeneration.

The Panel wondered whether the loss of this link therefore undermined the original

principles of the Tidal Lagoon, and whether the western landfall building and facilities

were now in the right place given the change in access arrangements.

The Panel commended the commitment to provision of the ferry service which would

accommodate pedestrians and cycles, however there are reservations about its viability

and no details of the western jetty or access to it were provided.

The team explained that the western link did not play a significant role in locating the

western landfall activities or the lagoon itself. The western landfall building is located for

operation of boating facilities where there would be permanent water which would not

work elsewhere in the lagoon.

Although pedestrian access from the city is now compromised due to the extended

length of the route, there will be bus and ferry connection to the city, and it was always

expected that a large number of visitors would arrive by car. Also, the University may

expand in the direction of the city in the future, making the proposed route less isolated.

The Panel asked whether the approach to the buildings and treatment of the landscape

had changed to make it more of a destination following the loss of the western land link.

The team explained that their approach had changed slightly.

The treatment and proposed nature of the land at the eastern landfall was now to be

more natural and intended to be less busy with an information/interpretation shelter

rather than a building. They still have an aspiration to link to the city, but now it is even

more important that the travel options are promoted, especially sustainable travel. They

are also looking at linking with the University’s green travel plan. The team confirmed

that all of the cycle ways will be included in the DCO application.

7 | P a g e

The Panel asked for further explanation of the route between Fabian Way and the

western landfall, which was described as a 23m wide corridor. The team explained that

the strip of land was confirmed with ABP, but there were still ongoing negotiations. They

are also exploring improvement of ABP’s roads. The Panel advised looking at this

important link in more detail, considering the visitor arrival experience as a whole from

the point at which they leave Fabian Way right the way through to the western landfall

buildings. This route is even more crucial now the western land link has been lost.

The team were asked how the EIA had informed the designs and what enhancement and

mitigation techniques were being employed. They explained that the information

presented for this review is in draft form, so mitigation measures had not been fully

resolved, but everything presented is intended. With regards to coastal processes,

which are the most complex issue, TLSB will be responsible for any extra dredging of the

port that might be required above that which is already carried out by ABP.

The University will have joint responsibility for the dunes area in front of the campus,

and a commitment with Local Authorities and Natural Resources Wales is being

developed. All chapters of the draft ES will be available online for review by 11th

November 2013.

Some of the materials made available for the review demonstrated a difference of

opinion between that of the team and the Local Authorities and other organisations. The

Panel asked how the team were responding to such situations. The team explained that

statements will be made in response to all the points raised in the consultations. They

will be providing further information on the development as it progresses, but they are

confident with their research and modelling to date.

The Panel asked for further explanation of how the off-shore building relates to the

landscape and the operational equipment and engineering structures surrounding it.

They thought that this element of the design needed more work, and that a detailed plan

of both the building and the turbine platform was needed to explore and explain these

relationships in more detail.

The team explained that the building would house selected items of operational

equipment as well as welfare facilities for staff. However, most of the engineering items

will be outside the building. The only items which will be visible above the platform will

be the sluice gates and a crane (possibly two cranes) which will run on rails above the

turbines. The turbines themselves will be submerged, but may be marked by numbers

or some form of artwork. The Panel was concerned that, if not carefully planned, the

area around the building could be cluttered by the various equipment, access points and

the proposed PV Panels. The Panel thought it would be a shame if the vision for the

building was compromised by lack of attention to detail in this respect. The team

explained that the use of concrete would help tie the building, equipment and landscape

together. The building is designed to be robust but elegant, and the landscape will help

to break down the edges of the heavy engineering. The decision to sink two levels of the

building was made to give the building an appropriate scale so that it would act as a

visual marker and not take up too much of the walkway/platform. The Panel suggested

that, given the challenging environment, wind pressures around the building should be

modelled.

The Panel would welcome an opportunity to review this building in more detail at a later

date.

8 | P a g e

The Panel thought that the arrival experience at the western landfall needed more work

to create a successful and welcoming destination. Legibility, position and orientation of

spaces and the buildings, the network of paths and transport interchange all need to be

better integrated in the design. In particular, the arrival sequences from the ferry and

the link road would benefit from detailed exploration. It is approximately 75m from the

ferry docking point to the western landfall building, so the link between them needs to

be well planned. A way-finding strategy should also be considered. Detailed plans and

3D view drawings would help the team to explore and present this aspect of the scheme.

The team explained that the western landfall building would be visible from the approach

road and the ferry terminal, and that it would contain visitor arrival-orientation space.

The Panel also expressed concern about the vertical walls to the boat pontoons which

would create a large vertical drop at low tide. Treatment of these walls will be important

as they contribute to views towards the arrival building.

Although the Commission is interested to ensure the processes involved in preparing the

Environmental Statement have been properly adhered to, it does not intend to comment

on the document itself.

The Panel asked about the content of the DCO submission, what TLSB were committed

to building and the timescales involved. TLSB said they were committed to building

everything presented and included in the DCO application, and that the approval cannot

be varied once awarded. They confirmed that they had funds to pay for design of the

buildings and part of the construction of them, and that they expected to get match-

funding for the remainder of construction costs. There is no fixed date for completion of

construction, but the following provisional timescales were given:

January 2014: Submission of DCO application

March 2015: Estimated decision date, construction starts on site immediately

2015-2017: Two year build programme for wall and energy generation

End 2017: Power generation

End 2018: Construction complete

The Panel suggested that any public art strategy should consider the experience of

travelling across the wall, and should not forget the longer term life of the lagoon

structure. It would be important to see a strategy for art over the long term including,

for example, a photographic record project.

DCFW is a non-statutory consultee, a private limited company and wholly

owned subsidiary of the Welsh Government. The comment recorded in this

report, arising from formal Design Review through our Design Review Service,

is provided in the public interest for the consideration of local planning

authorities as a material consideration, and other users of the Design Review

Service. It is not and should not be considered ‘advice’ and no third party is

bound or required to act upon it. The Design Review Service is delivered in line

with DCFW’s published protocols, code of conduct and complaints procedure,

which should be read and considered by users of the service.

A Welsh language copy of this report is available upon request.

9 | P a g e

Attendees

Agent/Client/Developer: Alex Herbert, Tidal Lagoon Power

Huw Gilmore, Tidal Lagoon Power

Architectural/Urban Designer: Alister Kratt, LDA Design

Paul Newman, Juice Architects

Planning Authority:

Design Review Panel:

Chair Alan Francis

Lead Panellist Andrew Linfoot

Ben Sibert

Amanda Spence, Design Advisor, DCFW

Observing: Carole-Anne Davies, DCFW

Design Review

Report Swansea Tidal Lagoon

6th November 2013

2 | P a g e

Declarations of Interest

Panel members, observers and other relevant parties are required to declare in advance

any interests they may have in relation to the Design Review Agenda items. Any such

declarations are recorded here and in DCFW’s central records.

Review Status CONFIDENTIAL

Meeting date Wednesday 6th November 2013

Issue date 1st Version: 22nd November 2013

2nd Version: 11th December 2013

Scheme location Swansea Bay

Scheme description Energy generating tidal lagoon

Scheme reference number 17 (PINS02/13)

Planning status Pre-DCO application

Declarations of Interest

Andrew Linfoot is currently employing LDA as sub-consultants to Ch2MHill on a project

on the south coast of England.

Carole-Anne Davies’ husband was asked to tender for public art work on this scheme,

but is not currently involved.

Consultations to Date

The project has been subject to wide public consultation of both formal and informal

nature. Project consultation documentation has been mailed to almost 200,000

addresses and this has been supplemented with public meetings and events.

Informal consultation included issues and options during the period autumn 2011 to

summer 2013. Statutory consultees and the wider public were included in the process.

In October 2012, Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd (TLSB) submitted a Scoping Report to

the Planning Inspectorate, which was also distributed to key stakeholders and local

authorities. In November 2012, a formal scoping opinion was issued which established

the scope for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Formal consultation on the preferred option and Preliminary Environmental Information

Report took place during the period 4th July to 5th August 2013 in accordance with advice

in paragraph 52 of Guidance on the PINS NSIP pre-application process, DCLG, January

2013.

TLSB held an event on 17th October 2013 at which findings of the EIA were presented to

statutory consultees, non-statutory consultees and the wider public. The presentation

included potential impacts and proposed mitigation strategies, and highlighted the

benefits of the project.

3 | P a g e

Formal application for Development Consent Order (DCO) to authorise the construction

and operation of the Tidal Lagoon and associated works is planned for late January 2014.

The formal submission in January will be accompanied by an Environmental Statement,

which will present the full findings of the EIA including measures to reduce effects or

provide benefits.

Correspondence with Design Commission for Wales (DCFW) of 23rd May 2013, 21st July

2013 and 3rd September 2013 provides further background to the NSIP/PINS process

through which this project is proceeding, and to three prior consultations with DCFW,

focussing on the energy generation, coastal aspects and the landside ambitions, land

ownership and associated design issues.

Key issues arising from earlier presentations to DCFW

The following summary gives the key points identified during the presentation on 12th

August 2013:

Matters of land ownership and interests require swift resolution given their critical

impact on access and movement.

Agreement with all parties on access points is critical along with the need to fix

key elements in order to clarify items for the EIA and to assess mitigation.

The Panel recognised the stage the project has reached and that this is a critical

point in its progress, but with several important unknowns and uncertainties yet

to be addressed in a short timescale.

The Panel highlighted the need to make tangible progress on the land side design

issues which are critical to the succes of the wider ambitions of the project.

The Panel would expect greater detail on the following aspects, at the next

meeting:

Quality of public spaces arising from further design work and understanding

of constraints;

Relationship of public realm to planned buildings and movement strategy;

Details of the western link, assuming agreement is achieved;

The nature of landscape treatment, walkways/boardwalks and the nature

and quality of the experience at high and low tide;

Detailed information on access to the eastern landfall building;

Connections with the University Campus public realm and balance of student

use ;

Details of design procurement;

Sections of lagoon enclosure and landward beach and park;

A clear understanding of what will be contained within the DCO and what

will be excluded for later consideration.

4 | P a g e

The Proposals

The Severn Estuary holds the second highest tidal range in the world, with Swansea Bay

benefitting from spring tides of up to 10m. The stated aim of the project is to harness

this tidal resource for energy/power generation and capture regeneration and tourism

benefits. The proposal offers a nominal rated capacity of 240MW with 120 year life,

capable of 14 hours generation, daily. http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/

Summary

There were several key points specifically identified by the Panel:

The Panel is supportive of the tidal lagoon proposal in principle

The Panel was disappointed to hear that the western link through the port would

not be possible, but was pleased to see the team’s proposals for a water shuttle

which will provide an important link to the city centre.

The sense of arrival will be very important, and the opportunities to provide a

good visitor experience should be explored and addressed in detail. This includes

the route from the McDonalds roundabout and arrival by water shuttle.

A good travel plan will be crucial. The Panel would have liked to have seen more

details about transport interchange and coordination, particularly at the western

landfall.

The Panel was encouraged to hear proposals for the cycle link from Baldwin’s

Bridge, which would provide a good connection to the University Campus.

The team provided a convincing explanation for the location of the western

landfall building. However, the Panel thought the surroundings required more

design work to integrate and link the arrival points, lagoon wall paths and the

building. The public realm surrounding the building needs better explanation.

The Panel was encouraged by progress on the offshore building design. The brief

for this building, which combines elements of the turbine operation and

maintenance, is exciting. The Panel appreciated that the design was only at RIBA

Stage 2 (formerly Stage C) and that further work on the proposal was needed. A

more detailed plan of the area surrounding the building and the turbine platform

is required to demonstrate the relationship between the building, landscape and

turbine equipment. The Commission will reserve further comment on the lagoon

buildings themselves until designs have progressed.

The Panel is interested in the processes involved in producing the Environmental

Statement, but does not intend to comment on the contents of the document

The team’s ongoing commitment to public art will be important.

5 | P a g e

A holistic design approach and solution to the site, which incorporates

engineering and public realm, will be important in creating a desirable

destination.

Discussions and Panel Response in Full

A presentation by the team was followed by discussion of the key design issues.

Presentation

Alex Herbert of Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay plc (TLSB) gave an introduction and update

on recent progress. The programme has changed since the previous Design Review,

with the intended submission of the DCO application postponed until late January 2014

to allow certain chapters of the draft ES to be reviewed by particular stakeholders and

authorities prior to submission. He confirmed that everything presented in this review

will form part of the DCO application.

Alister Kratt, LDA, explained progress on land ownership, access and transport matters.

Despite positive discussions with ABP, the team had not been able to secure land access

to the west, through the port. Instead, a water shuttle is proposed, which would provide

the important link with the city centre. Travel Plan Frameworks form the basis of

ongoing development, and strategies are being developed alongside consultation with

Highways Department. The roads within the SA1 development are not yet adopted, but

are intended to be, and it may be possible for the lagoon access road to link to SA1 in

the future.

There is an aspiration to improve pedestrian and cycle access to the coast, and there

may be opportunities to improve the route of the Wales Coastal Path. The team are also

looking at the possibility of integration with the Coed Darcy travel plan.

Main vehicle access is proposed from the park-and-ride (McDonalds) junction on Fabian

Way, avoiding the Baldwin Bridge which would compound existing problems with heavy

traffic to the port. This 23m wide route will have separated vehicle, cycle/pedestrian and

port traffic lanes with a central swale to collect and filter rainwater before draining it into

the port. A cycle route from Baldwin Bridge is proposed to provide an important link to

the University campus. The car parking strategy has been scaled to the profile of events

intended. A gate system has been devised to control access to various parts of the

scheme at night and/or during bad weather.

A visual impact exercise has been carried out which considers long-range views from 2-

3Km away. This study has informed the scale of proposed buildings, the lighting design

(by Michael Grubb) and materials of the sea wall.

Alister explained progress on the masterplan. The scheme is considered as a marine

park with different character areas, and the design team are now focusing on key areas

and aspects of public realm. The various parts of the scheme have been considered at

high and low tide conditions.

Paul Newman, architect for the off-shore building, gave a presentation of the concepts

and design of the building so far. Designs have reached RIBA Stage 2 (formerly Stage

C), and therefore still require further work. The building, inspired by an oyster shell, is

6 | P a g e

designed to respond to and provide shelter from the harsh, exposed environment. It

aims to be self-sustaining, not requiring connection to the grid and employs passive

environmental design strategies. Concrete is proposed for the building shell which will

use local blast-furnace slag to improve its environmental credentials. The form will allow

concrete casting moulds to be re-used. Two levels of the building will be sunk into the

platform. The lighting design is informed by the natural rhythms of the moon and tides.

Alister Kratt described the design for the landscape around the building, which is tiered

to provide access to the water, and includes artificial rock pool habitats.

Alister also explained progress on the western landfall building which forms a ‘gateway’

visitor centre. This building, designed by Faulkner Brown, must accommodate a wide

variety of activities requiring differently scaled spaces. Therefore, it is conceived as a

simple, well-tailored extruded building which can be divided up along its length. Passive

environmental design will be incorporated where possible.

At the eastern landfall, a SSSI visitor information point is now proposed rather than a

building.

A section through the western wall was shown to demonstrate the scale of routes for

vehicles and pedestrians. The western wall will be punctuated with ‘pearls’ of interest

along the route, including art installations. The lighting strategy is still being developed.

Discussions

The Panel expressed its particular disappointment at the loss of the western access

through the Dock. This physical link to the city centre would have been ideal, and would

form an important part of the previously stated aspirations to support wider

regeneration.

The Panel wondered whether the loss of this link therefore undermined the original

principles of the Tidal Lagoon, and whether the western landfall building and facilities

were now in the right place given the change in access arrangements.

The Panel commended the proposal for a water shuttle service which would

accommodate pedestrians and cycles, however there are reservations about its viability

and no details of the western jetty or access to it were provided.

The team explained that the western link did not play a significant role in locating the

western landfall activities or the lagoon itself. The western landfall building is located for

operation of boating facilities where there would be permanent water which would not

work elsewhere in the lagoon.

Although pedestrian access from the city is now compromised due to the extended

length of the route, bus and water shuttle connections to the city are proposed, and it

was always expected that a large number of visitors would arrive by car. Also, the

University may expand in the direction of the city in the future, making the proposed

route less isolated.

The Panel asked whether the approach to the buildings and treatment of the landscape

had changed to make it more of a destination following the loss of the western land link.

The team explained that their approach had changed slightly.

The treatment and proposed nature of the land at the eastern landfall was now to be

more natural and intended to be less busy with an information/interpretation shelter

rather than a building. They still have an aspiration to link to the city, but now it is even

more important that the travel options are promoted, especially sustainable travel. They

7 | P a g e

are also looking at linking with the University’s green travel plan. The team confirmed

that all of the cycle ways will be included in the DCO application.

The Panel asked for further explanation of the route between Fabian Way and the

western landfall, which was described as a 23m wide corridor. The team explained that

the strip of land was confirmed with ABP, but there were still ongoing negotiations. They

are also exploring improvement of ABP’s roads. The Panel advised looking at this

important link in more detail, considering the visitor arrival experience as a whole from

the point at which they leave Fabian Way right the way through to the western landfall

buildings. This route is even more crucial now the western land link has been lost.

The team were asked how the EIA had informed the designs and what enhancement and

mitigation techniques were being employed. They explained that the information

presented for this review is in draft form, so mitigation measures had not been fully

resolved, but everything presented is intended. With regards to coastal processes,

which are the most complex issue, TLSB will be responsible for any extra dredging of the

port that might be required above that which is already carried out by ABP.

The University will have joint responsibility for the dunes area in front of the campus,

and a commitment with Local Authorities and Natural Resources Wales is being

developed. Chapters of the draft ES will be available online for review by 11th November

2013.

Some of the materials made available for the review demonstrated a difference of

opinion between that of the team and the Local Authorities and other organisations. The

Panel asked how the team were responding to such situations. The team explained that

statements will be made taking account of all the points raised in the consultations.

They will be providing further information on the development as it progresses, but they

are confident with their research and modelling to date.

The Panel asked for further explanation of how the off-shore building relates to the

landscape and the operational equipment and engineering structures surrounding it.

They thought that this element of the design needed more work, and that a detailed plan

of both the building and the turbine platform was needed to explore and explain these

relationships in more detail.

The team explained that the building would house selected items of operational

equipment as well as welfare facilities for staff. However, most of the engineering items

will be outside the building. The only items which will be visible above the platform will

be the sluice gates and a crane (possibly two cranes) which will run on rails above the

turbines. The turbines themselves will be submerged, but may be marked by numbers

or some form of artwork. The Panel was concerned that, if not carefully planned, the

area around the building could be cluttered by the various equipment, access points and

the proposed PV Panels. The Panel thought it would be a shame if the vision for the

building was compromised by lack of attention to detail in this respect. The team

explained that the use of concrete would help tie the building, equipment and landscape

together. The building is designed to be robust but elegant, and the landscape will help

to break down the edges of the heavy engineering. The decision to sink two levels of the

building was made to give the building an appropriate scale so that it would act as a

visual marker and not take up too much of the walkway/platform. The Panel suggested

that, given the challenging environment, wind pressures around the building should be

modelled.

8 | P a g e

The Panel would welcome an opportunity to review this building in more detail at a later

date.

The Panel thought that the arrival experience at the western landfall needed more work

to create a successful and welcoming destination. Legibility, position and orientation of

spaces and the buildings, the network of paths and transport interchange all need to be

better integrated in the design. In particular, the arrival sequences from the water

shuttle and the link road would benefit from detailed exploration. It is approximately

75m from the water shuttle docking point to the western landfall building, so the link

between them needs to be well planned. A way-finding strategy should also be

considered. Detailed plans and 3D view drawings would help the team to explore and

present this aspect of the scheme. The team explained that the western landfall building

would be visible from the approach road and the water shuttle terminal, and that it

would contain visitor arrival-orientation space. The Panel also expressed concern about

the vertical walls to the boat pontoons which would create a large vertical drop at low

tide. Treatment of these walls will be important as they contribute to views towards the

arrival building.

Although the Commission is interested to ensure the processes involved in preparing the

Environmental Statement have been properly adhered to, it does not intend to comment

on the document itself.

The Panel asked about the content of the DCO submission, what TLSB were committed

to building and the timescales involved. TLSB said they were committed to building

everything presented and included in the DCO application, and that the approval cannot

be varied once awarded. They confirmed that they had funds to pay for design of the

buildings and part of the construction of them, and that they expected to get match-

funding for the remainder of construction costs. There is no fixed date for completion of

construction, but the following provisional timescales were given:

January 2014: Submission of DCO application

March 2015: Estimated decision date, construction starts on site immediately

2015-2017: Two year build programme for wall and energy generation

End 2017: Power generation

End 2018: Construction complete

The Panel suggested that any public art strategy should consider the experience of

travelling across the wall, and should not forget the longer term life of the lagoon

structure. It would be important to see a strategy for art over the long term including,

for example, a photographic record project.

DCFW is a non-statutory consultee, a private limited company and wholly

owned subsidiary of the Welsh Government. The comment recorded in this

report, arising from formal Design Review through our Design Review Service,

is provided in the public interest for the consideration of local planning

authorities as a material consideration, and other users of the Design Review

Service. It is not and should not be considered ‘advice’ and no third party is

bound or required to act upon it. The Design Review Service is delivered in line

9 | P a g e

with DCFW’s published protocols, code of conduct and complaints procedure,

which should be read and considered by users of the service.

A Welsh language copy of this report is available upon request.

Attendees

Agent/Client/Developer: Alex Herbert, Tidal Lagoon Power

Huw Gilmore, Tidal Lagoon Power

Architectural/Urban Designer: Alister Kratt, LDA Design

Paul Newman, Juice Architects

Planning Authority:

Design Review Panel:

Chair Alan Francis

Lead Panellist Andrew Linfoot

Ben Sibert

Amanda Spence, Design Advisor, DCFW

Observing: Carole-Anne Davies, DCFW