110-DT-PNC-00000-000821 | 30 May 2012

Amendments to the Report on phase two consultation The table below sets out the amendments to the Report on phase two consultation following its publication, as at 30 May 2012. Item to be amended In the summary report on page 28, paragraph 11.1.13 (2nd bullet point), and in the main report on page 223, paragraph 12.4.3 (2nd bullet point) it states: relocation of the permanent above ground structures to the eastern side of Whiffin Wharf where they will provide a buffer to the safeguarded Hurlingham Wharf, and a reduction in the height of these buildings to approximately 3.5 metres. Amendment Amend statements in both the summary report (page 28, paragraph 11.1.13, 2 nd bullet point) and main report (page 223, paragraph 12.4.3, 2nd bullet point) to read: relocation of the permanent above ground structures to the eastern side of Whiffin Wharf where they will provide a buffer to the safeguarded Hurlingham Wharf, and a reduction from 9.5 metres in the height of these buildings to approximately 5.5 metres.

However, although a substantial reduction in height is proposed from the 9.5 metres stated in the phase two consultation material, the height of the air management plant buildings would be approximately 5.5 metres. This is because the plant and machinery would require 3.5 metres of vertical working room as the building constructed around the equipment would need to stand higher to allow air to circulate above the plant and the building construction. In the summary report on page 48 at In the summary report at page 48, paragraph 21.1.8 (final bullet), the paragraph 21.1.8, delete the final bullet erroneous text currently reads: point. This should read No main objections, issues and concerns were raised. In the Our view of the way forward sections of the summary report on page 49 at paragraph 21.1.14, and the main report on page 379 (paragraph 22.5.4), it is suggested that minor amendments to an existing planning permission for redevelopment of the site are subject to ongoing discussions with both the London Borough of Southwark and St. James.

Amend summary report (page 49, paragraph 21.1.14) and main report (page 379, paragraph 22.5.4) to read: In relation to the approved residential development on this site, we will continue to work with St. James, the developer, to ensure our proposed works are compatible with the approved development. Any minor changes to the

Item to be amended In fact, while there are ongoing discussions with St. James, they relate to the compatibility of the two schemes and have considered possible minor amendments to the basement car parking in order to accommodate the proposed shaft. Any subsequent minor amendments required to the planning permission for redevelopment of this site will involve discussions with the local authority, but are unlikely to affect the overall compatibility of the two schemes. This suggestion incorrectly flowed through to the text in various responses presented in the main and supplementary reports (in relation to Chambers Wharf).

Amendment approved scheme will be discussed with the London Borough of Southwark. This amendment should also be inserted into the relevant parts of the responses in the following paragraphs: Main Report: Page 360, item (e), last paragraph Page 366, item (b) Page 369, item (d), last paragraph Supplementary Report: Paragraphs 20.5.159-162 Paragraph 20.5.163 Paragraph 20.5.167 Paragraph 20.5.169 Paragraph 20.5.178 Paragraph 20.5.198 Paragraph 20.6.29 Paragraph 20.6.29 Paragraph 20.6.53 Paragraph 20.7.83-85 Paragraph 20.7.87 Paragraph 20.7.115 Paragraph 20.7.140 Paragraph 20.8.4 In the summary report at Table 23.1 (page 52) under the heading Local authorities insert: London Borough of Lewisham before Royal Borough of Greenwich. No change is required to the pie chart in 23.1.2.

In the summary report, Table 23.1 on page 52 does not include the London Borough of Lewisham, which did make a representation in respect of Deptford Church Street. They were, however, included as one of the two local authorities that provided responses, as identified in the pie chart in paragraph 23.1.2.