CITY AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (CADP)
DESIGN
AND ACCESS
STATEMENT
ADDENDUM
LCY PLANNING LEADERSHIP AUTHORISATION
Rachel Ness
Director of Infrastructure, Strategy & Planning, LCY
Date January 2014
DESIGN TEAM AUTHORISATION Martin Neilan
Project Director, Pascall+Watson Architects
Date January 2014
LCY PROJECT DELIVERY AUTHORISATION
Tim Sellers
Project Manager, LCY
Date January 2014
ABOUT THIS REPORT
In preparing this report we have taken all care to ensure there are
no errors or discrepancies in the information contained. In the
event that errors are found, the report is not up to the standard you
expect from us, or you require additional copies; please contact the
author, or forward details to Pascall+Watson.
Prepared on behalf of:
London City Airport CADP Steering Group
Hartmann Road, Royal Docks, London, E16 2PX.
2
CONTENTS
CHAPTERSECTIONPAGE
GLOSSARY4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
6
1.2 REQUESTED DESIGN DEVELOPMENT6
2.0 REQUESTED
2.1 EXISTING TERMINAL FACADES
DESIGN
DEVELOPMENT
2.2 CLARITY OF FACADE DESIGN
2.3 ARRIVALS CONCOURSE BUILDING CIRCULATION
7
7
9
2.4 ART ON THE ‘DOLPHINS’10
2.5 FORECOURT TRANSPORT DESIGN10
3.0 REVISED 11
VISUALISATIONS
4.0
APPENDIX
RODMA LETTER
21
3
GLOSSARY
Acronym
Meaning
Acronym
Meaning
A319 NEO
Airbus twin jet engine aircraft model 319 with new engine option.
FFL
Finished floor level.
A318
Airbus twin jet engine aircraft model 318.
FHR
Fire hose reel.
AMD
Archway metal detector.
FID
Flight information display screen.
AOD
Above ordinance datum.
GA
General arrangement drawing.
AOSU
Airfield Operations Safety Unit.
GEA
Gross external area.
ASIAD
Department for Transport’s Aviation Safety in Airport Design guidance document.
GIA
Gross internal area.
ATCT
Air traffic control tower.
GGBS
Ground and granulated blast slag.
ATR Automatic tag reader.
GLA Greater London Assembly.
BHS
Baggage handling system.
GSE
Ground services equipment, used to service the aircraft that are on stand eg. stairs, wheelchair-lift, luggage belt-loaders etc.
BMS
Building management system.
HBS
Hold baggage screening (ie. baggage bound for the aircraft hold).
BSM
Baggage source message.
HV
High voltage.
CAA
Civil Aviation Authority.
IATA
International Air Transport Association.
CADP
City Airport Development Project.
IBB
Inbound baggage (arrivals).
CT
Counter-terrorism.
ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organisation.
CCHP
Combined Cooling, Heat and Power energy generation plant utilising waste heat to power an absorption cooling process.
ILS
Instrument Landing System.
CCTV
Closed circuit television.
LBN
London Borough of Newham.
CIP
Commercially important passenger.
LCY
London City Airport (“the Airport”).
CTA
Common travel area
LFB
London Fire Brigade.
CUSS
Common-user self service.
LL
Lost luggage.
DfT
Department for Transport.
LRV
Light reflectance value
DH
District heating system.
LTB
London Transport buses.
DLR
Docklands Light Rail.
LV
Low voltage.
DSC Departure control system.
MCT
Minimum connection time.
DVT
Distribution ventilation terminal emitting low velocity air suitable to condition a space.
MUP
Baggage make-up position.
EBS
Early baggage storage facility.
NPPF
National planning policy framework.
ERJ190
Embraer twin jet engine aircraft model 190.
OBB
Outbound baggage (departures).
FEGP
Fixed electrical ground power, supplying aircraft power needs during engine shut down.
OIP
Operational Improvements Programme.
4
GLOSSARY
Acronym
Meaning
OOG
Out of gauge.
PBIED
Person-borne improvised explosive device.
PFA
Pulverised fly ash.
PID
Passenger information display.
PIR
Passive Infra-Red.
PRM
Passengers with restricted mobility.
PV
Photovoltaic array.
PVB
Polyvinyl butyral
RET
Rapid exit taxiway.
RFID
Radio frequency identification.
RVP
Rendezvous point.
SAC
Sort allocation computer.
SCADA
Supervisory control and data acquisition system.
SCI
Statement of Community Involvement.
SIMMOD
Simulation software used (in CADP) to model the movement of aircraft on the airfield.
SSK
Self-service kiosk, where passengers may process their own boarding cards subsequent to an online booking.
TfL
Transport for London.
UKBF
United Kingdom Border Force.
UKPN
United Kingdom Power Networks.
VBIED
Vehicle-borne improvised explosive device.
VCC
Vertical circulation core.
VCP
Vehicle control point
VIP
Very important passenger.
VSB
Vehicle security barrier.
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
This document is an addendum to the Design and Access Statement (DAS) submitted to accompany the City Airport Development
Programme (CADP) planning applications submitted in July 2013 (references 13/01228/FUL (CADP1) and 13/01373/OUT (CADP2)). It
documents London City Airport’s (“the Airport”) response to design matters raised since the applications were submitted. In particular
it responds to the matters raised at the London Borough of Newham’s (LBN) Design Review Panel (DRP) Chair workshops held on 6
November 2013 and 7 January 2014, and in the Greater London Authority (GLA) Stage 1 Report dated 5 November 2013.
As explained below, where possible the Airport has responded positively to their comments which mainly relate to refinement of the
proposed design. Prior to the submission of the applications the proposals were modified and verified extensively in response to
feedback from the Design Review Panel (held in December 2012) and others, and it is notable that the design of the proposals has been
well received.
1.2 REQUESTED DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
•• 8.17 Proposed Phase 2 Western Terminal Extension Roof Level 40 (Rev.A)
•• 8.19 Proposed Phase 2 Eastern Terminal Extension Elevations (Rev.B)
•• 8.20 Proposed Phase 2 Western Terminal Extension Elevations - Sheet 1 (Rev.A)
•• 8.21 Proposed Phase 2 Western Terminal Extension Elevations - Sheet 2 (Rev.A)
•• 8.22 Proposed Phase 2 Site Elevations (Rev.B)
•• 8.23 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Sections - Sheet 1 (Rev.A)
•• 8.24 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Sections - Sheet 2 (Rev.A)
•• 8.27 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Sections - Sheet 5 (Rev.A)
•• 8.28 Proposed Phase 2 Western Terminal Extension Sections - Sheet 1 (Rev.A)
These are contained in the document package entitled CADP Revisions to Application Drawings.
Following consideration of the CADP at DRP workshops, LBN has recommended that the following changes in design are made to the
proposals:
1. Re-clad the existing terminal to bring it into step cosmetically with the proposed new Terminal;
2. Simplify the ‘metal monoliths’ concept and propose changes to the cladding pattern and external materials;
3. The space provided for the main meet and greet concourse feels tight and some minor tweaks to the plan to create a more
generous space should be considered. The double height glazing to the front of the arrival building will be of benefit to the internal
environment here, but care is needed to ensure that that this does not suggest an entrance externally;
4. The ownership issue of the dolphins is understood. Nevertheless it would be a lost opportunity not to use them for the display of
public art. Further discussions with RoDMA would be welcome.
The GLA requested that the proposed Forecourt design be refined to address feedback from TfL Taxi and Private Hire and the Cab Ranks’
Committee.
The following sections outline the Design Team’s response to the items above, setting out what design development has taken place to
specifically address these issues, and to improve the design generally.
The application drawings that have been amended are listed below:
•• 6.18 Proposed Western Energy Centre - Elevations & Sections (Rev.A)
•• 7.2 Forecourt Keyplan (Rev.A)
•• 7.4 Proposed Forecourt Ground Level 00 (Rev.A)
•• 7.9 Proposed Forecourt Details - Sheet 2 (Rev.A)
•• 7.10 Proposed Forecourt Details - Sheet 3 (Rev.B)
•• 8.3 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Ground Level 00 - Sheet 1 (Rev.B)
•• 8.4 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Ground Level 00 - Sheet 2 (Rev.A)
•• 8.5 Proposed Phase 2 Western Terminal Extension Ground Level 00 (Rev.A)
•• 8.6 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension First Level 10 - Sheet 1 (Rev.A)
•• 8.7 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension First Level 10 - Sheet 2 (Rev.A)
•• 8.8 Proposed Phase 2 Western Terminal Extension First Level 10 (Rev.A)
•• 8.9 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Second Level 20 - Sheet 1 (Rev.A)
•• 8.10 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Second Level 20 - Sheet 2 (Rev.A)
•• 8.11 Proposed Phase 2 Western Terminal Extension Second Level 20 (Rev.A)
•• 8.12 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Roof Plant Level 30 - Sheet 1 (Rev.B)
•• 8.13 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Roof Plant Level 30 - Sheet 2 (Rev.A)
•• 8.14 Proposed Phase 2 Western Terminal Extension - Roof Plant Level 30 (Rev.A)
•• 8.15 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Roof Level 40 - Sheet 1 (Rev.A)
•• 8.16 Proposed Eastern Terminal Extension Roof Level 40 - Sheet 2 (Rev.A)
6
2.0 REQUESTED DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
2.1 EXISTING TERMINAL FACADES
The scheme has been modified as follows to respond to the recommendation of the DRP.
•• Extension of the silver anodised expanded aluminium mesh (depicting the ‘departures volumes’) over the existing Terminal building;
•• This is done in such a way as to create a simple form that continues the theme of the monolithic volumes;
•• Separation of this new cladding from the existing Terminal facades so as to create a veiling effect that is similar to the proposed
buildings;
•• Making the new facade to the existing terminal continuous in height with the Western Terminal Extension expanded aluminium
facades, and distinct (in height and plan layout) from the Main Processor Building facades of the Eastern Terminal Extension, thus
continuing the theme of a composition comprising distinct platonic forms or volumes - the ‘metal monoliths’.
The continuation of the expanded metal mesh is intended to form a logical extension to the narrative of the ‘metal families’ that is
described in the main DAS submission, the existing Terminal being proposed to become entirely a departing passenger facility and thus
housed in the silver anodised metal. These mesh panels are supported on windposts that are, in turn, supported on a steel frame, as per
the roof extensions of the mesh cladding the Main Processor Building (see Figures 1 and 2 below).
2.2 CLARITY OF FACADE DESIGN
REDUCED NUMBER OF CLADDING TYPES
The scheme has been modified as follows to respond to the recommendation of the DRP.
The materials proposed in the original CADP submission were as follows:
•• Expanded aluminium over-cladding with directional variations that cater to differing vision angles and the reduction of solar
penetration to office glazing in various locations beyond (landside connector corridor, arrivals pier walkways, Main Processor Building,
Western Terminal Extension). This cladding is both framed and angled in walkway areas in order to recognise the direction of travel
and to allow views out, beyond the semi-transparent mesh panels, to water or views beyond;
•• Solid zinc cladding in a standing seam format (volume containing the departure gates at the top of the Pier);
•• Solid brass cladding in a diagonal shingle format;
•• Dark grey aluminium cladding (Pier cores).
Each of these materials were shown as laid over a simple and uniform, white composite panel envelope that enclosed all parts of the
proposed terminal extensions.
In reviewing these materials and their intended expression, the Design Team has omitted the use of the expanded aluminium in two
directions. One reason for using expanded aluminium was to create a monolithic looking volume whereas the building has a series of
windows that are necessary for the functions beyond, such as offices or the baggage reclaim hall. The expanded metal cladding creates a
veil that makes the building volumes appear monolithic when in fact they are not, thus simplifying their appearance, and also creating a
dichotomy between opacity at day, and the sudden appearance of glowing windows beyond at night.
However because expanded aluminium is an asymmetrical product that blocks solar penetration from above but allows vision from below,
this veil was felt to be too transparent to the supporting wind posts and framing beyond the veil of the mesh itself. It is now proposed to
reverse the mesh to have its solid crenellations facing downwards to block vision from the Forecourt or service yard areas below.
Turning the mesh upside down creates a darkening of the otherwise bright silver cladding due to the angle at which high-level sunlight was
striking the oblique surfaces of the mesh. As a result there was a distinct contrast between the upright and upside down areas of mesh (see
Figure 3 below). The Design Team considers that this visual effect contributed to the ‘busy’ quality of the scheme and could detract from
the overall simplicity of the central concept.
All expanded aluminium cladding will be applied in the upright direction in order to block high-level sunlight to glazing beyond but mostly
transparent from below (see Figure 4). This results in a more consistent appearance and a truly monolithic glow in daylight from the
mesh surfaces across each building volume. The increased transparency through the mesh from below is countered partly through use of
identical size eye-slits in the mesh but with reduced expansion, thus narrowing the depth of opening where no glazing occurs beyond. This
Figures 2.1.1 & 2.1.2: Partial elevations showing the existing Terminal facade (top) and new treatment over the existing Terminal facade (left side of
middle image); and an updated visualisation showing the new facades from the south-west at high-level (bottom).
Figures 2.2.1 & 2.2.2: LEFT - Precedent image showing the contrasting effect of using upright and upside-down expanded cladding, the same effect
that is being omitted in order to simplify the facades; RIGHT - Detailed view of the silver anodised aluminium mesh in the upright orientation.
7
should marginally increase the opacity of the mesh product in areas where there is no glazing beyond and where the windposts and framing
would be seen from the Forecourt.
ARRIVALS CONCOURSE BUILDING CLADDING
In parallel with reviewing the design in response to DRP recommendations, minor changes to the façade materials have also been made.
Also, the difference in format between the Arrivals Concouse Building’s shingles and the Pier departure gates volume has been eliminated,
with both volumes now proposed to be in the single standing-seam format. The shingle format will no longer occur anywhere in the project.
The arrangement of the cladding pattern has also been simplified by the exclusive use of mesh to the south-western high-level facade of
the Main Processor Building (without solid wall beyond). This will create the appearance of a solid wall extending from the south-eastern
facade across the south-western facade at a consistent height. Above this the mesh will extend by 1m to create a continuous semitransparent horizon to the sky beyond. Refer to Figure 3.2 for a clear view of this corner of the updated facade.
Gaps will exist between the panels to allow for expansion and contraction. These joints will not be expressed with further framing around
the mesh panels, but simply appear as a fine line where the mesh is discontinuous. To help break up the regularity that this vertical wind
post detail will produce, a subtle staggering of the horizontal gaps between mesh panels is proposed. The vertical gaps will remain aligned.
AIRSIDE PIER FACADES
The design of the northern façade of the proposed Eastern Pier has been altered in response to item 2 of the DRP Chair’s comments.
The cladding to the Arrivals Concourse Building was shown on the July 2013 application drawings as a brass (copper and zinc alloy) shingle
material with the longer dimension running diagonal to the vertical, and with lapped joints. The natural metal finish of brass will patinate
(or age) over time through a process called oxidation. This material was deliberately chosen by the Design Team to provide a high quality
finish to the building that forms the focus of the new Terminal development.
However, on further examination the Design Team had concerns about the long-term quality of appearance. This brass material would
transform from a bright gold colour upon installation, to a very dark and deep brown colour over perhaps only one winter in this particular
local environment. In order for this family of gold-coloured metals to remain consistent in appearance as a group of elements over time, all
of the 700 linear metres of pier cladding (~350m over two levels) would need to be brass also. In order to maintain the gold colouration the
material can not be pre-patinated and sealed cost effectively.
Accordingly it is proposed to revise the specification from brass (copper and zinc) to copper and aluminium. This will look almost identical
to brass upon installation but will transform less dramatically over time. The golden surface of the newly proposed finish is expected to
weather much more slowly and gradually form a calm but striking warm golden surface that remains as such for the life of the building.
•• At the second level (the volume housing the departure gate rooms) the dark metal panelling between the silver-coloured zinc
projections will be converted to a matching zinc treatment, ensuring that the entire top level reads as one continuous and separate
volume and thus avoids the issue of ‘conflict of primacy’ that the Chair has identified.
Figures 2.2.3 & 2.2.4: Visualisation showing the Pier’s existing (above) and amended (below) airside facade as seen from the east of the aircraft
apron area.
Figure 2.2.5: Precedent images set in a progressive sequence illustrating patination of the ‘silver-coloured metal family’ and ‘gold-coloured metal
family’ over time. The gold series shows the deep brown colour that unsealed brass will eventually turn.
8
This maintenance of yellow colouration should allow this cladding to be consistent with a more appropriate material for the pier corridor
cladding. Rather than a brass mesh, the Eastern Pier’s expanded metal panels are proposed to be a gold-anodised aluminium.
It is considered that this selection of finishes will provide a more unified, less dour appearance for these gold-coloured elements throughout
the life of the new development. As a side note, the reflectivity of these materials are not a concern for aviation operations. The silver and
gold-coloured metal families of materials will dull during construction.
FORECOURT
At the December 2012 DRP Workshop the Chair commented that he would like the 45 degree orientation of the primary Forecourt
elements to flow into the flag paving orientation. The Design Team agree with this improvement and the paving has been amended to
reflect this comment.
2.3 ARRIVALS CONCOURSE BUILDING CIRCULATION
The submitted CADP application drawings show the internal layout of the proposed Airport buildings for illustrative purposes only and the
design is expected to be refined in due course. However the following responds to the recommendation of the DRP.
•• The provision of 7.8m width for both the central ‘meet and greet’ area and circulation was previously felt to be sufficient for the
passage of arriving and departing passengers, many of whom are dispersed within the concourse space. The Design Team has
amended the layout with the north extent of the general and catering seating area reduced by 1.5m. The results in the space
between the ‘meet and greet’ area railing and the general seating change of floor finish being a more generous 9.3m for the gathering
of those welcoming arriving passengers and those ciruclating across the concourse in both east and west directions.
The Design Team has opted to omit the laser-cut linear drain cover along the Dockside that set out the chronology of the Royal Docks
and, in particular the KGV Dock. This was is accordance with the DRP Chair’s request for simplification of the CADP scheme. The
intermittent etched glazed panels, occurring at the centre of the canopy that shelters the dockside walk, will remain.
Connector corridor
thoroughfare
Figures 2.2.6 & 2.2.7: Precedent image showing the proposed mature, patinated copper-aluminium cladding and the dull gold-anodised expanded
aluminium.
Central ‘meet & greet’ area
thoroughfare (widened)
Main eastern entry
& exit thoroughfare
Figure 2.3.1: Drawing of the Eastern Terminal Extension Ground Level, showing the proposed amended spacing to the central ‘meet and greet’ area.
9
2.4 ART ON THE ‘DOLPHINS’
This responds to the DRP recommendation.
•• The Design Team agree with the Chair’s comments from the point of view of a physical opportunity on what are otherwise barren
strips of concrete devoid of function at present. Preliminary ideas were abstract skeletal structures used as both a reminder of
the cranes and to support electronic projectors that would cast still or moving images onto the side of the pier at night. However
the Chair’s suggestion that these platforms be animated through use of static or dynamic art displays may indeed be more
appropriate;
•• The Airport share the aspiration to enliven the Dockside and wish to work with the Royal Docks Management Authority (RoDMA)
and LBN to understand potential opportunities and their feasibility.
2.5 FORECOURT TRANSPORT DESIGN
This responds to a GLA request that the proposed Forecourt design be refined to address feedback from TfL Taxi and Private Hire
and the Cab Ranks’ Committee. Discussions with TfL around the Forecourt design validated once again the Design Team’s view that
the design proposed is the optimal solution. This is with the exception of one additional item that responds to concerns over queue
jumping by passengers waiting for taxi pick-up.
To prevent queue jumping a steel balustrade (with vertical infill bars) has been introduced along the taxi rank. Thie extent of
balustrade permits access to the three front, eastern-most taxi pick-up bays only. This will allow a sufficient number of taxis to pick
up passengers simultaneously such that the proposed through-puts at peak times are achieved. The western extent of the balustrade
terminates on the level crossing in such a way as to permit foot traffic access to the bus stops beyond.
Please refer to the letter received from RoDMA in 4.0 Appendix: RoDMA Letter.
Figure 2.4.1: Visualisation showing the dolphin(s) closest to the terminal complex, as viewed by passengers and staff journeying to and from the
carparks.
Figure 2.5.1: Forecourt partial layout showing the balustrade (with infill) in blue located immediately north of the taxi queuing area prior to the pickup bays.
10
3.0 REVISED VISUALISATIONS
Figure 3.1 Revised visualisation of the Completed CADP as seen from the south-west at high-level.
11
Figure 3.2: Revised visualisation of the Completed CADP as seen from the south-west at lower level.
12
Figure 3.3: Revised visualisation of the Completed CADP as seen from the south-east.
13
Figure 3.4: Revised visualisation of the Completed CADP Arrivals Concourse building main entry as seen from the main Forecourt approach.
14
Figure 3.5: Revised visualisation of the Completed CADP Eastern Pier as seen from the south-east along the Dockside walkway.
15
Figure 3.6: Revised visualisation of the CADP Eastern Pier end as seen from the north-east (airside).
16
Figure 3.7: Revised indicative visualisation of the Eastern Pier international arrivals corridor (first level), showing the brass-coloured, anodised, expanded aluminium panels preventing excessive solar gain whilst permitting
views down to the KGV Dock waters below. The panels are also staggered to reveal the water and upcoming Terminal facilities to the arriving passengers walking west toward the Main Processor Building.
17
Figure 3.8: Revised indicative visualisation of the Fast-Track Departures Corridor from the taxi drop-off to the check-in area (looking west), also serving as the main connector-corridor between the
existing terminal, DLR station, and the new Arrivals Concourse Building. To the right is the green wall proposed to form a relaxing ‘pause’ between the busy landside departures and arrivals facilities.
18
Figure 3.9: Revised indicative visualisation of the existing Terminal lobby directly outside the main entrance doors, here showing the existing lobby
connection to the new Fast-Track Departures and Arrivals Concourse connector-corridor (looking east).
19
Figure 3.10: Revised indicative visualisation of the Western Terminal Extension as seen from the south-west (from beneath the London City Airport DLR station overpass).
20
4.0 APPENDIX - RODMA LETTER
21