Has the design of the bridge changed in any material way since tfls consideration of the 2018 application? if it has please identify - how the design has changed, whether the changes are shown on any design drawings, how the changes that have been made influence the relationship between the bridge and the proposed development. Please supply any drawings or documents (including emails, memos, meeting minutes) which show the current design of the bridge and / or its relationship with the proposed development. If tfl has sought and /or obtained input from Riverlinx please provide copies of any documents (including emails, memos and meeting minutes) in which that input was sought. Please provide copies of any documentation (including emails. memos and meting minutes) relating to 'debate' as to 'the locations of the bridge and steps/ramps' between tfl and the council during development of the illustrative design of the bridge shown on the General Arrangement Plans to which tfls holding objection refers.

---

TfL Ref: 2031-1920 your ref JR/023734.0001

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 2 October 2019 asking for information about Boord Street, Greenwich, London SE10 0PU - Planning Application Ref: 19/0939/F.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require.

We have numbered our responses below to correspond with your questions as follows:

A. Has the design of the Bridge changed in any material way since TfL’s consideration of the 2018 application?

No, the design of the Boord Street pedestrian and cycle bridge has not changed in any material way since TfL’s consideration of the 2018 application.

As you are aware, the Silvertown Tunnel is being delivered through a Design, Build, Finance and Operate contract. The final design of the bridge is the responsibility of the contractor, who is yet to be appointed. Although versions of a design exist (‘reference design’ and ‘tender design’ described below), these have been prepared for specific purposes and may not represent the final design, which is yet to be undertaken.

TfL developed a ‘reference design’ to inform the application for development consent for the Silvertown Tunnel under the Planning Act 2008 process. Work 11 of the Silvertown Tunnel Development Consent Order (DCO) authorises the replacement Boord Street bridge and the limits of deviation for this Work are set out on the authorised Works Plans. The Works Plans are available on the Planning Inspectorate website. This reference design was provided to the bidding consortia for the Silvertown Tunnel contract as part of the procurement process but was not mandated. The principal constraint on the tenders has been and continues to be the parameters of the works authorised by the DCO, including the limits of deviation for Work 11.

The reference design also informed the General Arrangement Plans and Design Principles submitted with the DCO application. Schedule 2 of the DCO requires that the bridge is designed in accordance with the Design Principles and in general accordance with the General Arrangement Plans. The Schedule also requires that the final design of the bridge must be submitted to the Royal Borough of Greenwich for approval. There is a presumption therefore, that the location of the reference design bridge would be acceptable to the Council, although this does not mean that another design within the authorised limits would not also be acceptable.

The Silvertown Tunnel procurement process has been underway since 2016 and is now nearing a conclusion, with the preferred bidder announced in May 2019 and contract award anticipated later this year. A ‘tender design’ was submitted at the tender stage, which included a design for the bridge. However, the contractor is not bound by this design and the key constraint remains the parameters of the DCO. We have previously advised that the preferred bidder’s current programme indicates that the bridge will be designed in circa Quarter 2, 2020.

B. If it has, please identify:

How the design has changed

Whether the changes are shown on any design drawings, and/or identified and/or explained in any documents; and

How the changes that have been made influence the relationship between the Bridge and the proposed development

Not applicable.

C. Please supply any drawings or documents (including emails, memoranda and minutes of meetings) which are in existence and which shown and/or explain the current design of the Bridge and/or its relationship with the proposed development (other than any documents referred to in the ‘Background’ section of this letter)

As explained above, the bridge to be delivered has not yet been designed. There exists a reference design and a tender design – both of which have served their purpose to inform the DCO and the tender evaluation respectively. TfL has statutory authorisation to design and construct the bridge within the limits of deviation permitted by the DCO. This authority is being transferred to the contractor.

In accordance with the EIR, we are not obliged to supply the requested information as it is subject to a statutory exception to the right of access to information under regulation12(5)(e). In this instance the regulation12(5)(e) exception has been applied as disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial information, when protected by law to cover the legitimate economic interest of TfL and our potential suppliers. We are currently involved in an ongoing procurement exercise with a contract not yet having been issued. Furthermore there has been a legal challenge to the procurement process which could result in a re-run of the tendering process. The information you have requested forms the basis for the preferred bidders design as part of their tender submission. Disclosure at this time would undermine our commercial position as the procurement process is yet to conclude so if released, the information would significantly affect the commercial interests of the preferred bidder by placing into the public domain their commercial solutions and designs ahead of any further procurement exercise. Similarly, if this information were to be released it would also negatively affect our ability to obtain the best value for money, as well as diminish the competitiveness of the tender process as disclosure would see bidders cluster their bids around similar designs.

The use of this exception is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities, particularly where the expenditure of public money is concerned, but in this instance the public interest in ensuring that we are able to obtain the best value for public money from our negotiations, and ensure the integrity and competitiveness of our procurement processes, outweighs the general public interest in increasing transparency of our processes.

D. If the design of the Bridge has not changed in any material way since TfL’s consideration of the the 2018 application, please explain why the progress made to date in securing a PPP to deliver the scheme is considered to affect either the relationship between the Bridge and the proposed development, or the acceptability of that relationship.

We note that this is a request for an explanation rather than for information and therefore the EIR do not apply. However, an explanation is provided below.

The proposed hotel would limit the parameters of the works authorised by the DCO. The proposed vehicular access into the hotel from Boord Street results in a reduction in the flexibility afforded by the DCO to design and deliver the Boord Street pedestrian and cycle bridge.

As the procurement process progressed there was less flexibility for TfL to impose changes to the terms upon which the bidding consortia were preparing their tender submissions. At the time of the 2018 application it was problematic to introduce a new design constraint (namely the hotel application) but TfL considered that there was sufficient time for the bidders to incorporate it into the tender designs (and therefore, the programme and cost).

However, the 2018 application was subsequently refused permission by the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Despite advice to the contrary, there was no contact between the refusal and the subsequent re-submission and TfL did not know whether the proposals were still being promoted or in what form. The procurement process continued in the absence of this information.

The second application was submitted in April 2019, which coincided with the tender submissions for the Silvertown Tunnel. At this point the tender designs were fixed for the purposes of evaluation. There was no flexibility for TfL to introduce a new design constraint at this stage because it would lead to a re-tendering process with consequential cost and delay impact to the nationally significant Silvertown Tunnel.

The design of the bridge is not fixed by the tender submissions/ evaluation – only the programme and cost associated with that submission – and therefore, the preferred bidder/ contractor still has the ability to design the bridge within the parameters of the DCO. There remains an opportunity to discuss a solution with the preferred bidder and TfL has agreed to facilitate that discussion. But it should be noted that at the current time TfL and the preferred bidder can and will rely on the full extent of the powers afforded by the DCO until such time as further design work can be progressed and we are satisfied that the bridge can be delivered efficiently and with the required design quality in a smaller area.

E. In the email of 27 September 2019 it was said that the basis of Riverlinx’s tender was “on the approved Silvertown Tunnel Development Consent Order and the parameters and requirements contained within”. Please confirm whether the basis of the tender restricts the flexibility provided by the Silvertown DCO in any material way, and if so how. We note in this respect that the DCO and its parameters and requirement were fixed in May 2018 and have not themselves changed in any way since TfL’s email of 11^th October 2018 confirming it would not object to the 2018 application.

We note that this is a request for an explanation rather than for information and therefore the EIR do not apply. However, an explanation is provided above.

F. If different from the response to requests D and E above, please explain what is it about the progress made with the PPP that TfL considers to affect the substance of what was agreed following the work undertaken by Mountford Pigott in conjunction with Atkins in 2018.

We note that this is a request for an explanation rather than for information and therefore the EIR do not apply. However, an explanation is provided above.

G. Having regard to the substance of what was agreed following the work undertaken by Mountford Pigott in conjunction with Atkins in 2018, please identify:

What exactly is the “potentially substantial impact on the DCO Boord Street Bridge scheme” to which TfL’s holding objection of 8 May refers; and

Why that impact is considered to be unacceptable now when it was not considered unacceptable in October 2018.

We note that this is a request for an explanation rather than for information and therefore the EIR do not apply. However, an explanation is provided above.

H. Please identify when and how TfL requested an extension of time for its response to the consultation process from the Council in order to respond “more fully” to the application.

TfL requested an extension of time by email on 8 May 2019.

I. Please identify how long an extension of time TfL sought from the Council for its response to the consultation process.

TfL did not seek an extension of a specified time period but rather we requested an extension of the consultation process to have an opportunity to respond more fully. This was done with the intention of discussing the conflict between the hotel proposals and the Silvertown Tunnel DCO with the applicant. On 15 May TfL emailed the Council to confirm that it was in direct discussion with the applicant and was seeking a meeting to discuss the impact of the hotel proposals on the Silvertown Tunnel.

J. If (as we understand to be the case) TfL has yet to provide the Council its full substantive response to the application, please identify the date by which that response will be provided.

TfL sought an extension to discuss the issues and provide an opportunity to address the impact on the Silvertown Tunnel nationally significant infrastructure project. However, TfL have now provide the Council with a full substantive response to the application as of 6^th November 2019.

K. Please explain whether TfL has sought and/ or obtained any input from the preferred bidder in the PPP process (Riverlinx) as indicated in its holding objection

Yes, TfL has sought input from the preferred bidder.

L. If TfL has sought and/or obtained any such input: (i) Please identify when that input was sought, if and when any input was obtained, and what it was; and

(ii) Please provide copies of any documents (including emails, memoranda and minutes of meetings) in which that input was sought, and in which any input has been provided to date

TfL sought input from the preferred bidder via commercial communication on 19 June, 27 June, 8 July and 30 September 2019. Input was also sought during discussions on 25 June and 10 July 2019.

The preferred bidder provided input at the discussions on 25 June and10 July and by response to the above commercial communications on 1 July, 24 July and 9 October 2019.

In accordance with the EIR, we are not obliged to supply the requested information as it is subject to a statutory exception to the right of access to information under regulation12(5)(e). In this instance the regulation12(5)(e) exception has been applied as disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial information, when protected by law to cover the legitimate economic interest of TfL and our potential suppliers. We are currently involved in an ongoing procurement exercise with a contract not yet having been issued. Furthermore there has been a legal challenge to the procurement process which could result in a re-run of the tendering process. The information you have requested relates to discussions we have had with the preferred bidder ahead of the contract being awarded which provide an indication of the preferred bidders intentions and solutions. Disclosure at this time would undermine our commercial position as the procurement process is yet to conclude so if released, the information would significantly affect the commercial interests of the preferred bidder by placing into the public domain their commercial solutions and designs ahead of any further procurement exercise. Similarly, if this information were to be released it would also negatively affect our ability to obtain the best value for money, as well as diminish the competitiveness of the tender process as disclosure would see bidders cluster their bids around similar designs.

The use of this exception is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We recognise the need for openness and transparency by public authorities, particularly where the expenditure of public money is concerned, but in this instance the public interest in ensuring that we are able to obtain the best value for public money from our negotiations, and ensure the integrity and competitiveness of our procurement processes, outweighs the general public interest in increasing transparency of our processes.

M. If TfL has not sought and/or obtained any such input:

(i) Please explain why their input was not sought and/ or obtained;

(ii) Please identify whether and if so when it will be sought and/or obtained

Not applicable

N. Please provide copies of any documentation (including emails, memoranda and minutes of meetings) relating to the ‘debate’ as to ‘the location of the bridge and steps/ramp’ between TfL and the Council during the development of the illustrative design of the Bridge shown on the General Arrangement Plans to which TfL’s holding objection refers.

There is limited documentation relating to the discussions between TfL and Council about the location of the replacement bridge and steps/ ramp access to the bridge. A copy of this documentation is enclosed.

O. When does TfL propose to provide the Council with its final substantive response to the 2019 application.

Same as J.

Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under the Data Protection legislation some personal data has been removed, as required by Regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations. This is because disclosure of this personal data would be a breach of the legislation, specifically the first principle of the legislation, which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions of Schedule 2 which would make the processing ‘fair’.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

Yours sincerely

Sara Thomas

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---