HD Planning - City Analytics

Revised LVMF Published

2010-11-01T12:37:00.003Z

The revised London View Management Framework was published on July 29 2010. Very little has changed since the draft was issued in 2009, with many of the consultation comments and recommendations not being taken on board this time. Additionally, there is a disconnect between the proposed view management strategy currently being debated at the EIP for the London Plan, and that which has been confirmed in the revised LVMF.

HD will continue to analyse, monitor and feedback on developments concerning strategic view management in London, with updates appearing here where possible.

LVMF Update

2009-11-13T15:44:00.001Z

13 November 2009: The final draft of the London View Management Framework will be in the hands of Boris Johnson and Simon Milton for sign off in the next few days, with publication likely to follow a few weeks after. It is understood that the majority of the document will remain unchanged from the May 2009 draft, albeit with some potential technical amendments. Interestingly enough, the full draft of the London Plan (the LVMF’s rule-maker), published recently, will be at odds with the final version of the LVMF, due to some key changes to descriptions, assessment methods and viewing positions. Should these be adopted after the Examination in Public of the London Plan due next year, then the LVMF will need to be revised again to fall in line with the final version of the new London Plan, due in 2011.

Corrections to the draft LVMF

2009-08-28T15:00:00.006+01:00

The Mayor has published some corrections to the draft LVMF:
Revised London View Management Framework SPG - errata
Published 28 August 2009

Correction:
Page 17-18 "Map 2: Assessment Points in Central London" should have a dotted red line from 19A.1 and 19A.2.
Page 169 Viewing Location map should have a dotted red line from 19A.1 and 19A.2.
Reason: Paragraph 341 notes that the visual management guidance (including the protected silhouette), should be considered from any position between Assessment Points 19A.1 and 19A.2. Noting this on the diagrams would make this assessment requirement clearer.

Correction:
Page 159. The image captioned "Panorama from Assessment Point 18A.2 Westminster Bridge: upstream - at the centre of the bridge" should include purple lines denoting the protected silhouette over the Palace of Westminster.
The draft revised LVMF provides visual management guidance that refers to the continuity of the view between Assessment Points 18A.1 and 18A.2 (noted by a red line at the description of the viewing location). To maintain consistency with this aspect of the guidance, the Protected Silhouette over the Palace of Westminster shown over the image for 18A.2 also applies to the view from 18A.1 and other places along the red line. This should be made clear by annotating the relevant image on page 159.

Correction:
Page 183. The image captioned “Panorama from Assessment Point 21A.1 Thames side in front of County Hall – close to Westminster Bridge" should include purple lines denoting the protected silhouette over the Palace of Westminster.
Paragraph 364 describes a protected silhouette in this view. The images should be consistent with this guidance.

Correction:
Page 202. The red line indicating the top of the Protected Vista in the image labelled "Telephoto view of Protected Vista from Assessment Point 23A.1 to Palace of Westminster" should be 1.5mm higher.
The illustration of the height of the Protected Vista from 23A.1 Bridge Over the Serpentine is incorrect in the telephoto photograph. It should be amended so that it is consistent with the detailed descriptions of the protected vista elsewhere in the draft revised LVMF.

Corrected pages:
Pages 17-18 PDF
Page 159 PDF
Page 202 PDF
Page 254 PDF

Consultation Extended

2009-08-28T14:05:00.000+01:00

Due to the high number of requests, the consultation period on the draft SPG has been extended from 4th September to 30th September 2009.

Responses can be made by post to:

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
(Draft Revised London View Management Framework)
Greater London Authority
Freepost LON15799
London SE1 2BR

Or by email to: mayor@london.gov.uk with 'Draft Revised London View Management Framework' as the subject.

Interactive Map

2009-08-14T11:20:00.016+01:00

Viewing instructions: The interactive map is best viewed in Fullscreen mode - by clicking the 'View Fullscreen' button in the panel above, or click here.

Above: Hayes Davidson has created an interactive map of central London showing where height is proposed to be constrained by 'Protected Viewing Corridors', or where consultation is required - in Lateral and Background assessment areas. Areas shown are as geometrically defined in the proposed 2009 LVMF - including the new proposed definition 'Protected Silhouettes' - or from 'additional constraints' that Hayes Davidson has interpreted from the LVMF. The map allows users to see which definitions apply to particular areas, as well as allowing each 'constraint' to be viewed individually. Every constraint is linked to 'Looking at London' pages that provide information about the view, from the LVMF document itself and/or in some cases Hayes Davidson commentary.

All mapping is approximate: for more information about individual sites please contact us. Thanks to everyone who has given their time and encouragement for the interactive map project - we hope it will be useful. We have plans for a second more detailed map if enough people want it: please let us know!

9A.1 Linear View - King Henry's Mound to St Paul's

2009-08-10T14:26:00.003+01:00

London Bridge - 6 months in 6 seconds

2009-08-09T15:46:00.005+01:00

We love this very beautiful piece of work by Chris Boardman, photos were taken between 08:30-09:00.

London Bridge from the eye of a London commuter. A photo every morning across London Bridge on my journey to work. londonbridge.thisiswhere.co.uk

Waterloo Bridge (crop) - Longest Day - Light Study

2009-07-19T16:48:00.007+01:00

Viewing instructions: This video is best viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the bottom right of the image. You can use the time bar to speed up or slow down the video.

Shot on the longest day in June 2008 - when the sun is at its highest and rising from the north east/setting to the south east - this 30 second timelapse film explores the changes in the tonal range, colour, lighting and emphasis of buildings when looking east from Waterloo Bridge. The film starts at 5.30am and ends late evening, over 17 hours later, the scene changing at approximately 30 mins per second of film.

Alexandra Palace (crop) - Visibility Study

2009-07-19T16:13:00.006+01:00

Viewing instructions: This video is best viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the bottom right of the image. You can use the time bar to speed up or slow down the video.

The visibility and appearance of buildings at a distance changes as a result of atmospheric effects. Factors include air moisture/relative humidity, particulate matter, wind direction, sun angle and elevation. The 10 second film above demonstrates the same scene viewed under different conditions.

The film starts with a photo taken in January: The contrast between foreground and background is less than in other conditions - due to low relative humidity, low particulate count, and winds from north. More definition and detail can be perceived on distant buildings in these conditions.

The film ends on a photo taken in July: Maximum contrast effect between foreground and background (i.e. perceived as least clear, objects at distance reading lighter) due to high relative humidity, high particulate count and winds from south east. High relative humidity results in extra moisture content in air and reduces the tonal range of buildings / landmarks viewed at distance.

4A1_Primrose Hill

2009-07-15T21:18:00.003+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing

LVMF – Primrose Hill 4
Primrose Hill is in publicly accessible park land north of Regents Park. There is one viewing location at the summit of the hill. The two Assessment Points are identified in the draft 4A.1 and 4A.2 share the same position at the summit. Each point is the starting position for a Protected Vista towards Strategically Important Landmarks identified in the draft LVMF.

Viewing Location 4A

Assessment Point 4A.1:
Assessment Point 4A.1 is orientated towards St. Paul’s Cathedral. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The Viewing Corridor at the centre of the Cathedral is 130m wide, 10m wider than the 2007 guidance and encloses the main Cathedral dome and Western Towers
The Left Lateral Assessment Area has been widened from 70m in 2007 to 110m in 2009 at the dome of St. Paul’s.
The Right Lateral Assessment Area has been widened from 20m in 2007 to 60m in 2009 at the dome of St. Paul’s.
The Background Assessment Area has been widened from approximately 311m to approximately 445m.
The threshold height levels remain consistent between the 2007 and draft 2009 guidance.

Assessment Point 4A.2:
Assessment Point 4A.2 is orientated towards The Palace of Westminster. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The Viewing Corridor at the centre of the Cathedral is 300m wide, 50m wider than the 2007 guidance and encloses the Victoria Tower, Central Towers and St. Stephens Tower of the Palace as well as the eastern end of Westminster Abbey.
There are no left and Right Lateral Assessment Areas – this is consistent with the 2007 guidance.
The Background Assessment Area has been widened from approximately 420m to approximately 505m.
The threshold height levels remain consistent between the 2007 and draft 2009 guidance.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 56-60
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 94-102

2A: Panorama from Parliament Hill

2009-07-15T20:23:00.004+01:00

Viewing instructions:

All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing.

LVMF – Parliament Hill 2A

Parliament Hill is situated on Hampstead Heath and is fully accessible to the public. The hill forms part of an east/west ridge that offers panoramic views of London to the south. Three Assessment Points are identified in the draft LVMF1, although two (2A.1 and 2A.2) share the same position. Each point is the starting position for a Protected Vista towards Strategically Important Landmarks identified in the draft LVMF.

Viewing Location 2A

Assessment Point 2A.1:

Assessment Point 2A.1 is orientated towards St. Paul’s Cathedral. This position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The Protected Vista from Assessment Point 2A.1 comprises a foreground Viewing Corridor that gently slopes from the prescribed viewing height of 98.1m AOD down to the centre of the Cathedral some 6.6km away and at a height of 52.1m AOD – approximately the base of the Cathedral drum. These threshold levels are equal to those described in the 2007 guidance.
The viewing corridor at the centre of the Cathedral is 140m wide and encloses the main Cathedral dome and Western Towers, equal to that in the 2007 guidance.
A left and right Lateral Assessment Area also forms the foreground of the Protected Vista, increasing the overall width of the vista to 300m at the centre of the Cathedral, 90m wider than the 2007 guidance. The 2007 guidance does not describe a right Lateral Assessment Area.
A Background Assessment area continues at a height of 52.1m AOD from the centre of the Cathedral some 2.5km further south-east culminating in a width of approximately 413m at Bermondsey, the same length and height, but 124m wider, than the 2007 guidance.

Assessment Point 2A.2:

Assessment Point 2A.2 is orientated towards The Palace of Westminster.
The Protected Vista from this position towards Westminster is an additional vista that does not appear in the 2007 guidance.
The Protected Vista from Assessment Point 2A.2 comprises a foreground Viewing Corridor that slopes from 98.1m AOD down to meet the Palace of Westminster at a height of 43.5m AOD over a distance of 7.1km.
The Viewing Corridor where it meets the Palace is 300m wide and encloses the entire extents of the Palace and part of Westminster Abbey. No lateral Assessment Areas are described.
The Background Assessment area continues at the height of 43.5m AOD from the Palace for a distance of 3.5km further south-east into Kennington culminating in a width of approximately 447m.
The visual management guidance beyond the geometry described above that is presented in both the 2007 guidance and the draft 2009 guidance is generally consistent, with the exception of the additional constraints of the view from 2A.2 from the additional Protected Vista.

References

1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 40-48

2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 76-86

2B: Panorama from Parliament Hill

2009-07-15T19:22:00.004+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing.

LVMF – Parliament Hill 2B

Parliament Hill is situated on Hampstead Heath and is fully accessible to the public. The hill forms part of an east/west ridge that offers panoramic views of London to the south. Three Assessment Points are identified in the draft LVMF1, although two (2A.1 and 2A.2) share the same position. Each point is the starting position for a Protected Vista towards Strategically Important Landmarks identified in the draft LVMF

Viewing Location 2B

Assessment Point 2B.1:

The third Assessment Point on Parliament Hill, 2B.1, lies south east of the summit, further down the ridge.

The Assessment Point is orientated towards the Palace of Westminster. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The Protected Vista comprises a foreground Viewing Corridor from the prescribed viewing height of 71.6m AOD sloping down approximately 7km to meet the Palace at a height of 51.3m AOD – some 7.8m higher than the 2007 guidance.
The Viewing Corridor at the Palace is 220m wide - 10m wider than the 2007 guidance - and includes the entire extents of the Palace. No lateral Assessment Areas are described and this is consistent with the 2007 guidance.
The Background Assessment area continues at the height of 51.3m AOD from the Palace for a distance of 3.5km further south-east into Kennington culminating in a width of approximately 447m. This Background Area is 11.3m higher than the threshold described in the 2007 guidance.

When describing View 2B.1 both sets of guidance describe that all three of the principal towers of the Palace of Westminster are visible although clearly tree growth obscures St. Stephens Tower in the images provided in both documents. Both sets of guidance do make it clear that tree growth can affect the viewing experience and should be managed, but it is unclear to what level that extends to the trees that clearly obscure St. Stephens Tower.

References

1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 40-48

2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 76-86

23A1_Serpentine to Westminster

2009-07-15T00:01:00.002+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing.

LVMF – Serpentine Bridge 23
The Serpentine Bridge crosses the centre of the Serpentine in Hyde Park. One viewing location is described and contains a single assessment point on the eastern footway of the bridge. The Assessment Point is identified in the draft as 23A.1. The Assessment Point is the starting point for a Protected Vista towards The Palace of Westminster – this is an additional constraint now being applied to this view compared to the 2007 guidance.

Viewing Location 23A
Assessment Point 23A.1:
• Assessment Point 23A.1 is orientated towards The Palace of Westminster.
• The Protected Vista from this position towards Westminster is an additional vista that does not appear in the 2007 guidance. However the assessment point is identical to that in the 2007 guidance, which was not subject to geometric definition.
• The Protected Vista from Assessment Point 23A.1 comprises a foreground Viewing Corridor that slopes from 22.0 AOD up to meet the Palace of Westminster at a height of 48.5m AOD over a distance of 3.4km.
• The Viewing Corridor where it meets the Palace is 215m wide and encloses the southern half of the Palace and the entirety of Westminster Abbey. No lateral Assessment Areas are described.
• The Background Assessment area continues at the height of 48.5m AOD from the Palace up to 75.8m AOD for a distance of 3.5km further east into Elephant and Castle, culminating in a width of approximately 436m.
• The Visual management Guidance in the draft states that new development in the background of the view should be ‘subordinate’ to the World Heritage Site.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 198-202
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 209-211

5A1_Greenwich

2009-07-14T12:42:00.007+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing

LVMF – Greenwich Park 5
Greenwich Park is a Grade 1 registered park. The park lies east of Greenwich town centre and includes the Maritime Museum and Queen’s House in the northern lower levels adjacent to the River Thames. One viewing location at the General Wolfe statue atop the hill next to the Observatory contains two assessment points. The two Assessment Points are identified in the draft as 5A.1 and 5A.2. 5A.2 is the starting position for a Protected Vista towards Strategically Important Landmarks identified in the draft LVMF.

Viewing Location 5A

Assessment Point 5A.1:
Assessment is encouraged to be carried out from this point in priority over 5A.2 unless the proposals occur ‘in close proximity’ to the Protected Vista.
Assessment Point 5A.1 is orientated towards Greenwich Palace. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.

Assessment Point 5A.2:
Assessment Point 5A.2 is orientated towards St. Paul’s Cathedral. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The Protected Vista differs from all of the other vistas in the draft document in that the threshold plane in the foreground starts at a height much lower than the height of the viewing position. The reason for this is explained as ‘to protect the visual relationship’ between St. Paul’s’ Cathedral and Tower Bridge. This method is consistent with the method used in the 2007 guidance.
The Viewing Corridor at the centre of the Cathedral is 190m wide, 75m wider than the 2007 guidance and encloses the Dome and Western Towers, as well as both towers of Tower Bridge.
The Left Lateral Assessment Area has been widened from 25m in 2007 to 65m in 2009 at the dome of St. Paul’s.
The Right Lateral Assessment Area has been narrowed from 70m in 2007 to 65m in 2009 at the dome of St. Paul’s.
The Background Assessment Area has been widened from approximately 303m to approximately 434m.
The threshold height levels around Tower Bridge have been raised from 50m AOD in the 2007 guidance to 51.3m AOD in the 2009 draft. The remaining threshold levels remain the same.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 62-66
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 103-111

1A1_Alexandra Palace

2009-07-14T12:41:00.020+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing

LVMF – Alexandra Palace 1
Alexandra Palace sits on the rising ground of Muswell Hill within public parkland. The foreground, middle ground and background are distinctively separated by vegetated ridges. Two Assessment Points, 1A.1 and 1A.2 are identified in the draft LVMF. Assessment Point 1A.2 is the starting point for a Protected Vista towards St. Paul’s Cathedral.

Viewing Location 1A
Assessment Point 1A.1:
Assessment Point 1A.1 is orientated towards the City with St. Paul’s visible, although partially obscured by foliage. This position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The view from 1A.1 does not form a Protected Vista, consistent with the 2007 guidance.
Assessment Point 1A.2:
Assessment Point 1A.2 is orientated towards St. Paul’s Cathedral. This position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The Viewing Corridor from this position towards St. Paul’s has been widened from 70 metres in the 2007 guidance to 140 metres at the dome of St. Paul’s.
The Left Lateral Assessment Area has been widened from 70m in 2007 to 110m in 2009 at the dome of St. Paul’s.
The Right Lateral Assessment Area has been narrowed from 70m in 2007 to 50m in 2009 at the dome of St. Paul’s.
The Background Assessment Area has been widened from approximately 267m to approximately 381m.
The threshold height levels remain consistent between the 2007 and draft 2009 guidance.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 34-38
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 69-75

6A1_Black Heath

2009-07-14T12:40:00.005+01:00

3A1_Kenwood

2009-07-14T12:39:00.013+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing

LVMF – Kenwood 3
Kenwood House is in North London, bordering Hampstead Heath. There is one viewing location at Kenwood, situated at the viewing gazebo. There is one Assessment Point at the viewing location, point 3A.1. This assessment point forms the start of a Protected Vista.

Viewing Location 3A
Assessment Point 3A.1:
Assessment Point 3A.1 is orientated towards St. Paul’s Cathedral. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The Viewing Corridor at the centre of the Cathedral is 140m wide and encloses the main Cathedral dome and Western Towers, equal to that in the 2007 guidance. Minor changes have been made to the coordinates of the Viewing Corridor at the dome. These changes are not significant.
The Left Lateral Assessment Area has been widened from 70m in 2007 to 110m in 2009 at the dome of St. Paul’s.
An additional Right Lateral Assessment Area has been added to the Protected Vista at a width of 50m at the dome of St. Paul’s.
The Background Assessment Area has been widened from approximately 276m to approximately 394m.
The threshold height levels remain consistent between the 2007 and draft 2009 guidance.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 50-54
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 87-93

24A1_Island Gardens

2009-07-14T12:39:00.012+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing.

LVMF – Island Gardens 24
Island Gardens lie on the north side of the Thames opposite the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage Site. One viewing location is described and contains three assessment points each on the public footway adjacent to the river wall. The Assessment Points are identified in the draft as 24A.1, 24A.2 and 24A.3. A Protected Silhouette of the World Heritage Site is defined from each Assessment Point.

Viewing Location 24A
Assessment Point 24A.1:
• Assessment Point 24A.1 is orientated towards the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage site. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
• The following constraints are described as part of the visual management guidance of the background elements beyond the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage site from this viewing position;
o Development that affects the silhouette of the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage Site will have a negative impact on the setting of the landmark. Views of the World Heritage Site are subject to a Protected Silhouette when viewed from any position at or between 24A.2 and 24A.3 (defined by the purple lines on the photographs). Development that affects this silhouette should not be supported.

Assessment Point 24A.2:
• Assessment Point 24A.1 is orientated towards the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage site. The position has been moved approximately 41m south-west to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.

Assessment Point 24A.3:
• Assessment Point 24A.1 is orientated towards the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage site. The position is an additional position to those described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
• The Assessment Point is located approximately 71m north-east of 24A.1.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 204-209
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 212-216

8A1_Westminster Pier

2009-07-14T12:38:00.005+01:00

25A1_City Hall

2009-07-14T12:09:00.009+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing.

LVMF – Queen’s Walk to Tower of London (City Hall) 25
The Queen’s Walk is on the south bank adjacent to City Hall. One viewing location is described and contains three assessment points each on the public footway adjacent to the river wall. The Assessment Points are identified in the draft as 25A.1, 25A.2 and 25A.3. A Protected Vista is defined from 25A.1 to and beyond the Tower of London World Heritage Site and a Protected Silhouette of the World Heritage Site is defined from each of the Assessment Points.

Viewing Location 25A
Assessment Point 25A.1:
• Assessment Point 25A.1 is orientated towards the Tower of London World Heritage site. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
• The Protected Vista from Assessment Point 25A.1 comprises a foreground Viewing Corridor at 6.1m AOD to the low wall that encloses the front of the Tower over a distance of 400m.
• The Viewing Corridor where it meets the Tower is 90m wide – the same as the 2007 guidance.
• The Background Assessment area starts at the height of 25.7m AOD from the Tower up to 164.6m AOD for a distance of 2.5km further north into Bethnal Green, culminating in a width of approximately 727m – the same as in the 2007 guidance. A minor elevation change has been made to the AOD height at the end of the BAA which is of little consequence.

Assessment Point 25A.2:
• Assessment Point 25A.1 is orientated towards the Tower. The position has been moved approximately 66m north-east to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.

Assessment Point 25A.3:
• Assessment Point 25A.3 is orientated towards the Tower. The position is an additional position to those described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
• The Assessment Point is located approximately 137m south-east of 25A.1.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 210-216
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 217-227

16B1_South Bank

2009-07-14T12:05:00.005+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing

LVMF – The South Bank 16
This river prospect lies between Waterloo and Blackfriars Bridges. Two viewing locations are described and contain three assessment points. The Assessment Points is identified in the draft as 16A.1, 16B.1 and 16B.2. No Protected Vistas or Protected Silhouettes are described from these points; however there are clear constraints placed on the foreground and background of the view from points 16B.1 and 16B.2.

Viewing Location 16A

Assessment Point 16A.1:
Assessment Point 16A.1 is orientated towards Somerset House. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The guidance for this view is limited, presumably accounting for the existing development occurring behind Somerset House and the non-existent opportunity to develop the foreground.
The guidance states that any new development in the background is encouraged but should be not ‘dominate’ Somerset House and be of ‘high quality’ design.

Viewing Location 16B

Assessment Point 16B.1:
Assessment Point 16B.1 is orientated towards St. Paul’s Cathedral. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
The guidance encourages improving the townscape setting in the view.
The following constraints are described as part of the visual management guidance of the background elements beyond St. Paul’s Cathedral from this viewing position;
The qualities of the clear view of St. Paul’s Cathedral should remain and should not be reduced by inappropriate development crowding in too close to the landmark, dominating it or merging with its silhouette, when seen by the viewer moving between Assessment Points.
It is possible to define both foreground and background viewing corridors based on these constraints. Please see the ‘Maps’ page for more information

Assessment Point 16B.2:
Assessment Point 16B.2 is approximately 9m from 16B.1. As such the characteristics and guidance for both points is predominately identical.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 140-147
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 167-172

We don’t see things as they are...

2009-07-10T22:23:00.019+01:00

Anais Nin, the American writer said, “We don’t see things as they are. We see them as we are”. This distinction describes one of the problems faced by the London View Management Framework (LVMF), and townscape assessment in general.

The LVMF assumes a view-centric rather than a people-centric London without offering a reasonable evidence base. Without demonstrating a methodology to rank places and views more highly than others, the document defines positions from which we are told we can/should recognise and appreciate landmark buildings from. There is no methodology to demonstrate that an empirical study of relative ‘view’ attractiveness or desirability has been undertaken, nor any analysis of viewer motive or visual attention in London.

The LVMF makes assumptions about the viewer’s ability to ‘recognise and appreciate’ landmarks.The primary motive when visiting Primrose Hill is to see and create a mental map of London from afar, to enjoy the opportunity to feel orientated, and to experience distance (many Londoners focus less than a mile each day). Our work has shown that people do not visit Primrose Hill to look at, locate, or find the Palace of Westminster (POW), yet the LVMF persists with geometrically defined development restrictions based on the assumption of recognition and appreciation of this building. Ask people if they can find actually locate this ‘landmark’ building in the view and very few can. In fact many will tell you they didn’t even know it was in the scene. The LVMF makes equally unsupported claims about recognition of ‘landmarks’ from other viewing places. There are very serious implications in this; we should remember that in the past LVMF guidance has been used to shape proposed London buildings on the basis of the ‘recognition and appreciation’ of landmarks that research now shows in many cases viewers cannot actually find, identify or remember.

The LVMF would benefit from a better understanding of visual perception. It seems to support a rather coarse assumption that separation between buildings heightens appreciation - and equates to 'protection'. Likewise that a building in the backdrop to a landmark is potentially harmful to appreciation. Technical issues are also apparent: there are limitations to the amount of detail the human eye can resolve, and it is concerning that the LVMF continues to employ artificially enlarged long-lens photography, distorting/ ignoring the very significant effects of visual acuity and ‘real scale’ viewing. In doing so the LVMF suggests status that is not perceived when viewed at the correct visual scale.

The ‘protected views’ are for the most part a relatively modern construct. The scenes that the landmarks are part of are not delicate ‘historical’ compositions but the by-product of a successful growing city. Few of us truly remember the protected views of London as skylines. We are not psychologically tuned to be as sensitive to skylines as the many presume. While we recognise some aspects of these scenes, it is a very different reaction we have to say, a human face; where the smallest change to an eye is instantly noticeable. The LVMF appears not to understand that what we see is not necessarily what we notice or what we remember. To assume such delicacy of meaning and compositional balance in a few special ‘views’, when in fact we perceive in a much more granular way, denies us planning emphasis and opportunity elsewhere.

Visual appetite changes over time, and it would be helpful if the LVMF analysed/ tracked these changes and stated its position on the issue. Are we to assume/impose a historic visual appetite rather than a contemporary one? Contemporary visual appetites frequently enjoy the visual juxtaposition of old and new. Without recognising these changes, the LVMF appears out of step and may be preventing opportunities for views that many now actively seek.

The LVMF continues to adopt the easily manipulated vocabulary of the skyline debate. Many opposed to tall buildings in London expediently adopt a now well worn lowbrow but politically effective vocabulary. Constant references to a ‘skyline battle’ reflects the fondness amongst those ‘defending’ against development to suggest a fight being waged, however the logic employed is weak; ‘Endangered buildings’…’Once these historic views are changed, they are gone forever’…‘This building threatens x and will damage the skyline for generations to come’…None of these statements stand up to any reasonable examination; they are a hazy mish-mash of assumptions and fear; no doubt masking one simple, not unreasonable fear; that new buildings might spoil London’s old buildings.

The LVMF has a responsibility wherever possible to remove vocabulary that grants the opportunity to abuse semantics. The word ‘view’ has implications of a frozen moment. The word ‘impact’ suggests harm, violence, destruction. If we substituted the words ‘experience’ or ‘scene’ for ‘view', and ‘effect’ instead of ‘impact’ perhaps we would be forced to discuss our senses, how they compare to others, and how they change through time. The word ‘protect’ is defined as ‘to cover or shield from injury, damage or destruction’. The obligations implied in ‘protecting a view’ are onerous but in use dangerously open to interpretation. While ‘the historic skyline’ does not and can never exist, we see the ‘defenders’ of the skyline (and those who grant them this remit) confusing the responsibility to ‘protect’ buildings with a curious logic that a skyline can/should also be ‘protected’. Through this confusion we may be asking the wrong questions of the wrong people - and London may be suffering as a result. Even the GLA describe the LVMF as “a key component of the Mayor's strategy to preserve London's character and built heritage”. It sounds good, but it would be help to know exactly which parts of the ‘built heritage’ we really are preserving.

The LVMF says little but implies a lot about visual meaning. The power of church and state meant that often their buildings were designed aslandmarks, and to be the tallest structures in view as visibility from afar was important. But while some would wish to be reassured of their existence, others would not. Visibility and derived meaning produce different emotions in different people. Are we right to presume that the landmarks have the same visual meaning as they once did? We can all agree that they are useful ‘orientation markers’, but in an increasingly secular, devolved and multicultural society it seems uncomfortable that there should be an assumption that we all need to be reminded of state and church over all else as is suggested in the LVMF. (What about the Arts? Sport? Educational establishments?) Tying the rights to long distance visibility to meaning is complex, and highly political - it is always easier to run with the historical status quo, but in time we run the risk (again) that the city does not reflect its citizens. How many would trade a building in the background to St. Pauls, or even a partial obscuration as seen from a distant vantage point - for better local planning of the great building’s immediate environs? A hierarchy of how we might better apply attention and energy to the ‘protection’ of landmarks might be;

• The building itself: as the priority

• Its locality / surroundings: whenever possible.

• Its relationship to other buildings and visual meaning from distance: retained only if visual meaning and visual appetites remain unchanged.

There is a key underlying philosophical question. From the distant vantage points, should we observe London or should we control London? These are vantage points where we can watch our precious city grow, but however tempting it might be, perhaps we should consider that it would be wise not to interfere too much, knowing that our energies are better applied elsewhere. Rather than watching nervously from afar like the parent scared to let go, maybe our attentions are best placed in the streets, the squares, and the plazas; where the people and city meet and where planning really matters.

The LVMF appears to be built on received ‘wisdom’; an inheritance of assumptions, and whichever way ‘views’ are examined; whether they be through site research / behavioural / photographic / commercial analysis, the LVMF, and the assumptions that it seems based on fall short. As the LVMF does not demonstrate an evidence base we must presume it simply represents ‘The Mayors Wishes’.

But is planning guidance that limits a cities development through the protection of ‘views’ the wrong answer to the wrong question? Instinct says that there should/must be a better way...

Alan Davidson, Hayes Davidson July 2009

10A1_Tower Bridge

2009-07-02T08:15:00.003+01:00

Viewing instructions:
All images should be viewed in ‘full screen’ mode by clicking the ‘+’ icon in the top right of the image. When the image is opened in full screen mode you will see a scale bar at the bottom of each image. Use the scroll wheel zoom function and a ruler held against the screen to ensure the scale bar correctly measures 10cm when viewed at a normal viewing distance (approximately arms length). The size of objects in the view will then equate approximately to the size they would appear when viewed at the scene. This technique is known as ‘Real Scale’ viewing

LVMF – Tower Bridge 10
Tower Bridge is the eastern most river crossing in Central London. One viewing location on the north bastion on the upstream side of the river, contains one assessment point. The Assessment Point is identified in the draft as 10A.1 with the central orientation is towards The Monument. No Protected Vista or Protected Silhouette is described from this point, however there are clear constraints placed on the foreground and background of the view.

Viewing Location 10A

Assessment Point 10A.1:
Assessment Point 10A.1 is orientated towards The Monument. The position is identical to that described in the current LVMF guidance published in 2007.
Although no geometric definition of the viewing corridor is provided the draft 2009 guidance provides the following constraints:
Foreground and Middle Ground: Landmarks which enable an appreciation of the scale and geography of London should not be obscured by inappropriate development in the foreground. This applies to The Monument, in particular which is closely associated with Tower Bridge in the view, owing to their proximity and visibility. This relationship should be maintained.
Background: Views from this place include the relationship between the Tower of London and the City in the background. It is important that the background of the landmark in these views is managed sensitively. Development should not breach the skyline of the four towers of the White Tower or its castellations.
It is possible to define both foreground and background viewing corridors based on these constraints. Please see the ‘Maps’ page for more information.

References
1. Draft revised Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework May 2009 – Pages 94-97
2. Supplementary Planning Guidance – London View Management Framework – July 2007 – Page 131-135

Realscale Panoramic Photography

2009-06-30T14:31:00.005+01:00

Above: a comparison of (partial) realscale panoramic photography and LVMF photography. As part of our LVMF research and consultation work we are analysing the Strategic Views proposed. We are interested in the impact of photographic scale in relation to the size of the scene as viewed; the true scale of objects (buildings / people / landscape etc) having a direct bearing on the viewer's reaction to, and visual attendance of a scene.

There appears to be no recognition in the LVMF of the psychological effect of scale and the document uses artificially enlarged images – these have the effect of exaggerating the status of landmarks from viewing positions. The LVMF guidance restricts development on the premise that landmark buildings are visible, noticeable, recognisable and memorable; our research is showing that these may be incorrect assumptions.

Interactive realscale panoramic photography from Parliament Hill can be found below or using the link "panoramas" on the right side of this page. Further panoramas will be added this week.

London - mapped by its photographs

2009-06-29T15:37:00.001+01:00

David Crandall, Lars Backstrom, Daniel Huttenlocher and Jon Kleinberg at Cornell University have recently created automatic maps of cities, including London, by analysing 35 million photographs from Flickr, the world's largest online photographic collection.

The London map was created by analysing 1.2 million photos taken by 36,000 photographers. The majority of photographs were taken over the last 3 years. Photographs used for the study were either hand encoded by photographers (marking their position on a map), or more recently through the use of geo-enabled cameras / iphones etc which automatically encode photos with location information.

From Cornell's paper: "...studying the connective structure of a corpus at a global level exposes a fascinating picture of what the world is paying attention to. In the case of global photo collections, it means that we can discover, through collective behavior, what people consider to be the most significant landmarks both in the world and within specific cities, which cities are most photographed, which cities have the highest and lowest proportions of attention-drawing landmarks, which views of these landmarks are the most characteristic."

The study found that London was the second most photographed city in the world after New York.

In the Cornell study, out of the seven most photographed landmarks on earth, four were in London:

The Eiffel Tower
Trafalgar Square
Tate Modern
Big Ben
Notre Dame
The London Eye
Empire State Building

Geo-encoded photography has the potential to revolutionise how we understand where our common visual interest lies. The information starts to show us those areas of cities where the greatest number of people are looking, noticing, and recording memories. In time, as the sample size grows and the demographic widens, photo mapping information is likely to become increasingly useful and relevant as evidence to help us understand where people wish to record the buildings and landmarks that are of the greatest visual interest.

The Cornell photomap of London can be found here >

The full Cornell research paper can be found here >

Key questions

2009-06-23T07:30:00.006+01:00

The draft LVMF is based on assumptions about how we see London and its landmark buildings. For guidance that suggests (and in many cases insists against) changes to the city based on a visual assessment methodology, the LVMF appears to offer no proof, nor measurement of the visual claims made - of impact/dominance etc. By ignoring the possibility of empirical measurement of matters relating to visual perception, the LVMF is left solely as opinion: 'the Mayor's wishes' . Surveying what is visible or not is relevant, but analysing what we notice, and remember is altogether more important.

We believe that once research and analysis is applied, London could benefit from a better understanding of how we view the city around us; what is really important and what is not.

Measurement also has the potential to redirect energy from tail-wagging-dog planning (as the LVMF appears to be currently) to more appropriate guidance. We hope that by posing these questions, a wider debate will build.

Key questions:

1. Why does London treat these viewpoints as if they were sacred and not review the assumptions made when they were first chosen? (many continue from RPG3a, to LVMF1, to new draft). We hope that the London Plan EIP will do this if the LVMF cannot.

2. Why is there an assumption throughout the LVMF that 'separating' new from old buildings will 'protect' the older one? This is an assertion without foundation and the inherited assumptions that remain in the LVMF in this regard do London no favours; there is much evidence that juxtaposition of old and new is sought by the modern visual appetite.

3. Why, despite the brain's ability to clearly separate objects at different distances, does the LVMF, for the most part, treat London as if it were a two dimensional canvas? If London does choose to 'separate to protect', why does the LVMF not choose to fully acknowledge distance (depth) between buildings as 'separation'? Measurement of depth and perceived separation can be applied, why is this not included in the guidance?

2009 LVMF : PV+PS + Additional Constraints Map

2009-06-18T11:01:00.000+01:00

The draft LVMF proposes a number of additional constraints (blue) in addition to the Protected Vistas (red) and Protected Silhouettes (orange). Our interpretation of these is mapped above. Although these are not referred to as 'geometrically defined', many appear to be pretty much the same thing. Additionally, there are a number of questions raised by the wording used in the LVMF (i.e. "development which visually interacts/visually connects with ..." etc) and clarification is required. Please note: where there appears to be ambiguity/lack of clarity in the wording, we have NOT mapped the most restrictive interpretation - and the actual intent/constraints proposed may be more impactful than is shown on the map above. We will update the map as this becomes clearer. To see map full screen, use the expand button (+ sign) top right of map frame.

LVMF: Additional Constraints Map

2009-06-18T09:51:00.016+01:00

The draft LVMF proposes a number of additional constraints and our interpretation of these is shown above. Although these are not referred to as 'geometrically defined', many appear to be pretty much the same thing. Additionally, there are a number of questions raised by the wording used in the LVMF (i.e. "development which visually interacts/visually connects with ..." etc) and clarification is required. Please note: where there appears to be ambiguity/lack of clarity in the wording, we have NOT mapped the most restrictive interpretation - and the actual intent/constraints proposed may be more impactful than is shown on the map above. We will update the map as this becomes clearer. To see map full screen, use the expand button (+ sign) top right of map frame.

Click here to see these additional constraints with the protected silhouettes and the protected vistas

2009-06-15T14:16:00.000+01:00

On 10th June 2009 the GLA stated that it will be publishing an addendum to the draft LVMF to add information and to correct for errors.

Extract from LVMF: Victoria Embankment: between Waterloo and Hungerford Bridges 20B.1

2009-06-14T10:57:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
353 New development placed amongst the buildings in the middle ground
should be designed to contribute positively to the composition of the
group as a whole.

Background
354 It is recognised that new development, including within the Waterloo
Opportunity Area, may become visible in the background of this view. Such
development may be acceptable if it is sensitively designed and does not
dominate the riverside buildings.

Extract from LVMF: River Prospect: Jubilee Gardens and Thames side in front of County Hall 21A.1

2009-06-14T10:55:00.002+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
363 Built elements, or elements moored on the river, should not be allowed to compromise this clear view towards the Palace of Westminster.

Background
364 Background development which breaches the skyline of the Palace of Westminster and affects its silhouette should not be supported.

365 Other development within the background of the view should enhance the composition of the view and the relationship between landscape elements and landmarks. It should also be of exceptional architectural quality. The assessment should also consider viewing positions in the viewing location, such as where the Abbey towers are seen in the gap between St Stephen’s Tower and Portcullis House.

Extract from LVMF: Victoria Embankment: between Westminster and Hungerford Bridges 20A.1

2009-06-14T10:55:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
347 Landmarks in the view should not be obscured by foreground elements, including kiosks on the Embankment and moored boats or jetties on the river.

Background
348 It is recognised that new development, including within the Waterloo Opportunity Area, may become visible in the background of this view. Such development may be acceptable if it is sensitively designed and does not dominate the riverside buildings, particularly the former County Hall.

Extract from LVMF: Lambeth Bridge: downstream 19A.1 and 19A.2

2009-06-14T10:53:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
339 Each landmark should remain visible and able to be appreciated by the viewer.

Background
340 It should be noted that a new tall buildings might emerge at the Waterloo Opportunity Area. These should be of high quality, contribute to the formation of a cluster of tall buildings and should contribute positively to views from Lambeth Bridge. The incremental consolidation of the cluster of tall buildings at the City of London is also anticipated.

341 The backdrop of the Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site is designated as a Protected Silhouette when viewed from any position at or between Assessment Points 19A.1 and 19A.2.

Extract from LVMF: Jubilee Gardens 21B.1

2009-06-14T10:51:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
370 The dominance of the river, river-oriented activities and the backdrop of trees are important elements of the view that should not be compromised.

Background
371 New development in the backdrop should be designed sensitively and should not dominate the riverside buildings, or undermine their relationship with the river.

Extract from LVMF: Westminster Bridge: downstream 18B.1 and 18B.2

2009-06-14T10:50:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
326 The foreground is the river and the middle ground the Embankment leading the eye to the various landmark buildings forming it.

327 The setting of the group of buildings including County Hall, The London Eye and the Shell Centre, should be carefully considered. New development in the view should contribute positively to that setting.

Background
328 The civic nature of the buildings on the north bank in this view has a clarity which should not normally be disturbed by any background development.

329 New tall buildings at the Waterloo Opportunity Area should contribute to the development of a legible cluster. These should be of the highest design quality, and should, as part of the cluster, enhance views from the location. They should not dominate riverside buildings or diminish their relationship with the river.

Extract from LVMF: Albert Embankment between Westminster and Lambeth Bridges along Thames path near St Thomas’ Hospital 22A.1, 22A.2 and 22A.3

2009-06-14T10:48:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
379 No development or fixed items should be added to the foreground. The temporary structures on the terrace to Parliament should be kept in good order and should not be prominent in the view.

Background
380 The existing skyline of the Palace of Westminster from Albert Embankment, as seen in this view, should not be altered. Development of high quality, which does not visually interact with the landmark, may be acceptable in the areas north of the building, and should conform to the prevailing building heights. To the south, development should not be visible above trees at Victoria Tower Gardens, which, from all of the views in this Viewing Place, visually co-join the landmark.

381 The Palace of Westminster World Heritage Site is subject to a Protected Silhouette when viewed from any position between Assessment Points 22A.1, 22A.2 and 22A.3

Extract from LVMF: Westminster Bridge: upstream 18A.1, 18A.2 and 18A.3

2009-06-14T10:47:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
321 No development is anticipated in the foreground and middle ground of this view.

Background
322 New clusters of tall buildings are likely to emerge within the Vauxhall/Nine Elms Opportunity Area. These developments offer the potential opportunity to significantly improve the background townscape and skyline to Lambeth Bridge. New development in this area should be of the highest design quality, including tall buildings that contribute to a cluster of compositional value that enhances views from Westminster Bridge.

Extract from LVMF: Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: downstream 17B.1 and 17B.2.

2009-06-14T10:45:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
309 The intensification of river activity will be welcomed as a counterpoint to the distinct middle ground of Waterloo Bridge.

Background
310 There are opportunities for additional development in the background if it is of a high quality, and if it makes a contribution to the existing characteristics and composition of the view. In particular, proposals for tall buildings in the Waterloo Opportunity Area should be designed to relate to and strengthen the composition of the group of buildings in the middle ground on the South Bank without overpowering other elements of the view.

311 High buildings seen in relation to St Paul’s Cathedral should be grouped with either the eastern or northern cluster of tall City buildings.

Extract from LVMF: Townscape View: Bridge over the Serpentine to Westminster 23A.1

2009-06-14T10:43:00.002+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
388 Development proposals that are overly intrusive, unsightly or prominent to the detriment of the view as a whole will be refused. From this viewing place developments which fail to relate well in terms of height, scale, massing and materials, and relationship to other buildings in the view, are likely to negatively affect views of the historic features within the World Heritage Site.

389 The line of view crosses Green Park, St James’s Park and Parliament Square, as well as the built-up area to the south-east of St James’s Park. The landscape maintenance regime in the fore and middle grounds, therefore, has a strong influence on the character and composition of the view. It should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the qualities of the view are maintained.

390 A Protected Vista is defined from Assessment Point 23A.1 to the Victoria Tower and the Central Lobby Tower of the Palace of Westminster. It also includes the western towers of Westminster Abbey.

391 The Landmark Viewing Corridor extends across the lake and through the city to the south side of St James’s Park. The Ministry of Justice building in the foreground significantly diminishes views of the Westminster World Heritage Site and is not justification for further development that would impact, in a negative way, on the view.

Background
392 Development in the background in Lambeth and Southwark should not undermine the relationship between the towers of the World Heritage Site through their height or prominence. New tall buildings in the background of the view must be subordinate to the World Heritage Site.

Extract from LVMF: River Prospect: Golden Jubilee/Hungerford Footbridges: upstream 17A.1 and 17A.2

2009-06-14T10:39:00.002+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
298 Landmarks make an important contribution to the skyline and they should not be obscured by new development.

Background
299 The view is characterised by the Palace of Westminster, as the most prominent building, punctuating the skyline and rising above the trees on the Embankment. Development proposed behind the other river frontage buildings must respond to the character and appearance of existing buildings and should not encroach on, or form a backdrop to, the Palace of Westminster in this view.

300 Incremental change to development in the background of the river frontage is acceptable provided each addition to the view contributes positively to the composition.

301 It should be noted that new clusters of tall buildings may emerge at Vauxhall/Nine Elms Opportunity Area. Tall building proposals in that area should be designed to relate to and strengthen the composition of the emerging cluster of tall buildings.

302 The full length of the Palace of Westminster is subject to a Protected Silhouette when viewed from any position at or between Assessment Points 17A.1 and 17A.2 (as defined by the purple lines on the photographs).

Extract from LVMF: Townscape View: Island Gardens, Isle of Dogs to Royal Naval College 24A.1, 24A.2 and 24A.3

2009-06-14T10:39:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
402 Other landmarks make important contributions to wider views from Island Gardens. New development should be designed so as not to impact on the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate these landmarks.

Background
403 Development that affects the silhouette of the Greenwich Maritime World Heritage Site will have a negative impact on the setting of the landmark. Views of the World Heritage Site are subject to a Protected Silhouette when viewed from any position at or between 24A.2 and 24A.3 (defined by the purple lines on the photographs. Development that affects this silhouette should not be supported.

Extract from LVMF: The South Bank: Gabriel’s Wharf viewing platform 16B.1 and 16B.2

2009-06-14T10:37:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
289 There are several landmarks and historic buildings other than St Paul’s Cathedral in the view, which aid the viewer’s strategic appreciation of London. Views of these landmarks should not be obscured by new development in the foreground or middle ground.

Background
290 The qualities of the clear view of St Paul’s Cathedral should remain and should not be reduced by inappropriate development crowding in too close to the landmark, dominating it or merging with its silhouette, when seen by the viewer moving between Assessment Points.

Extract from LVMF: Townscape View: The Queen’s Walk to Tower of London 25A.1, 25A.2 and 25A.3

2009-06-14T10:33:00.002+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
414 No development should occur in the foreground because the direct relationship between the Tower of London and the river is essential for it to be recognised and appreciated by the viewer. The trees in the middle ground are an important element in the setting of the Tower of London in the view.

Background
415 Development in the background of the view should relate positively to the Tower of London, including all its constituent parts, in views from viewing location 25A. From all Assessment Points, the World Heritage Site should continue to dominate its surroundings. It is particularly important that anynew development relates positively to the White Tower.

416 Elements in the backdrop of the White Tower would undermine the ability of the viewer to appreciate the landmark and its historical significance to the development of London and the nation as a whole. Any proposed development which breaks the consultation plane of the Landmark Background Assessment Area of the Protected Vista and will be visible above the White Tower will be refused.

417 Proposals sited elsewhere than behind the White Tower and beyond the immediate setting in the distant background, must respect the historic significance of the World Heritage Site. New development should not dominate the WHS ensemble.

418 Early pre-application discussions with the relevant planning authorities and statutory consultees, including the Historical Royal Palaces, are recommended for any proposals regarding tall buildings affecting the wider setting of the Tower of London.

419 Development that would change the silhouette of the White Tower when viewed from Assessment Points 25A.2 and 25A.3, or points in between, would have a negative impact on the setting of the landmark. The World Heritage Site is therefore subject to a Protected Silhouette when viewed from any position at or between 25A.2 and 25A.3 (defined by the purple lines on the photographs). Development that affects this silhouette will be refused by the Mayor and should be refused by the relevant local authority.

Extract from LVMF: River Prospect: The South Bank The South Bank: outside Royal National Theatre 16A.1

2009-06-14T10:27:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
280 The dominance and singularity of the treescape of Temple Gardens, as a break in development, should be maintained and enhanced, as should the treescape on the Embankment.

Background
281 Development in the background of Somerset House should not dominate the landmark. Improvements to the setting of the landmark are encouraged through appropriate, high-quality design that respects Somerset House as the principal building in the view. The skyline of the view could be improved by new development of high architectural design quality in the background.

Extract from LVMF: Townscape View: St James’s Park to Horse Guards Road 26A.1

2009-06-14T10:25:00.004+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
427 No development is expected in the foreground. The middle ground landscape needs to be managed to maintain its dominance in the view.

Background
428 Any further development proposed in the distant skyline background of this view, should be of appropriate scale and geometry. It should not dominate or overpower either of the existing two groups of built form or
the landscape elements between and either side of them, or detract from night-time views. Any tall building proposals in the distant background should relate to one or the other of the existing groups and must be of exceptional design quality, in particular with regard to their roofline, materials, shape and silhouette. New buildings should appear as part of the existing groups of buildings. In particular, buildings that appear above the central third of the Duck Island trees would damage the viewer’s ability to see these groups of buildings in conjunction with the landscaped
foreground and should be refused.

Extract from LVMF: Waterloo Bridge: downstream 15B.1 and 15B.2

2009-06-14T10:23:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
272 New development should not be allowed to obscure any part of a significant landmark.

Background
273 Consideration should be given to the space St Paul’s Cathedral requires between it and tall buildings to maintain its visual separation.

274 Development which visually interacts or visually connects with, dominates or unacceptably imposes on the peristyle, drum or dome of St Paul‘s Cathedral in the background of the view, will not be acceptable. Development should not diminish the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate the landmark.

Extract from LVMF: River Prospect: Waterloo Bridge Waterloo Bridge: upstream 15A.1 and 15A.2

2009-06-14T10:18:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
262 New development in the foreground and middle ground should not compromise the existing riverscape character or obscure significant landmarks.

Background
263 New clusters of tall buildings may emerge within the Waterloo and Vauxhall/Nine Elms Opportunity Areas. Tall buildings are already consented at Vauxhall/Nine Elms and it is important that further proposals are designed to relate to and strengthen the composition of the emerging cluster there. New buildings visible to the right of Millbank Tower should not detract from the dominance of the Palace of Westminster in the view.

264 The full length of the Palace of Westminster is afforded a Protected Silhouette when viewed from any position at or between Assessment Points 15A.1 and 15A.2 (as defined by the purple lines on the photographs).

Extract from LVMF: Blackfriars Bridge: downstream 14B.1

2009-06-14T10:16:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
251 The St Paul’s Heights Limitations have played an important role in the development of the townscape setting around St Paul’s Cathedral during the 20th Century. New development in the foreground and middle ground should not obscure the landmarks in this view.

Background
252 Proposed development in the background should not interact with or dominate the dome or peristyle of the Cathedral, or the upper parts of the western towers.

253 Proposals for tall buildings in the background should contribute positively and compositionally to the existing towers on either side of the Cathedral in this view, and should not compromise the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate the landmark in the view.

Extract from LVMF: River Prospect: Blackfriars Bridge Blackfriars Bridge: upstream 14A.1

2009-06-14T10:10:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
244 New development in the foreground and middle ground should not obscure the landmarks in this view, but should honour the scale of the river and the grandeur of its sweeping curve.

Background
245 There are opportunities to develop sites on and behind the river frontages in views from this location. Any such development should be mindful of the contribution made by the prominent buildings within the view and their relationship with the river and should contribute to the richness of the skyline. It should not dominate the relationship that established buildings have with the river.

Extract from LVMF: Thames side at Tate Modern 13B.1

2009-06-14T10:06:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
235 Developers should seek to improve the townscape setting of the Cathedral, while working within the general geometric constraints of the St Paul’s Heights Limitations. The incorporation of unoccupied vertical features is encouraged on middle ground buildings, where these can be shown to improve the experience of the view without undermining the visibility of the Cathedral.

236 Visible City churches contribute to the townscape quality of views of the foreground and middle ground from this place. They should not be obscured by new development.

Background
237 Background development crowding in too close to St Paul’s Cathedral has already compromised views of the Cathedral and this condition should not be worsened. Development which visually interacts negatively with the peristyle, drum or dome will be refused.

Extract from LVMF: River Prospect: Millennium Bridge and Thames side at Tate Modern Millennium Bridge 13A.1

2009-06-14T10:03:00.002+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
228 Developers should seek to improve the townscape setting of the Cathedral, while working within the general geometric constraints of the St Paul’s Heights Limitations. The incorporation of unoccupied vertical features, however, is encouraged on new middle ground buildings, where they can be shown to improve the qualities of the view without undermining the visibility or dominance of the Cathedral.

229 The spires of landmark churches in the City contribute to the townscape quality of views. They should not be obscured by new development.

Background
230 Background development crowding in too close to St Paul’s Cathedral has already compromised the ability to appreciate it and this condition should not be worsened. Development should help restore and enhance the peristyle, drum and dome’s prominence in the view.

Extract from LVMF: Southwark Bridge: downstream 12B.1

2009-06-14T10:02:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
219 The view of Southwark Cathedral should be considered carefully in relation to the emerging cluster of towers at London Bridge Station. Applicants should be encouraged to improve the setting of Southwark Cathedral in the view through appropriate design.

Background
220 Developments should seek to ensure that they preserve an appropriate skyline relationship between the Cathedral and the developing cluster of tall buildings at London Bridge.

Extract from LVMF: Southwark Bridge: upstream 12A.1 and 12A.2.

2009-06-14T09:59:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
212 Landmarks that contribute to the view should not be obscured by inappropriate development in the foreground.

213 The St Paul’s Heights Limitations have played an important role in the development of the townscape setting around St Paul’s Cathedral during the 20th Century. This townscape environment should be improved where possible.

Background
214 Development should allow the drum and peristyle of the Cathedral to be dominant in the view, and should not dominate or unacceptably impose on the landmark.

Extract from LVMF: London Bridge: downstream 11B.1 and 11B.2

2009-06-14T09:52:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
204 There are opportunities to insert innovative new development into the riverside on the north and south banks. Development here should contribute positively to the settings of the existing historic riverside buildings seen in the view.

Background
205 From the south side of London Bridge (Assessment Point 11B.2) there is a clear backdrop of sky to the White Tower’s four turrets and castellations. Development should not unacceptably impose on the Tower, or have a negative impact on a person’s ability to recognise and appreciate this Strategically Important Landmark.

Extract from LVMF: River Prospect: Tower Bridge 10A.1

2009-06-14T09:47:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
186 Landmarks which enable an appreciation of the scale and geography of London should not be obscured by inappropriate development in the foreground. This applies to The Monument, in particular, which is closely associated with Tower Bridge in the view, owing to their proximity and visibility. This relationship should be maintained.

Background
187 Views from this place include the relationship between the Tower of London and the City in the background. It is important that the background of the landmark in these views is managed sensitively. Development should not breach the skyline of the four towers of the White Tower or its castellations.

188 It is anticipated that the cluster of tall buildings in the City of London and the cluster of tall buildings at London Bridge Station will be consolidated over time, and will add considerably to the character and stature of the view. Any proposed building which would add to the skyline, must take account of the way it relates to existing skyline features.

Extract from LVMF: Linear View: King Henry VIII’s Mound, Richmond to St Paul’s Cathedral 9A.1

2009-06-14T09:45:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
176 A Protected Vista has been defined between the Assessment Point and St Paul’s Cathedral. Development that exceeds the threshold plane of the Landmark Viewing Corridor should be refused. Development near the Protected Vista should not compromise the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate the Cathedral. It should not dominate the landmark, or cause a canyon effect. Landmark Lateral Assessment Areas are included as part of the Protected Vista to strengthen foreground and middle ground management of the view.

Background
177 Atmospheric conditions have a considerable effect on the visibility of the landmark due to the length of the view. It is essential that development in the background of the view is subordinate to the Cathedral and that the clear sky background profile of the dome remains.

Extract from LVMF: Linear View: Westminster Pier to St Paul’s Cathedral 8A.1

2009-06-14T09:42:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
169 The clear view of the Cathedral should not be obscured by tree growth in either the foreground or middle ground.

170 A Landmark Viewing Corridor will maintain the existing visual frame around the Cathedral created by the middle-ground buildings.

Background
171 The dome and peristyle of St Paul’s Cathedral should remain with a clear sky backdrop.

Extract from LVMF: Linear View: The Mall to Buckingham Palace 7A.1

2009-06-14T09:36:00.004+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
162 The view towards Buckingham Palace would be diminished by any intrusion above the foreground landscaping. Such intrusion should not be allowed. Management of the front and middle ground should be considered in conjunction with the management of trees on The Mall.

Background
163 Buckingham Palace is the London residence of the Monarch. Its dominance in the view emphasises its status. For this reason, it would be inappropriate for any development in the background to become visible above the palace.

Extract from LVMF: London Panorama: Blackheath Point 6A.1

2009-06-14T09:34:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
155 The panorama is sensitive to large-scale development in the foreground and middle ground. There is considerable opportunity, however, to introduce new development if it is sympathetic to the composition and character of the view.

156 The western towers of St Paul’s Cathedral are integral to the viewer’s ability to recognise and appreciate the landmark. Therefore, the Landmark Viewing Corridor of the Protected Vista from Assessment Point 6A.1 incorporates these features.

Background
157 Development in the background may be acceptable if it is sensitive to the dome and isn’t taller than the level of the peristyle of St Paul’s Cathedral. The effect of colour, scale, reflectivity and distance from the landmark of new development should be understood and tested.

Extract from LVMF: London Panorama: Greenwich Park 5A.1 and 5A.2

2009-06-14T09:29:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
144 Development on the river edge at Deptford should help to reinforce the composition of the existing view

145 The relationship between Tower Bridge, the Monument to the Great Fire and St Paul’s Cathedral are important elements of the view. Development should preserve and enhance this visual relationship when seen from the Assessment Points.

146 Views of St Paul’s Cathedral and Tower Bridge are paramount townscape features in the view. A Protected Vista between Assessment Point 5A.2 and St Paul’s Cathedral recognises the requirement to protect the visual relationship between these two landmarks.

Background
147 The composition of the view would benefit from further, incremental consolidation of the cluster of taller buildings at Docklands and the City of London.

148 The dome and peristyle of the cathedral are seen against clear sky in this view.The current level of definition should remain and where possible be enhanced.

Extract from LVMF: London Panorama: Primrose Hill 4A.1 and 4A.2

2009-06-14T09:26:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
132 It is an important characteristic of the view that the dome and western towers are recognisable in the panorama. Therefore, a Protected Vista with a Landmark Viewing Corridor incorporating the western towers and dome has been designated. Over time it is expected that the buildings that infringe the Landmark Viewing Corridor and block parts of St Paul’s Cathedral, will be removed.

133 The Palace of Westminster should, over time, be made more visible in the landscape. Development between the Assessment Point and the Palace of Westminster will be subject to greater constraints through a Protected Vista.

Background
134 St Paul’s Cathedral is recognisable in this view largely because it is seen clearly against the sky and it is not dominated by development in its backdrop. Development proposals should not compromise this situation.

135 Development in the background of the Palace of Westminster should not compromise the viewer’s ability to clearly see the features of the towers against the sky. The form and materials of new development should help improve the clarity with which the silhouette of the towers of the Palace of Westminster can be distinguished from their surroundings. Consideration should also be given to the Westminster World Heritage Site Management Plan when assessing the impact of development that will be visible in the setting of this view of the World Heritage Site.

Extract from LVMF: London Panorama: Kenwood 3A.1

2009-06-13T19:53:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
120 The Protected Vista includes a Landmark Viewing Corridor to the dome and western towers of the Cathedral. Development in the line of sight would compromise the viewer’s ability to recognise the landmark, and should not be supported. The Protected Vista reinforces this requirement.

121 The view is particularly sensitive to development breaching the tree line in the middle ground, as it would inhibit views of the panorama.

Background
122 Development behind St Paul’s Cathedral that breaches the Landmark Background Assessment Area should contribute to a composition that enhances the setting of the landmark. Special regard should be paid to the height, orientation, design and materials used in the development. Careful use of form and materials could enable development proposals to improve the clarity with which the silhouette of the Cathedral is distinguished from its surroundings, including the hills in south London.

123 It is important that St Stephen’s Tower of the Palace of Westminster remains visible and dominant in its setting.

Extract from LVMF: Parliament Hill: east of the summit 2B.1

2009-06-13T19:27:00.000+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
110 The viewer’s ability to perceive the visual relationship between St Stephen’s Tower, the Central Tower and the Victoria Tower should be maintained and enhanced. Any development proposals that would undermine this relationship will be refused. A Protected Vista, incorporating the full width of the Palace of Westminster, reinforces this requirement.

Background
111 Small scale incremental change in the background of the three towers of the Palace of Westminster might be appropriate if it does not dominate the individual towers or diminish the spatial relationship between them.

Extract from LVMF: London Panorama: Parliament Hill: the summit 2A.1 and 2A.2

2009-06-13T19:24:00.001+01:00

Foreground and Middle Ground
101 The panorama is sensitive to large-scale development in the foreground and middle ground.

102 St Paul’s Cathedral and the western towers should be recognisable in the panorama. A Protected Vista supports this requirement.

103 The Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster should remain visible in the panorama. The view should also be managed to ensure that more elements of the Palace of Westminster become visible in the future. A Protected Vista supports this requirement.

Background
104 The form and materials of development in the background of St Paul’s
Cathedral should improve the clarity with which the silhouette of the
Cathedral can be distinguished from its background.

105 The backdrop of the Victoria Tower has significant influence over the viewer’s ability to recognise the Palace of Westminster in the panorama. Change may occur in this backdrop if it is incremental, carefully designed, and of a small scale. No development in the backdrop should dominate the Victoria Tower.

Extract from LVMF: Alexandra Palace 1A.1 and 1A.2

2009-06-12T18:07:00.007+01:00

Foreground & Middle Ground
91 Development that breaches the vegetated ridgeline should not
compromise the distinction between the middle ground and background.
All development should make a positive contribution to the existing
characteristics of the view.

92 The dome and western towers of St Paul’s Cathedral make an important contribution to the viewer’s ability to recognise an appreciate the landmark as a whole. Therefore, they are included in the Landmark Viewing Corridor of the Protected Vista.

Background
93 Development should reinforce the existing composition of the view. It should consolidate existing townscape elements and manage development near St Paul’s Cathedral carefully. The dome and peristyle are clearly recognised in the panorama because they are vertical elements set against two distinct ranges of hills with a strong horizontal emphasis. This aspect of the view, particularly close to the landmark, should be preserved in order to ensure the viewer can recognise and appreciate the landmark. Some development in the backdrop may be acceptable, if it does not visually interact with or dominate the peristyle or dome and if it is an appropriate distance from the landmark.

Thank you for your support

2009-06-12T16:51:00.018+01:00

We have been overwhelmed by the response this website has had. The site had over 500 unique visitors in the 4 days after launch, and we have many emails encouraging us to release the mapping information to as wide an audience as possible. Thank you to everyone who has been so supportive and who has contributed their enthusiasm to this project.

We will be updating the website throughout the consultation period, and we hope that others will contribute. We have now added the facility to add comments to each post on the website. We would be delighted if readers added commentary, as the site then has the potential to become a collaboration, and a truly useful resource to London and the GLA by helping to channel feedback during the LVMF consultation period.

A subscribe feature now allows you to subscribe to updates from the HD LVMF website via RSS (i.e. any updates will come direct to your email/ RSS reader on your Blackberry/ iPhone etc). The RSS feed subscribe button is at the bottom of the webpage.

Image Above: 3D LVMF analysis

Link to LVMF maps

Additional Constraints: Interpretation & Questions

2009-06-11T18:51:00.004+01:00

The 'additional constraints' shown on our mapping are interpreted from the following paragraphs from the draft LVMF. Further clarity on what is meant would be appreciated. We have noted observations and posed questions against each below which we hope are helpful to the GLA in their development of the document. This is our first draft analysis and further questions and observations may follow. We would welcome feedback; please feel free to add comments to each / any view.

Linear View: The Mall to Buckingham Palace

2009-06-11T18:50:00.014+01:00

Viewing Location 7A: Assessment Point 7A:1

Page 79: Paragraph: 163

“Buckingham Palace is the London residence of the Monarch. Its dominance in the view emphasises its status. For this reason, it would be inappropriate for any development in the background to become visible above the palace.”

OBSERVATION. This appears to be a protected vista by another name. It would be helpful for the GLA to show this on a plan or in a 3D oblique view as the requirement has finite and measurable consequences.

London Panorama: Kenwood

2009-06-11T18:50:00.013+01:00

Viewing Location 3A: Assessment Point 2A.1

Page 53:Paragraph: 123

“It is important that St. Stephen’s Tower (Big Ben) of the Palace of Westminster remains visible and dominant in its setting.”

QUESTION: Please will the GLA define what 'visible' means: In its entirety? i.e as it is now/no change at all? Or mostly visible (i.e. ensure the clockface is visible?) Etc...

QUESTION: "Remains ... dominant?" How will the GLA prove that it is dominant? It does not appear to be dominant in its setting; Big Ben constitutes a tiny fraction of the view, is hard to resolve visually, nor does it feature in any significant contemporary view-making of London.

River Prospect: London Bridge

2009-06-11T18:48:00.015+01:00

Viewing Location 11B: Assessment Point 11B.2

Page 104: Paragraph: 205

“From the south side of London Bridge (Assessment Point 11B.2) there is a clear backdrop of sky to the White Tower’s four turrets and castellations. Development should not unacceptably impose on the Tower, or have a negative impact on a person’s ability to recognise and appreciate this Strategically Important Landmark.”

QUESTIONS: What is meant by 'should not unacceptably impose' ? "have a negative impact on a persons ability to recognise and appreciate'? .... It would be helpful if the GLA would clarify this, and ideally demonstrate by example.

River Prospect: Tower Bridge

2009-06-11T18:48:00.014+01:00

Viewing Location 10A: Assessment Point 10A.1

Page 97: Paragraph: 186

“Landmarks which enable an appreciation of the scale and geography of London should not be obscured by inappropriate development in the foreground. This applies to The Monument, in particular, which is closely associated with Tower Bridge in the view, owing to their proximity and visibility. This relationship should be maintained.”

QUESTIONS: The intent seems unclear. What is meant by 'inappropriate development' ? (i.e. is this a scale / form / bulk issue and/or architectural quality issue?) What proportion of The Monument must remain visible to ensure the 'scale and geography' of London is/can be maintained.? Examples would be helpful.

Page 97: Paragraph: 187

“Views from this place include the relationship between the Tower of London and the City in the background. It is important that the background of the landmark in these views is managed sensitively. Development should not breach the skyline of the four towers of the White Tower or its castellations.”

OBSERVATION. This appears to be a geometrically defined requirement. It would be helpful for the GLA to show this on a plan or in a 3D oblique view, as the requirement has finite and measurable consequences.

River Prospect: Millennium Bridge & Thames side at Tate Modern

2009-06-11T18:45:00.007+01:00

Viewing Location 13A: Assessment Point 13A.1

Page 117: Paragraph: 230

“Background development crowding in too close to St Paul’s Cathedral has already compromised the ability to appreciate it and this condition should not be worsened. Development should help restore and enhance the peristyle, drum and dome’s prominence in the view.”

QUESTIONS: Is the intent that there should be no development that is visible above the (whole) profile of St Paul's from this position? : i.e. is a protected silhouette intended here? (if so, please say so), or if not, are there situations where breaking the profile would be acceptable? It would be helpful to define what crowding means: above the profile, or left and right of St. Paul's as well?

River Prospect: Millennium Bridge & Thames side at Tate Modern

2009-06-11T18:44:00.007+01:00

Viewing Location 13B: Assessment Point 13B.1

Page 120 : Paragraph: 237

“Background development crowding in too close to St Paul’s Cathedral has already compromised views of the Cathedral and this condition should not be worsened. Development which visually interacts negatively with the peristyle, drum or dome will be refused.”

River Prospect: Blackfriars Bridge

2009-06-11T18:43:00.006+01:00

Viewing Location 14B: Assessment Point 14B.1

Page 128 : Paragraph: 252

“Proposed development in the background should not interact with or dominate the dome or peristyle of the Cathedral, or the upper parts of the western towers.”

QUESTIONS: The expression "should not interact with" suggests a protected silhouette / finitely measurable, no qualitative assessment. Please can the GLA confirm.

River Prospect: Waterloo Bridge

2009-06-11T18:42:00.007+01:00

Viewing Location 15B: Assessment Point 15B.2

Page 138: Paragraph: 273

“Consideration should be given to the space St Paul’s Cathedral requires between it and tall buildings to maintain its visual separation.”

QUESTION: The question implied in this statement : i.e. "What is the minimum distance between St Pauls and tall buildings that allows viewers to see the two separately?" can be answered; taking average visual acuity, there is a small, and finite distance between St. Paul's and any other building that ensures that 'visual separation' is maintained from this (and any) viewing position. Is this really what the GLA intends? We imagine not, but as written, intent is unclear.

Page 138: Paragraph: 274

“Development which visually interacts or visually connects with, dominates or unacceptably imposes on the peristyle, drum or dome of St Paul‘s Cathedral in the background of the view, will not be acceptable….”

QUESTIONS: The expression "visually interacts or visually connects with" suggests a protected silhouette / finitely measurable / no qualitative assessment. This seems to conflict with the statement "Development that unacceptably imposes...(on St. Paul's)" suggest subjective assessment. Please can the GLA confirm what is meant.

River Prospect: The South Bank

2009-06-11T18:41:00.005+01:00

Viewing Location 16B: Assessment Point 16B.1

Page 146: Paragraph: 290

“The qualities of the clear view of St Paul’s Cathedral should remain and should not be reduced by inappropriate development crowding in too close to the landmark, dominating it or merging with its silhouette, when seen by the viewer moving between Assessment Points.”

QUESTIONS: The statement is unclear in its intent. What are "the qualities of the clear view?". What constitutes "inappropriate development"? What is meant by "crowding"?, "dominating"?... these are visual effects that can be visually described; examples would be helpful. The expression "merging with its silhouette" appears to be similar to the concept of the protected silhouette, but as it is not referred to as such, we imagine something different is intended: would all examples of overlap/ juxtaposition be denied permission, or are there some cases where this would be allowed?

River Prospect: Westminster Bridge

2009-06-11T18:40:00.008+01:00

Viewing Location 18B: Assessment Point 18B.1

Page 166: Paragraph: 328

“The civic nature of the buildings on the north bank in this view has a clarity which should not normally be disturbed by any background development.”

QUESTIONS: What is intended by the word "normally"? Are there scenarios in which this view could be 'disturbed' by background development?

River Prospect: Jubilee Gardens & Thames side in front of County Hall

2009-06-11T18:39:00.007+01:00

Viewing Location 21A: Assessment Point 21A.1

Page 185: Paragraph: 364

“Background development which breaches the skyline of the Palace of Westminster and affects its silhouette should not be supported.”

OBSERVATION: In effect a geometrically defined view. Notably the statement does not make reference to objects in front of the skyline of the POW.

Townscape View: St. James’s Park Bridge

2009-06-11T18:38:00.005+01:00

Viewing Location 26A: Assessment Point 26A.1

Page 222: Paragraph: 428

“In particular, buildings that appear above the central third of the Duck Island trees would damage the viewer’s ability to see these groups of buildings in conjunction with the landscaped foreground and should be refused.”

OBSERVATION / QUESTION: The statement is a mixture of objective and subjective judgement. "One third" is objective, but measuring the 'width' of the trees on Duck Island is somewhat subjective. Winter? Summer? Before or after they are cut (etc?).

QUESTION: How would they damage the viewer's ability to see these groups of buildings?

2009 LVMF: Protected Vistas ('PV') + Protected Silhouettes ('PS') Map

2009-06-09T23:13:00.006+01:00

Above: The proposed 2009 LVMF 'Protected Silhouette' constraints (orange) overlaid on the proposed Protected Vistas (red). Palace of Westminster and Tower of London shown, Greenwich off map.

2009 LVMF, Page 23: "Where it is clear that any change to the silhouette of these World Heritage Sites (as seen from the Viewing Place) will damage their background setting, the Management Plan will specify that this silhouette is to be preserved..... In considering planning applications the Mayor will, and boroughs should, take account of, and give appropriate weight to, the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plans".

To see map full screen, use the expand button (+ sign) top right of map frame.

2007 v 2009 LVMF: Protected Vistas ('PV') Map

2009-06-08T19:12:00.005+01:00

The map above compares the 2007 and 2009 ‘Protected Vistas’. Red = 2009. To see map full screen, use the expand button (+ sign) top right of map frame.

LVMF: 'Protected Silhouettes' Map (draft)

2009-06-08T19:07:00.004+01:00

Above: first draft analysis of the 'protected silhouette' constraint defined in the proposed LVMF: POW and TOL Page 23: "Where it is clear that any change to the silhouette of these World Heritage Sites (as seen from the Viewing Place) will damage their background setting, the Management Plan will specify that this silhouette is to be preserved..... In considering planning applications the Mayor will, and boroughs should, take account of, and give appropriate weight to, the provisions of the World Heritage Site Management Plans". Recommended: use the 'Full screen' option (+ sign, top right of map frame)

Geometric Constraints in Google Earth

2009-06-08T10:22:00.000+01:00

Above shows the proposed geometric constraints of the Protected Vistas in Google Earth. The Protected Vistas were mapped from the OS coordinates supplied in the draft LVMF, with an allowance made for the curvature of the earth. This presentation method allows the user a different, and more fluid way to view London and the constraints proposed, but as the Google Earth coordinate system has some limitations, the positions of the 3D vistas shown in Google Earth will be approximate.

To navigate, use the mouse zoom wheel (closer/ further), and hold the shift button with arrow keys (left right, up and down)

22A River Prospect - Albert Embankment to POW

2009-06-07T15:42:00.000+01:00

19A River Prospect - Lambeth Bridge to POW

2009-06-07T15:41:00.000+01:00

17A River Prospect - Hungerford Bridge to POW

2009-06-07T15:12:00.003+01:00

9A.1 Linear View - King Henry's Mound to St Paul's

2009-06-07T15:05:00.003+01:00