One Blackfriars - Planning Statement FINAL VERSION - Southwark ...

CBRE | ST GEORGE SOUTH LONDON LTD8.0 Planning Policy Assessment The Sky Deck would be competing for the same visitors as the London Eye andShard which are in close proximity; both of which are far better suited forcommercially operated major visitor attractions. The London Eye is a purposebuilt, long established visitor attraction with over 3 million visitors per year,providing changing views of the London sky line with significant supportingfacilities (including 4D Cinema). The Shard, when open, will provide viewingplatforms and substantial supporting facilities on the upper levels of the tower,over 20 storeys higher than the Proposed Development. The market for viewing platforms has a limited capacity. Only a limited offer canbe provided in the relatively small space of the LBBB OA and the creation of athird tall building visitor attraction within close proximity to others would lead tomarket oversupply; There is a significant risk that the Sky Deck offer would fall behind its competitorsin the market, which are capable of providing world class, destination visitorfacilities, that the Sky Deck could not compete with. This would have implicationson its marketability to visitors, its attractiveness to operators and on it its viabilityin the long run. As a consequence, it would be unsustainable from a financial perspective; theTVAC report demonstrates that from year two onwards the Sky Deck would likelyneed to be subsidised by around £400,000 per year if it was to be maintained toa high quality level, after generating a small profit in the first year; such abusiness model is not sustainable. The Applicant is not a visitor attraction operator and does not have the expertiseto manage such a facility. Given the challenging market conditions outlinedabove, it would be difficult to attract a high quality operator and extremelyunlikely to find one willing to invest in the fit-out of the facility. The quality of the experience and financial viability may be further impactedupon by design and management related issues including;- Limited floorspace for Sky Deck facilities within the tower -approximately 300 sq m of further space outside of the tower wouldneed to be provided and rented to accommodate toilets, a shop andback of house needs.- Evacuation procedures in the case of an emergency.- The single outer skin of the building at Sky Deck level which may causeheat build up on summer days and condensation on damper and coolerdays.- Potential impact of the Sky Deck on residents’ amenity due to therelationship between the entrance lobby for visitors and entrance to theresidential uses.8.62 Delivery of the Sky Deck in the current economic climate would not be financiallyviable and based on the findings of the TVAC report, it would need to be subsidisedon an annual basis after the first year.8.63 It is clearly demonstrated in the TVAC report that it is not commercially or financiallyfeasible at present to deliver the Sky Deck major visitor attraction as part of thePage 30PLANNING POLICY ASSESSMENT