As with the Fulham proposal,, it would create major navigational issues and risks for rowing craft in the area, both in training/recreation and racing. In particular it would present a major hazard for all the mass-participation, annual processional races that have, since the 1920s, finished at the existing pier.These three objections explain the issue well.From British Rowing:https://planning2.wandsworth.gov.uk/iam/IAMCache/5644306/5644306.pdfFrom The Head of the River Race and the Fours Head:https://planning2.wandsworth.gov.uk/iam/IAMCache/5648437/5648437.pdfFrom Vesta Rowing Club:https://planning2.wandsworth.gov.uk/iam/IAMCache/5650064/5650064.pdfWorth quoting from Vesta’s objection as this gives a clear explanation of the issue:“Although the Navigational Risk Assessment (“NRA”) purports to have considered the risks to rowing vessels, and says “whilst rowers are permitted to navigate near or past the proposed pier, it is unlikely that they will transit to this location as a majority of rowing and paddling activities happen west of Putney pier” this fails to appreciate that there are often good reasons for crews to proceed downriver.Whilst conceding that ordinarily it is the more experienced crews who proceed downriver, the proposed development creates specific risks for crews (and particularly eights) travelling downriver on the ebb tide. Tideway navigation rules below Putney Bridge (“PB”) on the ebb tide state that crews should proceed on the starboard side of the fairway. The channel would ordinarily be avoided in order to give priority to motorised vessels. Accordingly it would be normal for rowing crews to navigate downriver through arch 4 of PB on the ebb tide. The proposed development would be constructed significantly closer to arch 4 of PB allowing only 50m for crews to manoeuvre through the arch. The angle of approach to the bridge would mean that the approaching crew would not have line of sight through the bridge to any unknown hazards downriver. Additionally, whilst keeping to the starboard side of the fairway, the crew would not have clear visibility through arch 3 of PB and would not have a line of sight to approaching motorised vessels. This pier would thus create an additional hazard for crews attempted to pass safely through either arches 3 and 4, having regard to other river users.Although currently downriver rowing is the exception rather than the norm, it is not as unusual as the NRA asserts. The Putney based rowing clubs have recently experienced restricted river access when passage beneath Hammersmith bridge was prohibited for all river vessels. When this restriction was in place, in order to avoid the inevitable congestion caused between PB and Hammersmith, crews would proceed downriver much more frequently. The difficulties with Hammersmith Bridge are far from resolved, and it is not inconceivable (and some might suggest inevitable) that when and if work commences on the bridge, it will be once again restricted for significant periods. This will increase considerably the number of rowing boats travelling downriver of PB and as a result of decreased visibility through the arches of PB caused by the new development, the navigational risks will increase considerably.“And this, from the Head Races’ objection, explains the problem it creates for safe processional racing:“These processional races involve a large number of boats rowing with the ebb (outbound) stream. The navigation of these boats following completion of the course requires the boats to proceed through Putney Bridge (central arch #3) and Fulham Railway Bridge (central arch #3) and then turn and proceed upriver on the Surrey side through Fulham railway bridge (arch #4 and #5, Surrey side) and then Putney Bridge, arch #4 and #5 (Surrey side), and then proceed along the outer face of the existing Putney Pier before moving back into the Surrey side at Putney Embankment.It is not feasible or safe to have an alternative course in the finish area due to the number of competitors in these races. It is also very difficult to run these races in the opposite direction (Putney to Chiswick), due to the lack of safe marshalling space in the Putney area and the short duration of the flood (incoming) tide.The plans as shown mean that there will be a new major obstruction to navigation will be approximately 50m away from the buttress of Putney Bridge between arches #4 and #5 (whereas at present there is about 130m between Putney Pier and the bridge). The intention to have large (wide) powered boats moored to the outside of the extension will effectively reduce the width of the available river at this point and require oared boats proceeding against the stream to move well out against the ebb stream (effectively in line with the centre of Putney Bridge arch #4 or even more centrally) which increases the danger of oared boats loosing control and being swept away with the stream. In the case of the processional races, there is a significant danger of these boats moving in an uncontrolled manner into the racing line and risking collision. Oared boats require different conditions to powered boats and can be difficult to manipulate in the tidal conditions present at Putney, especially when having to negotiate large fixed obstructions against the stream.”
James Elder ● 1248d