The London Plan

Sub-Regional Development Framework East London

May 2006

The London Plan

Sub-Regional Development Framework East London

May 2006 copyright

Greater London Authority May 2006

Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458

ISBN 1 85261 873 6

This document is printed on recycled paper. Foreword

East London is my priority area for development, regeneration and infrastructure improvement. This SRDF brings together a wide range of data and information about East London. It suggests a range of actions that boroughs and others should take to help implement the London Plan.

This SRDF includes snapshots of the potential of East London’s thirteen ‘Opportunity Areas’ and three ‘Areas for Intensification’. The scale of change that will come to East London over the next 20 years will be dramatic. The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and the development of East London as a whole will bring substantial benefits to the area in terms of transport, tourism, sports infrastructure and the economy. The Olympic Games themselves will set a high standard for development and help transform the image of East London as a place to live, work and visit.

This Sub-Regional Development Framework places much emphasis on the need to co­ ordinate the provision not only of new housing, but of transport infrastructure, schools and local shops, and new or enhanced green spaces. I am determined that new developments coming to East London should benefit the people of what has been one of the poorest parts of the United Kingdom for the last 150 years.

Public consultation on Further Alterations to the London Plan will follow later during 2006. In those Alterations I will be proposing changes to the structure of London’s sub regions. However, the information and data contained in this SRDF remains valuable and will form a part of any updated SRDFs.

I would like to thank all those who have contributed to the drafting of this document and I look forward to further joint working on implementation.

Ken Livingstone Mayor of London May 2006

1 CONTENTS Page Introduction 3

Part One Identity and overall direction for East London 6

Part Two 1. Quantifying sustainable growth 16 A. Housing B. Employment and offices C. Retail D. Culture, leisure and tourism E. Social infrastructure F. Utility and infrastructure services G. Industry and warehousing

2. Allocating growth spatially across the sub-region 39 A. The Central Activities Zone B. East London Town Centre Network C. Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification D. Suburbs E. Industrial Locations F. Transport and accessibility

3. Ensuring development brings benefits to communities 65 A. Promoting social inclusion B. Access to employment

4. Ensuring development improves the environment 69 A. Conservation, design and the public realm B. Sustainable design, construction and energy C. Air quality and noise D. Open space E. Wildlife and biodiversity F. The Blue Ribbon Network

5. Managing the development tools and processes 77 A. Densities B. Housing mix C. Mixed use and changes of use D. Tall buildings E. Further information

Annexes 1. Town centres 2. Opportunity Areas, Areas for Intensification and Strategic Employment Locations 3. Indicative Phasing of East London Transport Schemes 4. Detailed tables, maps and figures 5. Implications for Local Development Frameworks and further Alterations to the London Plan

2 EAST LONDON

SUB-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK

Introduction

1. This Sub-Regional Development Framework (SRDF) covers the East London sub­ region, which is made up of the City of London and the nine boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley. This sub-region also includes part of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). The purpose of this SRDF, in line with PPS12, is to provide guidance on the implementation of policies in the London Plan in order to help deliver a sustainable and prosperous future for the sub-region.

2. This SRDF for East London is in two parts. Both parts are based upon the statutory policies of the London Plan, especially those for East London in Policy 5C.1-3. Consultation was undertaken in 2005 and a total of 120 responses were received. This final SRDF addresses the issues that were raised through the consultation and retains the general material and function of the draft SRDF which was supported through the consultation process.

3. Part One sets out an overall direction for the sub-region. Part Two looks at implementation. In particular it quantifies the various impacts of the growth that is projected to take place in the sub-region and proposes how it can be accommodated in the right place, at the right time and in a sustainable way. It is clear that this will be an ongoing process that will require further discussions to understand existing issues and to adjust to future changes or opportunities.

4. The SRDF sets out 60 actions that are designed to achieve this - in line with the proposed direction for the sub-region described in Part One. Each one is designed to do one of two things. First, to give a direct steer on the sub-regional implementation of the strategic policies in the London Plan. Second, to provide guidance on, and a checklist of, matters that need to be developed in an integrated way at the local level (through LDFs and planning frameworks) in order to ensure a co-ordinated approach in drawing out the strengths of the sub-region.

5. The Mayor, the Thames Gateway London Partnership, the boroughs and other partners are committed to genuine partnerships and have worked together to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders in the sub-region. The London Development Agency (LDA) is working with partners to develop a sub-regional economic development implementation plan (SREDIP) to target the sub-region’s labour market issues, business support needs and economic development requirements. Transport for London (TfL) has been actively involved in the preparation of the SRDF and will be preparing sub-regional Network Plans setting out more detail. The Mayor is committed to ensuring the proper synergy between these processes and the SRDF is seen as the place where the relationships are brought together.

3 Diagram 1: Sub-Regional Implementation and Links with Mayoral Strategies

6. The sub-regions in London have strong interactions and the need to approach boundaries in a permeable way is acknowledged by this SRDF. There are links with Central, North, South and West London. East London also has a strong relationship with Kent and Essex and especially the wider Thames Gateway area. The City of London, Tower Hamlets and Hackney stress that in varying degrees their functions and futures are as part of central London as a whole. This SRDF and that for Central London recognise this by incorporating a section (2A), which is common to both SRDFs that addresses the Central Activities Zone as an entity.

7. As indicated in London Plan policy 5A.1 and paragraph 5.5, the SRDFs provide non-statutory guidance on implementation of London Plan policies in light of sub-regional circumstances. The SRDF is not a ‘mini London Plan’ and does not usurp, supersede or otherwise change the Plan’s policies. New information is included only as best planning practice to secure and inform implementation of existing, published policy. Ordnance Survey type maps underlying the indicative working boundaries for Opportunity and Intensification Areas and Strategic Employment Locations have been used in Annex 2 for the same purpose. These boundaries are not definitive but only a consistent starting point for informed discussion and engagement – it is acknowledged that some have already been changed as the London Plan has been implemented and that many others will change as implementation proceeds.

4 8. The SRDF’s various actions derive from London Plan policies. The SRDF is not considered to be an SPG or SPD or to have equivalent status in the terms of PPS 12, though it does reflect the sub-regional approach to implementing regional policy outlined in PPS 11 (acknowledging that this applies outside London). However, in being issued by a key statutory strategic partner, the Mayor of London, following three months of consultation, it will be a material consideration for stakeholders. The materiality of individual actions will vary depending on their relationship with London Plan policies. In itself the SRDF does not bear on the issue of ‘general conformity’ of UDPs/LDFs with the London Plan but it may serve as a convenient illustration of how the two can complement each other.

9. The SRDF preparation process provided a convenient opportunity, but no more to identify issues which might be addressed in the London Plan review or LDFs. This does not constitute promulgation of new policy. Annex 5 outlines possible issues for discussion during the review process and should not be considered as an integral part of the SRDF, even though many of the issues within it derive directly from London Plan paragraphs 6.96 – 6.98 or other parts of that document.

10. Chapter 6 of the London Plan established a monitoring process to evaluate progress on implementation. The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) are produced each February and future AMRs will summarise progress for each of the SRDFs with a particular focus on the actions identified. The revision of the London Plan, the LDFs and the updating of other plans and strategies will provide the opportunities to amend policy in the light of the results of this monitoring.

11. The SRDF has been tested through an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) to ensure that it is sustainable, equitable and contributes to the health of Londoners. The draft has been amended to take into account the findings of the IIA.

12. Following consultation the SRDF has been amended to focus more clearly on specific actions and activities essential to implementing the London Plan. It also recognises that this implementation process is necessarily an on-going process that will evolve over time. Considerable updating has also taken place on some of the data although it is recognised that this too will need further updating. It is the Mayor’s intention that the SRDF process will continue as ongoing liaison and collaborative working between many organisations. This will still be the case even if the SRDF boundaries change through the review of the London Plan.

5 Part One – Identity and overall direction for East London

13. East London occupies a critical position in the overall structure of London and is singled out as the focus for development in the London Plan. Thames Gateway is the largest regeneration area in the country, and the London part of the Gateway is set to accommodate around 250,000 additional jobs and perhaps 140,000 homes by 2016. It is linked to the powerful sub-region of Central London which is expected to accommodate around 240,000 additional jobs and 140,000 additional homes. East London also has strong ties with the London-Stansted-Cambridge- Peterborough corridor and the rest of the Thames Gateway area beyond London’s boundaries.

14. The staging of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London will bring substantial benefits for much of East London including transport, tourism, sports development infrastructure and the economy. The construction programme will create many job opportunities for East London residents and the sub-region will benefit from access to world class sporting facilities, open spaces and new homes after the 2012 Games as part of the Olympics legacy. The Games themselves and the legacy will be setting the standard and help transform the image of East London as a place to live, work and visit.

15. With the development of Canary Wharf, substantial housing development, the international passenger station at Stratford and a raft of other public transport improvements, the economic centre of gravity of London is moving east. This SRDF aims to secure and build upon that diversification of London’s offer whilst addressing the needs of the sub-region itself.

16. In 2001, about 2 million people lived in the East sub-region. It is facing major opportunities for change and regeneration in the most critical period of its recent history. These changes include the impetus generated by the 2012 Olympic Games, the continuing development of the City, the Isle of Dogs, Stratford, and the Greenwich peninsula, together with the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), 13 Opportunity Areas, 3 Intensification Areas, 2 Metropolitan and 9 Major town centres as well as many suburban areas across the sub-region. There are substantial Areas for Regeneration and there is a wide range of ethnic communities characteristic of the inner parts of a world city. It also has a distinct, younger age profile, a tendency towards larger households, a high degree of social mobility, and a strong polarisation in wealth distribution – with local pockets of considerable affluence as well as 3 of the 10 most deprived authorities in the country.

17. Many parts of East London have experienced strong growth in both population and employment in the last fifteen years. The sub-region will continue to grow significantly up to 2020, the end of the London Plan period, and beyond. The Plan expected it to accommodate 32% of the increase in London’s population and 39% of the employment growth. Its ability to accommodate this rests on the availability of some of the largest development sites in Europe, government commitment and a growing self-confidence. It is however also predicated on the provision of essential infrastructure.

6 Diagram 2

Source: London Plan, 2004

7 Vision for East London

18. By 2020, the aim is for East London and the London Thames Gateway to be a new kind of exemplary, sustainable world class urban quarter, avoiding the mistakes of new town and other past development policies. It should be built around making the most of London’s unique diversity and capable of being held up as a beacon of international best practice. It will become a major destination of choice for both living and working, with a balanced and well designed housing stock, a range of job opportunities, excellent social and cultural infrastructure, a much enhanced image and environment incorporating the ‘Green Grid’ concept and good connections locally within the sub-region, to the rest of London, South East England and Europe. The sub-region will embrace the opportunities for new strategic development and use this growth, and the leverage it brings for government investment, to improve the urban structure and the level of urban services for existing residents and business as well as accommodating new communities.

19. Growth will be led in phases by the following expected timing of major developments:

x The opening of the 20,000 seat O2 arena (due to open in 2007) x The build up and hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games (2008-12) x The extension of the DLR to Woolwich (2008) x Increased frequency and hence capacity of the Jubilee Line (2009) x Further developments towards the end of the planning period (2016) including: opening of the Thames Gateway Bridge; proposals to extend the DLR to Barking and Dagenham; Silvertown link; and Crossrail 1.

This timing will mean that the first priority will be to ensure that Lower Lea Valley and Stratford City take advantage of the opportunities offered by the build up to and legacy of the Olympic Games. In general, developments will be expected to occur more predominantly in the western half of the East London Thames Gateway (west of Connaught Bridge), where existing transport links will be better developed, than in the eastern half.

20. The London Plan projects a surplus of jobs over new economically active population in East London and seeks to provide enhanced transport links and skills-training so that local residents across the sub-region benefit. Jobs growth across the sub-region related to business and financial services, education, construction, retail and health will benefit existing and new residents.

21. Investment in upgrading the quantity and quality of the housing stock for the social, intermediate and market sectors will increase with commensurate decreases in waiting lists for desirable social sector housing. Higher density, better designed stock, more balanced and integrated communities will support higher quality social investment in affordable housing, transport, social infrastructure and public realm. In the longer term, East London will shift to a more balanced residential mix with a large increase in lifetime homes, wheelchair accessible homes and homes with very high energy, recycling and water conservation standards. Growth will be accommodated by optimising the use of previously developed land and vacant or under-used buildings and there will be significant increases in the quality of metropolitan open space led by the enormous improvements now programmed in

8 the Lower Lea. Waste recycling and sustainable disposal will be designed to be exemplar.

22. Large development proposals, often with significant public sector partnership and equity participation, will be encouraged to deliver high quality and excellently designed development, social infrastructure and public realm improvements to benefit a wide area. The aim is to create stable, multi-cultural, mixed income communities and neighbourhoods which residents can relate to. This will take time and effort to achieve. Exemplar lead developments such as the Olympics, Greenwich Peninsula, Barking Riverside and Stratford City should demonstrate the benefits of higher sustainability standards and quality of design and their application for all future developments and will assist in transforming the image of East London as a high quality place to live and work.

23. New residential communities will be centred around new and existing public transport, in many cases building out from existing well served locations. At a local level the emphasis will be on ‘walk to’ facilities and a diversity of daily environmental experience and lifestyles. Wherever possible, primary schools will be placed in the centre of the new communities linked to the park system to help create safe routes to schools and a community focus. Other social infrastructure will be provided and located in a way that creates a physical sense of community and encourages mixing and interaction between all races and income groups. Multi-functional health and social service reception facilities will increasingly be located in the town centres.

24. On transport, East London will shift from an over reliance on the car to more sustainable modes including public transport, cycling and walking. Most of the trip growth necessary due to increased population and economic activity will be made by public transport in the longer term and there will be efficient transport for freight and business. Massive investment in public transport quality and capacity, combined with appropriate measures to manage the demand for private vehicles, can help create this virtuous outcome. Many transport improvements are already under construction, committed or seeking powers including extensions to the East London Line, Channel Tunnel Rail Link stopping at Stratford, DLR to City Airport and Woolwich, upgrades to the Jubilee Line, a Thames Gateway Multi-modal bridge, Crossrail and the East London Transit. Commitment to these and other transport upgrades will transform connections to, from and within East London.

25. All growth will be on brownfield land, exceeding even the most aspirational national targets. A vision to create in East London a network of open spaces, parks and river/canal side walkways is known as the East London Green Grid49. These will link people to practical places such as work, schools shops and services. There will be significant increases in open space, led by the enormous improvements now programmed in the Lower Lea Valley. Urban drainage should be integrated in such a way that it too is sustainably designed. Flood protection should rely less on hard river walls and more on a natural interface with additional flood storage capacity, flood resistant design and more riparian ecological diversity near the river edge. Energy and waste conservation and sustainable energy generation will be to the highest standards. Waste recycling and sustainable waste management will be designed to be exemplar. The Olympics and Greenwich Peninsula developments are leading the way but these new

9 aspirational standards will ripple out through other development in East London for new communities and, where practical, be retrofitted for existing communities.

Sub-regional and inter-regional linkages

26. Linkages between East London and the Thames Gateway beyond London have been developed both by government and during preparation of the London Plan. An inter-regional planning statement on the Thames Gateway has been prepared and further work through the Inter-Regional Planning Forum is necessary to identify the extent of economic linkages between both areas.

27. The East of England Regional Assembly (EERA) has published a draft plan for the East of England1 with the Examination in Public concluded in early March 2006. The South East of England Regional Assembly (SEERA) has published the draft South East Plan2 and submitted it to government on 31st March 2006. This underscores the importance of joint working to maximise the potential of inter­ regional linkages and to address other cross boundary issues such as inter-regional migration, labour market, commuting (especially reverse commuting), car parking standards, freight, logistics (including access to jobs created at Shellhaven and North Dartford), housing including affordable housing, Green Belt, retailing (especially Bluewater and Lakeside) and waste.

28. There is a particular need for ‘seamless’ local and strategic planning with adjoining authorities (Dartford and Thurrock) in the Thames Gateway. This should set proposals for significant office development in the context of the wider office market, especially proposals for Stratford. The boroughs of Hackney and Redbridge are part of the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough Growth Area. Ensuring appropriate development that meets both strategic and local needs in all of these diverse areas will present particular challenges and require effective partnership between a range of organisations including TGLP, boroughs, GLA, LDA, TfL, ALG, ODPM and the East and South East of England Regions.

Diagram 3: East London in its strategic context

10 People and their Communities

29. Most of the sub-region will see significant increases in the younger (0-17) and older age groups (over 65). This will have implications for health, education and other services. For example more secondary schools will be needed, especially after 2011, and a substantial number of new primary schools.

30. Ethnic diversity across the East sub-region as a whole is similar to Greater London. However the spatial distribution within the sub-region gives a very different picture (see Diagram 4). There are high percentages of ethnic communities in the inner boroughs, namely Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets and high proportions of white populations resident in the outer boroughs such as in Barking and Dagenham and Havering3.

31. There are concentrations of ethnic communities with distinctive character: for example, the Chinese community in Woolwich Common, Evelyn, Beckton and Millwall, the Black Caribbean community in Kings Park, Rushey Green and Forest Gate North, Black African in Evelyn, Gascoigne, Thamesmead East, Thamesmead Moorings and Kings Park, Indian communities in Seven Kings, East Ham North and Plumstead and Pakistani communities in Abbey, East Ham North and Clementswood and the Bangladeshi community notably in Spitalfields and Banglatown, Green Street West with smaller communities in Haggerston, Redbridge and the City of London. It is expected that these patterns will change over time, not least in response to new housing opportunities.

32. East London also has significant areas of deprivation. Some of the large social housing estates feature in the estates renewal programme. They are characterised by isolation and need co-ordinated programmes of improved public transport, skills development, capacity building and environmental improvement. The growth that East London will experience offers an exceptional opportunity to address these problems. Much of the population growth will be accommodated in wards with considerable existing deprivation.

33. Conversely many communities in East London are relatively prosperous and enjoy good services and environments. A realistic aspiration is to make more of the sub­ region an area of choice for living. This will mean strengthening some local economies and services and addressing some issues of “image” which still affect large areas of East London.

34. East London has significant levels of unemployment with three boroughs higher than 10%, or roughly twice the English average: with Hackney 16.4%, Newham 13.5% and Tower Hamlets at 11.8%4. This reinforces the fact that skills development is critical to the job prospects of the sub-region’s population.

11 Diagram 4

12 35. The demands of growth and the need to remedy current deficiencies will mean that many community services will require space for expansion. More people and workers will mean more health services, more schools, expanded further and higher education, more utility services and growing demand for open space, leisure, sport and cultural activities. These will need to be located as far as possible in places with good accessibility by public transport, and especially in town centres and Opportunity Areas.

36. Accommodating this growth in services will also provide the opportunity to address existing gaps and deficiencies. In preparing implementation plans it will be important for the boroughs to seek wherever possible to integrate solutions to current problems with provision for growth.

Critical Issues

37. Growth and change will accentuate the differences between the three main roles that East London plays:

x Firstly, inner East London has a “world city” role – a centre of international and national activities. These functions are largely concentrated in the City and its fringes, the Isle of Dogs and, looking to the future, Stratford. x Second, East London contains many relatively “local” activities, including distinctive residential communities, town centres and local and small businesses. The residential areas include large Areas for Regeneration. x Third, East London contains a large number of London’s Opportunity Areas where there is significant scope to meet regional needs for housing and employment and environmental sustainability.

38. It will be essential to support the functions and develop the identities of both the “world city” and the “local” sets of activities and to manage the inter­ relationship between them. For example, local communities and small businesses may be under pressure from competitive higher value “world city” uses, but they often provide the labour and services that are essential to these uses. These tensions are especially significant in the “fringe” areas around the boundaries of the CAZ, which are outlined in this Framework. Design must recognise the need for a fine mix of uses and positive relationships between activities.

39. The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games will drive change at an unprecedented pace, particularly in the Lower Lea and will complement an accelerated regeneration agenda for the whole of the Thames Gateway, East London and other parts of the capital. It will require a sophisticated planning response, which will open up unique opportunities and challenges.

40. Other distinctive strategic issues facing East London include:

(i) It is a unique focus of national regeneration priorities under government’s Sustainable Communities Plan: Thames Gateway and London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough Corridor, with Stratford and the Lower Lea Valley acting as the fulcrum between the two;

13 (ii) London’s biggest reservoir of brownfield development capacity and largest number of Opportunity/Intensification Areas; (iii) Realisation of development capacity and sustainable regeneration of Opportunity Areas is particularly dependent on transport investment including new north-south cross river linkages by both rail and road; (iv) London’s only Urban Development Corporation, the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC), covering London Riverside and Lower Lea Valley. The LTGDC will be a key player in the regeneration of this significant part of East London; (v) The need to manage flood risk, particularly of tidal flooding and plan carefully for environmental infrastructure including water resources and sewage; (vi) Particular mismatches between current strategic and local provision for employment growth, likely future demand and the need for geographic reconciliation of this – which is much more significant than in other sub-regions; (vii) The biggest concentration of industrial type activities in London, with distinct need to create the environment which will retain and attract those which are viable and require a London location, particularly but not exclusively in the outer part of the sub-region; (viii) Particular capacity and attractions for logistics to meet strategic needs, together with transport links to further capacity in Dartford and Thurrock; (ix) A particular need for sensitive industrial re-location arrangements both within the sub-region and from its neighbours, especially Central London; (x) By far the greatest scope to release industrial land to other uses, posing unique management challenges; (xi) Special need for selective reconciliation of these mismatches with other land use priorities, especially housing; (xii) In view of the scale of proposed development, a particular need to secure adequate social infrastructure and to integrate existing and new communities and secure community engagement and support for the SRDF guidance; (xiii) Distinct need for reconciliation of local and strategic housing needs in terms of both dwelling size and tenure; (xiv) Significant residential growth which will lead to in-migration from other parts of London to new market, intermediate and social housing; (xv) Distinct combination of low value uses, historic heritage of brownfield/dereliction and subdued topography leading to degraded environment and poor image; (xvi) Prominent historic roles in managing London’s waste, supplying high volume material needs and providing minerals which raise tensions with the requirement to re-brand the image of the sub-region and also address challenges posed by new expressions of these roles; (xvii) Many of London’s protected wharves, providing opportunities for new river related activities and challenges in realising uplifts in development capacity/value generated; (xviii) Distinct need for open space and innovative approaches to management and provision including the Green Grid; (xix) Relatively recent development of car based out of centre retail capacity: need to make more sustainable in light of overall Plan objectives.

14 41. Most of these have spatial implications. At the core of the vision for the future of the East London sub-region is the concept that all parts of the sub-region must benefit from growth and change. This can only be achieved by a sensitive yet determined approach to the development of the Opportunity Areas and town centres as well as the finer grained renewal of some existing suburban and commercial areas so that they play not just to their own strengths, but to the benefit of the sub-region as a whole. Great emphasis is put on this throughout this SRDF.

Part One Action

(i) The Mayor, Thames Gateway London Partnership and other stakeholders should ensure regular liaison with stakeholders in the East and South East regions where there are shared interests in relation to East London.

(ii) Key stakeholders should work together to deliver the targets, commitments and investment that this SRDF identifies as necessary to ensure that East London develops sustainably. The details given in this SRDF will continue to be discussed at the appropriate sub-regional level.

15 Part Two

42. In order to ensure the appropriate implementation of the London Plan at the sub-regional level, and to secure the direction for East London set out in Part One, a series of issues and related actions needs to be addressed. They are best summarised under five headings.

1. Quantifying all the elements of growth needed to develop sustainable communities. 2. Allocating the growth spatially on the basis of new infrastructure investment. 3. Ensuring the resultant development brings benefit to communities. 4. Ensuring the development improves the environment. 5. Managing the development tools and processes.

43. Throughout this document the emphasis is on implementing the London Plan. It therefore concentrates on accommodating growth but, as the London Plan acknowledges, there are many other actions needed to deal with existing issues and problems, for example overcrowding, the poor quality of much existing housing and lack of facilities. The guidance in this SRDF will have to be developed sensitively at the local level to complement policies designed to deal with such issues.

Section 1. Quantifying Sustainable Growth.

44. This section considers the amount and nature of growth to be accommodated in the sub-region in the period up to 2016. The spatial implications of its potential location are considered in Section 2.

45. In preparing the SRDFs considerable research was undertaken, often with partners, to assess the full impact of growth in each of the sub-regions. This work covered a wide range of potential users of land and attempted to balance the information on demand with known supply and capacity. More detail is given in the appendices, but the overall conclusions for East London cover the following:

A. Housing. Current performance is significantly above target. The new targets in the Alterations to the London Plan set a significant challenge as they represent a doubling of the current target or a 50% increase on current output levels. They need to be reconciled with the need to support balanced, sustainable communities. B. Employment and offices. To achieve the Plan’s employment objectives, office demand and development capacity need to be reconciled more effectively, ensuring that surplus land is used to achieve broader objectives and priorities, especially housing. C. Retail. Effectively and pro-actively planned, strong retail growth will be a major driver of town centre regeneration and, incorporated in mixed use development, provide opportunities to address other priorities including housing. D. Culture, leisure and tourism. Growth in these sectors, if sensitively managed and integrated with other uses, will also be a significant

16 component of town centre renewal and the regeneration of Opportunity Areas. E. Social infrastructure. Accommodating demand for health, education, social and community infrastructure including open space will need early identification in development frameworks. F. Utility and infrastructure services. These include utilities and facilities for waste management and will need planned integration by a number of partners to achieve sustainable development. G. Industry and warehousing. There is considerable scope for the release of industrial land, but this will need careful management across the sub­ region as a whole to meet changing industrial and other land use priorities.

46. Within that broad set of conclusions, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed in this SRDF.

1A. Housing

47. The population of East London is projected to grow. The London Plan estimated growth by 233,000 to 2.24 million by 2016, an annual rate of growth of 16,640. The latest GLA projections which incorporate the findings of the 2004 London Housing Capacity Study5 increase the 2016 projection to 2,356,200. This represents an increase of 368,300 on the 2001 base – or 24,550 a year. Recent growth has been especially strong in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets, and these boroughs are likely to continue to be the areas of greatest population growth over the next 10 years. Growth will continue and in particular there will be a significant increase in the number of in-migrants and an increase in the proportion of younger people.

48. The large amount of growth allocated to East London in the London Plan, the availability of large sites in the sub-region and the large areas with potential for intensification all give rise to a particular set of issues for this SRDF. The particular requirements for affordable housing, the special needs for larger homes, the critical relationship with infrastructure and density and the role of social landlords are additional important issues with a sub-regional flavour.

49. The London Plan proposes a minimum increase of 142,300 homes in the sub­ region from 1997-2016 (Table 1A.1 in Annex 4). Alterations to the London Plan proposed for consideration at the Examination in Public in June 2006 are set out in Table 1A.2, Annex 4). Monitoring returns show that actual provision has in fact exceeded the London Plan target by 148% across the sub-region, over the last two years (Table 1A.3 in Annex 4). Performance has been above or on target in all boroughs except Lewisham. The development pipeline is extensive (see Table 1A.4, Annex 4).

50. Since the Plan was prepared more detailed assessments have indicated that the sub- region’s Opportunity and Intensification Areas have capacity to accommodate further homes. This was fed into the new Housing Capacity Study, which was published in July 2005 and was a key input to the Alterations to the London Plan.

51. Hackney and Tower Hamlets have significantly higher proportions of existing social housing than the other boroughs in the sub-region, with Greenwich, Lewisham, Newham and Barking and Dagenham also being above the London

17 average of 25%. Bexley, Havering and Redbridge have low proportions of social housing.

52. Of the boroughs in the sub-region, only Hackney has adopted the London Plan 50% London-wide target, though this is also being considered by Tower Hamlets. Overall, only 28% of net outturn in 2004/5 in East London was affordable housing (see Table 1A.5, Annex 4).

53. Increasing proportionate affordable housing outputs in boroughs with low proportions of social housing stock, such as Bexley, Havering and Redbridge, is critical to the objective of achieving a better balance of housing provision across the sub-region as a whole. Additional guidance is given in the SPG on Housing6. Linked to this tension is the continuing need for London to maintain some areas that are able to receive newcomers to the capital and help its long- term regeneration.

54. The London Plan recognises that in setting targets for affordable housing boroughs must take account of regional need and that in some East London boroughs the provision of 50% affordable housing is more difficult in financial terms than in other boroughs. However this demonstrates a need for greater levels of investment subsidy, rather than justifying lower affordable housing targets.

55. These considerations collectively give rise to the first key issue, which is how to build on recent performance and to deliver new homes at higher and sustained rates, particularly for affordable housing. Issues relating to housing density and mix are discussed in Sections 5A and 5B of this SRDF respectively.

Action 1A Partners should bring forward development frameworks for key sites maximising the potential of improvements to public transport infrastructure, building in the need for social and other infrastructure, setting minimum standards for higher densities and specifying appropriate housing size mix and mixed use priorities. (See also Sections 1E, 1F and 5).

1B. Employment and Offices

56. In 2001 it was estimated that there were 1.1 million jobs in East London and that the financial and business services sectors dominated the sub-regional profile (430,000). The public administration, health and education sectors, usually the most important in sub-regions outside Central London, were still significant but accounted for only 190,000 jobs (Figures 1B.1, 1B.2, Annex 4).

57. In the London Plan total employment in East London was projected to grow by 249,000 or 23% of the London total. 90% of these jobs were expected to be in the office sector, almost all of them in the City, City Fringe and the Isle of Dogs. Conversely, the industrial sectors were expected to face a net loss of 11,000 jobs and the ‘other’ activities to generate an extra 36,000 jobs.

58. These projections are currently being revised to take account of new data based upon an assessment of structural trends, development capacity and

18 accessibility7. These suggest that total employment growth 2001–2016 could be less (201,000) than that projected for the London Plan (249,000) (See Annex 4, Table 1B.3). This reduction can be explained partly by the fact that in 2001, employment levels in London were above the trend rate of growth and partly by a reduction in the London-wide employment growth projection to 2016.

59. Unemployment is higher than the London average and skills development is critical to the job prospects of the sub-region’s population. There are areas with high levels of unemployment and economic inactivity and average earnings and productivity are lower than other parts of London, see also Section 3.

60. Compared to the other sub-regions, the East London economy is particularly complex. For planning purposes it has four distinct strands:

(i) Parts of the CAZ office market area. (ii) Some elements of a new, more distinct East London economy. The creative, green, leisure and information and science based sectors fall partly into this category. (iii) East London manufacturing and distribution activities, some of which represent the remains of what was once a distinctive sub-regional economy. (iv) Other, mainly locally based goods and service production activities.

61. This fragmentation is further complicated by East London being a far from self-contained sub-regional labour market. Of the sub-regional workforce in 2001, 27% come from other parts of London and 21% from outside London – the lowest level of ‘self containment’ outside Central London (see Figure 1B.4, Annex 4). A recent study into commuter flows in London and the wider South East8 forecasts an increase in the number of rail commuters from the Thames Gateway and Essex, principally to the Central Activities Zone and the Isle of Dogs. Sectors such as health and education offer a wide range of jobs in most localities which can reduce the need for long-distance commuting.

62. This has implications for investment in skills and training to meet new demands and the needs of existing residents as well as to upgrade the image of the sub-region as a place to live and work for skilled workers to secure more balanced and sustainable communities. Quality housing can attract skilled workers and in turn act as a magnet for knowledge sector employment to the sub-region. There will be some scope, though modest in scale, for local employment, particularly in town centres and through local inward investment initiatives complemented by business support and marketing measures (See also Section 3 and the role of Sub-Regional Economic Development Implementation Plans).

63. There are more than 78,000 workplaces (a proxy for businesses) recorded in East London. Though slightly less important than in London as a whole, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) dominate the sub-region’s business structure. In 2002, pay-points with less than 200 employees accounted for 99% of the total and 61% of employment. Those with less than 11 employees accounted for 85% of pay-points and 18% of employment. Some SME’s perform important roles in servicing the wider London economy including

19 Central London as well as meeting essential local needs and being important for job creation. They can provide opportunities for those who might otherwise have difficulty in gaining access to the active labour market. Provision for SMEs is particularly susceptible to the strong pressures for land use change facing East London. This includes pressures for comprehensive redevelopment and also the need to accommodate SMEs serving Central London that are unable to find affordable premises in the tightly constrained Central London land market.

64. Black and Minority Ethnic businesses are also an important element of the East London economy. This is true not just for the well known clusters of shops and restaurants for example in Brick Lane and Green Street, but throughout the economy and often concentrated in growth sectors such as information technology. The opportunity to build on this strength and to expand the potential for international trade needs to be developed.

65. Monitoring suggests that, in aggregate, most sub-regions outside Central London have made more provision for economic activity than is realistically necessary to meet future demand. This appears to apply particularly to East London. On the basis of a broad brush assessment for the London Plan9, East London as a whole had far more development capacity - for 370,000 extra jobs, than likely demand, at 249,000 jobs. These capacity estimates are in the process of being updated for the review of the London Plan.

66. Echoing the general mismatch between demand and supply of employment capacity, independent consultants10 report that “from a simple statistical standpoint, the East London Sub-Region already has sufficient office development capacity to meet projected demand to 2016”. Development pipeline monitoring returns show that at the end of 2003 the City of London, Tower Hamlets and Newham alone had a potential gain to stock of 37 million sq ft against demand for 39 million sq ft projected for whole sub-region between 2001 and 2016. The results of the latest London Office Policy Review expected for publication in 2006 will provide a valuable strategic update and overview. Initial emerging results from LOPR 2006 suggest that the central London office market has moved from generalised oversupply, low demand and low or falling rents at the end of 2003 to localised undersupply, rising demand and selective rental growth for the best quality space.

67. In common with other outer sub-regions, the suburban office market generally in East London faces major structural challenges. Some of the forces which originally drove and sustained it are waning. The spatial implications of this are covered in Section 2.

20 Action 1B (i) In partnership with the LDA, boroughs are asked to facilitate the implementation of the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy through the East London Sub-Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan (SREDIP).

(ii) The Mayor will work with the LDA, boroughs and other stakeholders to encourage the market to provide and enhance viable, affordable provision for SMEs in appropriate locations and through the Sub-Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan, to meet their specific needs for business support and training (see also Section 3).

(iii) The Mayor will continue to analyse the London wide office market. Boroughs and other stakeholders are encouraged to supplement this through sub- regional office market analysis.

(iv) Boroughs through LDFs are encouraged to promote the consolidation and rejuvenation of the sub-regional office market in appropriate, viable locations and achieve wider planning objectives including town centre renewal and increased housing provision (see also Section 5).

1C. Retail

68. In East London, population and consumer expenditure growth is generating significant need for new retail space, in particular for comparison goods11. Resident-based consumer expenditure in the sub-region is expected to increase by almost 50% between 2001 and 2016. Comparison goods expenditure could double from £4.2bn to £8.6bn and convenience goods12 expenditure is expected to increase but at a more modest rate of about 37% from £2.8bn to £3.8bn.

69. According to the strategic trend based assessment13, there may be a need for an extra 120,000sqm to 204,000sqm of comparison goods floorspace in East London between 2001-2016 (see Annex 4, Table 1C.1).

70. This assessment takes into account a number of strategically significant comparison goods developments already proposed in the sub-region14. The largest of these include 143,000 sqm at Stratford, 31,000sqm at Greenwich and a further 14,500 sqm proposed at Lewisham. Other major comparison goods developments in the pipeline outside the sub-region but with a significant potential impact on East London include proposals for Brent Cross, Kings Cross, Elephant & Castle and Surrey Quays (see Annex 4, Table 1C.3).

71. In East London it is estimated that between 28,000 sqm and 77,000 sqm of additional convenience space could be required by 201615 (see Annex 4, Table 1C.2). However, this does not take into account convenience goods proposals in the pipeline and in East London it is estimated that there are current proposals amounting to 59,000 sqm in total. The larger of the known convenience proposals in the sub-region include schemes at the Dolphin site in Havering, Stratford and Barking Riverside.

21 72. About 20% of this convenience goods pipeline estimate is in out of centre locations, well below the London average of 27%. To implement London Plan policies 3D.1 and 3D.2 which encourage new retail development in town centres as a first priority, stakeholders are invited to explore potential capacity within centres and especially (although not exclusively) District centres which are particularly accessible to residents by sustainable modes of transport.

73. Whilst these estimates are the best available at the sub-regional level, they need to treated with caution. Using their own local need assessments, boroughs are encouraged to undertake fine grained assessments of need for new convenience floorspace taking into account qualitative need including the complexion of the existing retail offer, under/over-trading, accessibility and the potential for improvement of out-moded existing convenience floorspace.

Action 1C (i) When making provision for anticipated retail demand in Local Development Frameworks, boroughs are encouraged to undertake fine grained assessments of need and capacity taking into account the indicative sub-regional and borough need for new comparison and convenience goods retail floorspace to 2016 in Annex 4, Table 1C.1 and 1C.2.

(ii) Boroughs are asked to verify the pipeline of convenience goods floorspace, including the strategically significant proposals in Annex 4, Table 1C.3 and consider these in light of local assessments of need and the sequential test.

(iii) The Mayor will continue to work with boroughs and other stakeholders to consider areas where reconciliation of retail need and capacity requires coordination between the East sub-region and its neighbours including those beyond the London boundary, including Thurrock and Blue Water.

1D. Culture, Leisure and Tourism

74. Culture, leisure and tourism provide important services and employment for Londoners and the wider south east as well as being an important part of London’s world city role. They are intrinsically linked and increasing in importance as disposable incomes grow and can contribute to town centre renewal. Residents’ leisure spend per capita in the sub-region, while significant, is the lowest in London, spending 30% less than the London average on recreational and sporting services, and 17-19% less on cultural services, dining and drinking (Table 1D.1, Annex 4).

75. Although cultural provision is generally under-developed in East London16, specialist cultural clusters have emerged in the City Fringe, Deptford, Hackney and Stratford as well as those associated with London’s diverse communities in areas such as Brick Lane, Green Street and East Ham, which attract visitors from across London and beyond. Recent developments, such as the Laban Dance Centre are having a positive impact in some parts of the sub-region. East London is also the home to many cultural celebrations including local Melas, Respect Festival and Pride. Strategic provision is being complemented by more local cultural and leisure facilities as an integral part of the life of sustainable communities such as those at Hornchurch. The Mayor’s Culture

22 Strategy17 sets out a range of cultural uses that fit into London’s network of town centres.

76. The night-time economy throughout East London is primarily associated with office clusters, Metropolitan and some Major centres (Annex 4, Table 1D.2). There are strategic clusters of night-time activity in the City Fringe area. Increase in leisure spend will be augmented substantially by expenditure from other Londoners, south east residents, commuters and visitors.

77. East London has a rich cultural heritage and performs a strategic tourism role. The staging of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games provides the opportunity to showcase East London and will attract visitors in substantial numbers. It will have particular long-term legacy benefits for the sub-region. East London contains two World Heritage Sites (Tower of London, Maritime Greenwich) and other visitor destinations such as St. Paul’s Cathedral, the Dome, cultural areas such as Brick Lane, and business-tourism including Excel. The redevelopment of the Dome area as ‘the O2’ provides a strategic leisure destination on Greenwich Peninsular of London-wide importance, suitable as a location for a regional casino. Emerging high volume visitor attractions are being promoted in and around Rainham Conservation Park and the Lower Lea. The ongoing process of sub-regional working should also help identify locations where ‘per cent for art’ schemes can make strategically important contributions to improving London’s cultural offer in accordance with London Plan policy 3D.4.

78. Between 1991 and 2003 visitor accommodation in East London increased by 109% (6,000 rooms) compared to 14% (10,400 rooms) in Central and 50% (5,600 rooms) in West London18. Development has been concentrated particularly in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Greenwich and the City, and more recently Hackney, mostly in the purpose-built budget sector and a smaller number of more luxury hotels. There were over 2,000 rooms in the planning pipeline in March 2006, and at present development trends it is estimated that East London will accommodate about 4,200 extra hotel rooms by 2016. Emerging research19 suggests this trend will continue with East London experiencing continuing increases in demand. Likely locations for future hotel provision are identified in Section 2 and Annex 4, Table 1D.3. East London is well-placed to take advantage of accessible transport networks to increase provision of accessible hotel rooms. More specific information and guidance on business and leisure tourism related issues is set out in the East London Sub-Regional Tourism Development Strategy and Action Plan. Guidance on sub-regional and borough level hotel demand is given in the Hotel Demand Study, GLA 2006, which will also inform borough and sub-regional hotel provision monitoring benchmarks.

23 Action 1D

(i) Boroughs and other stakeholders are asked to consider the need to accommodate growth in cultural and leisure services (including strategic provision) and the needs of business and leisure visitors. Growth should be accommodated in line with London Plan policy and the strategic documents outlined above, and take account of the varied needs of London’s diverse communities.

(ii) Boroughs and other stakeholders are asked to consider how to build on East London’s cultural diversity, potential for regeneration and Olympic and Paralympic developments and legacy.

1E. Social Infrastructure

79. In order to ensure that development in the sub-region is sustainable and brings an improved quality of life to local communities, this SRDF places great emphasis on the need for integrated planning by a range of partners at the earliest possible stage. The principal needs are for healthcare, education, community facilities and childcare. Revenue funding in addition to the capital funding needed for social infrastructure, will also be critical to ensure quality of provision.

80. The Thames Gateway Social Infrastructure Study recently initiated by the LDA and ODPM and supported by TGLP is designed to address some of these issues. The study is being managed by the NHS Healthy Urban Development Unit20 and encompasses three separate but interrelated components, namely:

(1) The ‘case for social infrastructure planning’ which will provide a clear message on importance of properly planning for delivering social infrastructure across the London Thames Gateway. It will also illustrate what can be achieved and how, reviewing key barriers and how they could be overcome.

(2) A ‘Toolkit to guide decision making at the local level’ which will provide detailed background information together with an analysis of alternative approaches to mapping and forecasting future need to aid planning for new social infrastructure across the London Thames Gateway and assist in the assessment of the population impacts of new housing proposals.

(3) A review of the key ‘barriers and hurdles’ that are currently influencing the delivery of social infrastructure across the London Thames Gateway.

81. It is expected that the Framework will guide and inform the planning and delivery of social infrastructure at a ‘strategic’, local ‘strategic’ and project specific level.

24 82. Healthcare facilities. The health of the population in East London, particularly in the inner boroughs is very poor compared to London as a whole (see Section 3). Urban design has an important role to play in tackling the wider determinants of health, particularly in relation to providing quality housing, green spaces, transport links, safer environments and supporting vulnerable people. The public health White Paper Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier21 sets out a framework for improving health. The White Paper includes plans for reducing the number of people who smoke, reducing obesity, increasing exercise, and improving mental health and well­ being. It has significant implications for spatial planning, particularly in relation to access to green spaces (see Section 4D) and active travel to promote physical activity, as well as access to healthy affordable food.

83. The Regional Public Health Group-London, the LDA and the five Strategic Health Authorities have collaborated to establish a Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) to assist London’s health community to respond to the challenges of the forecast population growth22. This is intended to help make the best use of resources to tackle the complex issues and fragmented structure of health services in London.

84. The current pattern and model of health care in East London is changing but consists of 8 acute trusts (9 sites with A&E departments), 9 Primary Care Trusts and 4 Mental Health trusts, each with a variety of sites and community teams. Many patients in East London boroughs use health services outside that area. Likewise, patients living outside East London travel to hospitals and other health services in the 9 boroughs. Access to primary care services across the boroughs is impeded by an uneven distribution of premises, poor physical access and some unattractive and inappropriate settings. Integration of services and the range of service offered are restricted by a lack of space for joint activity and poor internal building design.

85. The NHS Improvement Plan (2004) sets out a programme to continue the expansion of NHS services until 2008. There are already a number of major hospital developments planned within the sub-region and a summary is provided in 5Table 1E.1, Annex 4. There are also a number of current schemes to replace existing healthcare provision with more efficient and effective services – primarily substitution rather than expansion. Significant primary care and community based facilities will be required between 2004 and 2016 to serve both the existing and the large increase in population. This is in line with the focus of NHS modernisation where traditional hospital based care is largely replaced by enhanced local services delivered at the community level and in people's homes.

86. Within each of the Opportunity Areas or their hinterlands, expansion and upgrading of primary care services will need to be carefully planned in order to ensure that adequate services reach newly developed communities. The role of public transport will be critical in ensuring that all sections of the community have good access to primary and secondary care.

87. Local Area Agreements (LAA) can be a useful mechanism to bring about improvements at a local level and increase the emphasis on partnership action to achieve change. LAA submissions submitted so far tend to focus on individual health behaviours, rather than addressing the broader determinants

25 of health or explicitly tackling health inequalities. The scope for sub-regional or pan-London work on health and other issues such as climate change does not appear to have been addressed adequately in the first rounds of LAA development and there could be significant benefits in further considering cross-borough work on some of these issues.

88. Education and training facilities. In January 2005 there were 360,000 pupils in East London in 850 schools23. The number of 5-15 year olds is projected to increase by over 13% by 2026. Changes to school provision will not necessarily reflect exactly the demographic changes due to the impact of pupil preference and the admissions policies of schools, with significant pupil movement across the region.

89. The London Challenge strategy document published in 2003 set out the expectation that 20 new schools would be needed in London by 2008 to meet population growth, and that new schools would be built in areas where there was a significant outflow of pupils. The DfES is expected to publish a report on Secondary School Places planning in London shortly. The Academies programme is being expanded to provide independently managed Academies to be open or in the pipeline in London by 2010. The Government is committed to rebuilding or refurbishing every secondary school in the country, through the Building Schools for the Future BSF programme, over the next 15 years. Over this period there will therefore be significant development at secondary schools in the region, with the possibility that new sites will be identified for development. Eleven London boroughs are in the first three waves of BSF and will be starting in the programme by 2008. The remaining boroughs have been given an indication, for planning purposes only, of when they will start in BSF.

90. Higher and Further Education. Both are major sectors of the London economy in their own right. The London university sector alone generates 2.5 – 3.0% of London’s output and some 70,000 jobs. East London accommodates five higher education institutions and over 44,000 students (12% of the London total). Together with the further education institutions it has significant multiplier effects, in terms of both the local economy and the wider labour market. For example, the total economic gain from the higher earnings of London graduates over their working lives, is around £11.7bn, £7.2bn of which is in London. This is without taking into account the wider social benefits of higher and further education.

91. With unemployment higher than the London average, skills development through Further Education is critical to the job prospects of the sub-region’s population (see also Section 3). Currently 467,000 students are enrolled in the East London’s FE institutions, significantly more than in any other sub-region but disproportionately fewer relative to total population. A key concern of the Mayor’s London Plan and Economic Development Strategy is to provide better access to employment opportunities, especially for those who hitherto have faced labour market barriers. This will require dedicated training packages through agencies such as the Learning and Skills Councils and the LDA; transport planning that facilitates access to jobs from areas with high concentrations of unemployment and under-employment; support through childcare and other services; and job brokerage schemes to place more East London residents into East London jobs.

26 92. Some higher and further education institutions need to expand in order to meet demand. They are successful in attracting research income, but the cost pressures and the need to continue investing in infrastructure and facilities are intense. Stakeholders are encouraged to explore:

(i) Provision for academic facilities, taking into account the further development of the sector including the need for new and potential expansion of existing facilities; (ii) Consideration of location and transport access needs of higher and further education institutions and their contribution to the wider offer of East London; (iii) Potential for mixed use development including education facilities; (iv) Provision of student accommodation, including implications for changes from office and other uses and for broader mixed use policy, as well as more specialised provision. (v) The contribution of the sector to local regeneration. (vi) The scope to foster greater links between the sector and business and the way in which the spatial planning process, GLA group and other agencies can contribute towards this, particularly in the Royal Docks. (vii) Extending participation rates to ensure wider access to Higher and Further Education.

93. Community facilities. Through Local Development Documents and area frameworks for major new developments boroughs need to ensure an appropriate range of community facilities to meet the diverse needs of the local population. This needs to include appropriate religious facilities, as well as libraries, community centres, sports facilities and premises to encourage voluntary activity. These plans will be especially important in areas of significant new development, for example the main town centres and Opportunity Areas or their hinterlands. Provision needs to reflect the changing demography of individual areas.

94. Childcare. The provision of good quality childcare, at a cost parents can afford, is crucial to ensuring higher employment rates and reducing child poverty in London. It is therefore a key component of securing economic and social inclusion (see Section 3). The East London sub-region faces the most challenges in this respect of all the London sub-regions. In 2001, 29 per cent of children under five in the sub-region were living in a household with no adult in employment, compared with a Greater London average of 25 per cent (see Table 1E.2, Annex 4). This went up to nearly 42 per cent in Tower Hamlets, over 37 per cent in Newham and over 33 per cent in Hackney.

95. This is also expected to be the fastest growing sub-region in London in the numbers of under fives, with over 12,000 extra in the age group by 2008 and nearly 26,000 extra by 2016. Over the whole period, this represents an expected increase of over 18 per cent, compared with a Greater London average of nearly 16 per cent.

96. Provision of childcare in the sub-region is already lagging behind the London and England averages, in terms of its current population (see Table 1E.3, Annex 4). According to Ofsted figures for December 2005, the sub-region has registered day nursery and childminding places for just under 22 per cent of its

27 under five year olds, compared with nearly 31 per cent in England as a whole. Provision is lowest in Barking and Dagenham, Newham and Tower Hamlets.

97. Just to bring provision in the sub-region up to the England average – that is a place for three out of ten under-fives - would require an extra 11,400 places immediately. To maintain this rate given the projected increase in the population in this age group would mean an extra 20,300 places on top of current provision by 2016. This does not take account of any increase in need or demand. An additional factor affecting areas like the City and Tower Hamlets is the use of centrally-located provision by parents living outside the area, but commuting in to work.

98. Day care provision in London is much more expensive than the England average. Daycare Trust figures for January 2005 show that a day nursery place in Inner London averages £197 per week for a child under two and £175 for a child aged two or over. These costs are respectively nearly 40 per cent and 32 per cent above the equivalent averages in England as a whole. The cost of a place with a childminder in Inner London is lower than in Outer London, at £142 for a child under two. This is 12 per cent higher than the England average.

99. Stakeholders are asked also take into account children’s wider requirements including emerging benchmark standards for play provision and ‘home zones’.

100. Police and emergency services. The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and the London Fire Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) are both in the process of re-structuring their service delivery. This will entail changes in their property requirements too. These should be built into development opportunities as they arise and further engagement with the two services will determine more definite local requirements and opportunities. Further details of police requirements at each of the Opportunity Areas are given in Annex 2. During the consultation process the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) has identified that there is a need for additional prison accommodation in or near to London. This is an issue that affects all of London and will need to be explored in more detail following the publication of this SRDF.

28 Action 1E

(i) Working with other stakeholders, boroughs are encouraged to ensure that specific provision for healthcare, education and community needs is included in development frameworks for Opportunity Areas, town centres and major sites in order to achieve sustainable communities.

(ii) Working with other stakeholders, boroughs are asked to look for opportunities to contribute towards new health infrastructure provision alongside other community infrastructure particularly in town centres, Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification and help the NHS bring forward its programme of new health schemes wherever possible.

(iii) The Mayor will work with DFES, boroughs and other relevant stakeholders to examine of the need for additional education facilities in the light of demographic changes expected in London. This work should also involve the LDA and consider the links between business and the education sector.

(iv) Boroughs are asked to ensure that the childcare implications of new developments are taken into account when agreements are drawn up.

(v) GLA group will work with the MPA, LFEPA and other key stakeholders to ensure that suitable police and fire service infrastructure is built into relevant development opportunities, particularly those of Opportunity Areas.

(vi) The Mayor will initiate discussions with NOMS and other key stakeholders in relation to the potential need for additional prison accommodation in London.

1F. Utility and Infrastructure services

101. Gas. The high pressure distribution system is thought to have adequate capacity for the foreseeable future, including the scale of development envisaged in the London Plan. Transco will keep this situation under review as new high pressure infrastructure is expensive, can be disruptive to implement and generally involves a long lead in period.

102. Reinforcement requirements for the lower pressure tiers of the gas distribution network will be considered on a site-by-site basis. In major developments, particularly the Opportunity Areas an early assessment will be required of the likely need for gas mains reinforcement and a plan prepared to seek to distribute any associated costs across the various individual sites within the Opportunity Area.

103. There are no current proposals to remove any of London’s remaining gas holders. However, alternative pipeline based storage options may be possible for some outer London gas holders.

104. Electricity. The additional electrical loads for new development are extremely variable. They depend on the level of energy efficiency, the amount of local generation and critically the extent of electric, compared to gas, powered heating. The London Plan’s emphasis on minimising energy consumption and

29 use of communal heating and cooling systems will mean that the need for additional electrical infrastructure will also be reduced. The London Plan requires local energy generation and Combined Heat and Power as more sustainable energy options, where feasible. To support this account should be taken of strategic policy to encourage on site provision of sustainable sources of energy, for example wind turbines, in appropriate locations and of advice on integrating renewable energy into new developments24.

105. EDF, London ‘s main electricity supplier has examined the nature and scale of expected growth outlined in the London Plan, in particular the Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification and has helped to compile the information in Annex 2. The information contained in this table is only for general planning guidance. As with gas infrastructure it will be useful for major developments, particularly the Opportunity Areas to make an early assessment of the likely need for electricity mains reinforcement and seek to distribute any associated costs across the various individual sites within the Opportunity Area. In most cases, some off site reinforcement of EDF Energy’s existing network will also be required and the developer may also be asked to pay a proportion of the cost. In preparation for the 2012 Olympic Games, the National Grid is working closely with the LDA in the undergrounding of the existing overhead powerlines extending from Hackney to West Ham.

106. Heat distribution infrastructure. Given that average heat demand densities in East London are significantly above the threshold required to justify investment in heat distribution infrastructure, priority should be given to this technology in East London.

107. Telecommunications. The London Plan stresses that all new buildings should be ‘e-enabled’. For small scale developments this is a matter for local authorities and applicants. In large sites, and in Opportunity Areas, planning for telecommunications infrastructure provision should be included in master planning. Ensuring that telecommunications ducting is designed and planned early can considerably reduce the total costs of connecting new buildings to advanced high-speed networks.

108. There are also opportunities for developers and local authorities to explore new ownership models relating to the provision of telecommunications ducting and the networks themselves. The implications of the DTI examination of how best to provide the next generation of broad band infrastructure should also be explored.

109. Waste. East London is forecast to produce some 5.1 million tonnes (mt) of waste in 2010, with arisings predicted to increase to 5.6 mt in 2015 and 5.8 mt in 2020. Table 1F.1 in Annex 4 gives further details and also shows the proportions of municipal, commercial/ industrial and construction & demolition waste within the projected arisings.

110. The London Plan (Policy 4A.1 Waste strategic policy and targets) commits to achieving 85% waste self-sufficiency by 2020. To meet this challenging target London must move progressively towards sustainable waste management through securing high rates of recycling and recovery, and must achieve a step change in the delivery of recycling and waste treatment facilities.

30 111. This will maximise the amount of material available for remanufacturing, and will embrace technology with the potential to produce renewable energy and renewable hydrogen – thus reducing London’s contribution to climate change. Transforming London's approach to waste management will bring many benefits – an expansion of the capital's green economy through the provision of new jobs and opportunities from recycling and reprocessing, as well as facing up to London's environmental responsibilities.

112. Research carried out in 200525 evaluated the adequacy of London’s existing strategically important waste management and disposal facilities to meet London’s future needs for all waste streams, and identified the potential to locate new recycling and recovery facilities in London. Draft Alterations to the London Plan’s waste polices, published for public consultation by the Mayor in October 2005, set out the number and type of recycling and waste management facilities required, and the opportunities for their broad location.

113. Although sub-regional waste self-sufficiency is highly desirable on sustainability grounds, Central London does not have sufficient capacity to support this. The draft Alterations therefore propose a sub-regional apportionment which sees most of Central London’s capacity (expressed as a land requirement) distributed between East, West and North London, with the largest proportion going to East London where the research indicates that land availability is greatest. Full details are set out in Tables 1F.2, 1F.3 and 1F.4 in Annex 4.

114. For East London, Table 1F.2 shows that 85.5 ha of additional land will be required to manage 85% of the 1.8 mt of municipal and the 2.5 mt of commercial & industrial waste arisings from East London forecast for 2020. Within East London, 40.5 ha of land currently occupied by waste transfer stations is capable of being put to alternative use for recycling and waste treatment purposes, as waste exports out of London diminish in line with Policy 4A.1. This leaves 45 ha of land not currently in waste use to be identified and safeguarded, together with a further 46 ha of additional land to be identified and safeguarded to deal with the apportioned waste from Central London. This total requirement for additional land of 91.0 ha represents an annual average delivery rate of 6.1 ha per annum over the period 2006 to 2020. New Waste Policy 2 in the draft Alterations calls upon boroughs to collaborate at sub-regional level to ensure that sufficient land capacity is identified across the sub-region in LDDs.

115. Table 1F.3 shows average throughput per year and average land take for various waste recycling and treatment facilities, and Table 1F.4 shows an indicative distribution of these facilities for East London: 83 recycling (materials reclamation facilities – MRF), 23 composting, 7 mechanical biological treatment (MBT), 9 anaerobic digestion, and 5 gasification/pyrolysis facilities. Boroughs should ensure that through their LDDs a range of facilities sufficient to meet the sub-region's required waste processing capacity is provided (New Waste Policy 3).

116. New Waste Policy 4 outlines three categories of broad locations appropriate for such facilities: (a) Strategic Employment Locations (SELs – comprising Preferred Industrial Locations and Industrial Business Parks), (b) Local Employment Areas and (c) existing waste management sites.

31 117. Under (a), the draft Alterations suggest that for East London, the following SELs are appropriate: x Surrey Canal Area PIL (part), LB Lewisham x Thames Road IBP, LB Bexley x Footscray IBP, LB Bexley x Erith Riverside PIL (part), LB Bexley x Belvedere Industrial Area PIL (part), LB Bexley x Plumstead Industrial Area PIL, LB Greenwich x North Charlton Employment Area PIL, LB Greenwich x Dagenham Dock PIL (part), LB Havering x Harold Hill Industrial Estate PIL, LB Havering x Thameside East PIL, LB Newham x Thameside West PIL, LB Newham x Southend Road Business Area PIL, LB Redbridge

118. Boroughs should note that the SELs identified above comprise only one of three categories of broad locations suitable for waste management – boroughs should also look to Local Employment Areas and existing waste sites for site identification and safeguarding.

119. Recycling and waste treatment are important growth industries and it is important to consider suitable sites and environmental separation buffers – this may be an important consideration in the release of industrial land in East London. The implications for freight will also need to be taken into account and particularly in relation to safeguarded wharves and riparian sites due to the unique contribution that river transport can make to the sustainable movement of goods and waste.

120. Water and sewage. Water supplies within London are at a critical level and greater emphasis needs to be placed on a sustainable twin track approach of water conservation including a major reduction of pipeline leaks and on sustainable additional water resources. East London is served by two water companies, Thames Water and Essex & Suffolk Water. Support is needed to enable the water companies to repair, maintain and replace water mains on a widespread scale in order to reduce leakage. The Mayor will produce a Water Action Framework during 2006 which will set out a sustainable strategic direction for managing water supplies in future in order to cope with London’s growth. The Mayor directed refusal of planning permission for a desalination plant at Beckton in 2005.

121. East London’s sewerage services are provided solely by Thames Water. There are three major Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) at Beckton, Crossness and Riverside, Rainham. Beckton and Crossness are amongst the largest WwTWs in Europe and will be upgraded over the coming years as part of planned investment. These upgrades will need to take into account the additional loads from London’s growth and potentially the capacity to treat storm sewer flows as a result of addressing the combined sewer overflows issues in London. Thames Water expect that existing sewerage capacity can cater for new development. However specific large sites may require significant upgrades to the sewer network (see Annex 2). Particularly large development sites such as parts of the Thames Gateway or Lower Lea Valley

32 may have potential for local sewage treatment rather than transfer by sewer to the major WwTWs.

122. The problems of combined sewer overflows affect both the Thames and some tributary rivers within East London. Government is currently considering the options suggested for tackling this issue with the current specific focus on the Abbey Mills overflow in the vicinity of the Olympic Park. The discharge of clean surface water to the combined sewer system should generally be avoided in order not to further exacerbate the sewer overflow problems. Guidance on the supply of water to and removal of sewage from Opportunity Areas is provided in Annex 2.

123. Flood risk. Large parts of the sub-region are within the natural floodplain of the tidal Thames and significant areas are within the natural floodplains of tributary rivers. To aid the detailed understanding of these issues the TGLP has produced a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). For the longer term, the Environment Agency is preparing a strategy for Flood Management in the Thames Estuary up to 2100. This should be available in 2008. Stakeholders will find the SFRA a useful tool in assessing the degree of risk, applying the sequential test set out in PPG25 and the emerging PPS25 regarding the location of development in relation to the floodplain and identifying likely measures that may need to be built into developments.

124. In all cases of new development proposals within the indicative flood risk area there will need to be a flood risk assessment in line with PPG25 and the emerging PPS25. For developments adjacent to flood defences good practice and London Plan policy 4C.7 dictates that the development should be set back from the defences to allow for their sustainable maintenance and enhancement. In all development cases surface water run off should be managed as close as possible to its source. In line with London Plan policy 4C.8 the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should promoted unless there are practical reasons for not doing so.

125. There has been substantial investment in tidal flood defences and defences against fluvial flooding on many of the tributaries. The development of the Millennium Dome gives a good demonstration as to how to achieve more sustainable flood defences by setting development back from the river edge. Further good practice will emerge from the Olympics as flood storage areas are built into the design. In other areas it will be important to design buildings such that they will be able to withstand flooding, recover quickly and maintain safe emergency access/egress routes if and when a flood does occur. The design of buildings and sites which would be subject to high impact (for example water greater than 0.5m depth or rapid inundation) if flooded must consider emergency access and egress and be accompanied by emergency planning procedures in line with the Local Authority’s Civil Emergency Procedures. Appropriate flood warning systems should be installed. All development should be protected to a minimum standard of 1 in 1000 return period (0.1% per year) for tidal flooding with no deterioration of this level of protection over the lifetime of the development.

126. Innovative building and site designs that do not depend on flood barriers for protection should be encouraged, particularly where this results in an increase in flood storage capacity, greater public access and recreation opportunities

33 along the water edge, greater biodiversity and habitat conservation or other public benefit. The risk to property and life should, however, be as low or lower than development in a similar location protected by traditional methods and there should be no net loss of flood storage capacity.

127. Land for transport. Some additional land will be required to meet the need for improved public transport, which is likely to have particular implications for industrial land policy. In general these needs will be included in the detailed development of the projects themselves. Further information is given in the Mayor’s Land for Transport Functions draft SPG26.

Action 1F

(i) The Mayor and key stakeholders will continue to engage with the major utility infrastructure providers to ensure a consistent and sustainable approach to matching new development to infrastructure and longer term planning and funding of infrastructure for London.

(ii) Stakeholders should work collaboratively towards identifying and safeguarding land and sites for an appropriate range of recycling and waste treatment facilities in suitable locations across the sub-region to provide sufficient capacity to meet London's 85% self-sufficiency target.

1G. Industry and warehousing

128. This issue is put last because, unlike the activities listed above, the land required for industry is projected to decrease rather than increase. However there are some important issues to consider, not least the continuing strength of warehousing and some industrial type uses including waste, utilities and land for transport in the sub-region that need to be safeguarded.

129. Manufacturing provides some 92,000 jobs in East London and warehousing a further 58,000. Manufacturing employment continues to decline, though not as rapidly in recent years as in the past two decades. This is being counterbalanced by a modest job growth in warehousing and logistics, and other industrial related activities including waste recycling and utilities (see Section 1F) and transport (see Section 2F).

130. East London contains around 9 million sqm of industrial/warehousing floorspace which accounts for a third of London’s industrial floorspace27. From 2000 to 2003 the sub-region lost 360,000 sqm of industrial/factory floorspace, a fall of 9.4% relative to the 10.9% decline for London as a whole. Conversely the stock of warehousing increased by 464,000 sqm or 10.8%, compared to 7.5% for London as a whole (Annex 4, Table 1G.1). A broad assessment of projected manufacturing and wholesaling demand set against total industrial development capacity28 suggests that East London might loose 11,000 more industrial type jobs between 2001 and 2016. The average level of vacant floorspace in the sub-region is the highest of all London’s sub-regions, at 24%. Prime industrial/warehousing rents are generally lower than other parts of London.

34 131. The strategic assessment of the supply and demand for industrial and warehousing uses in London29 suggested that some 500 ha of industrial land could be released to other uses in East London between 2001 and 2016 or 33.6 hectares per annum. This is a major part of the 740 hectares expected to be released across London as a whole from 2001 to 2016. This indicative rate of release in East London has taken into account the tight pressures of demand relative to supply in the Central sub-region, and the expectation that some demand may shift to East London which is well placed to serve the City and Docklands and where there is a more generous supply of available land. It also anticipates greater efficiency in managing the stock of industrial capacity, resulting in a reduction in vacancy rates.

132. The monitoring benchmark of 33.6 hectares release per annum set out in para 131 above takes account only of historic demand for waste related activities, not the new need for London to be as self-contained as possible in managing its waste streams. The draft Alterations to the London Plan30 identify an indicative requirement for additional land for recycling and waste management facilities 2005-2020 in East London estimated at approximately 6.1 hectares per annum gross (of which 0.1 hectares arising from structural change has already been taken into account in the benchmark above). When the net requirement for waste management facilities is factored in, the East London monitoring benchmark for release of industrial land is reduced from 33.6 hectares per annum to 27.6 hectares per annum from 2005 to 2016.

133. Part of this requirement may be met through managing the industrial stock more efficiently by realising potential for intensification and mixed-use redevelopment. This includes the possibility of some substitution of industrial and warehousing capacity within the sub-region and especially low-density uses in locations which are well served by public transport to other parts of the sub-region.

134. In broad terms, there should be a stronger emphasis on retention of industrial capacity towards the east of the sub-region than in the west. However, it is anticipated that there will be local, but strategically significant, exceptions to this trend for example the retention of industrial uses in parts of the Lower Lea Valley, retention of industrial uses on Thames-side East but a strongly "residential rich" mix of uses on Barking Riverside.

135. Sites used for recycling and waste management with accessible river transportation including London’s safeguarded wharves can be used to promote the sustainable movement of material by river and many of these sites (existing and potential) are located in East London. It is therefore of particular importance to ensure the future flexibility and viability of wharf use including retention of suitable riparian sites.

136. The draft Industrial Capacity SPG31 underscores the need for careful management of East London’s stock of industrial land. It places Hackney, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets in the ‘limited’ category for the release of industrial land. All other boroughs in the sub- region are in the ‘Managed Transfer’ category.

137. It is possible that Redbridge could be transferred from the “Managed” to the “Restricted” category to reflect the consultants’ findings32. The research

35 recognises that there will be considerable variations in demand and supply relationships within boroughs. These will need to be identified in local need assessments.

138. A clear industrial land management strategy is needed to meet continuing but changing industrial requirements while bringing forward surplus development capacity to meet wider regeneration priorities. The East London Industrial Land Study33, commissioned by the LDA and GLA has informed the broad distribution of industrial capacity in the East London sub-region as well as refinement of SEL boundaries and where appropriate, expansion, consolidation and de-designation. The study has sought to reconcile strategic assessments of demand with local assessments and area appraisals. It affirmed the range indicated in the strategic benchmarks in paragraphs 131-132 above and recommend release of approximately 474 hectares from 2001 to 2016 or about 32 hectares per annum (note: difference from 27.6 hectares per annum 2005-2016 relates to the inclusion of waste handling facilities for that period).

139. The East London Industrial Study provided an indicative borough breakdown of the sub-regional monitoring benchmark of release of industrial land (see Table 1G.2 overleaf). To arrive at these indicative benchmarks the strategy considered industrial land requirements to 2016 arising from the employment forecasts and additional elements of demand including requirements for additional waste and recycling facilities, transport and utilities infrastructure. The study also considered the scope for longer term relocations of industrial type uses from inner to outer East London and the need for an appropriate frictional level of vacant land. Table 1G.2 indicates the estimated area of industrial land already released in each borough between 2001 and 2005. It then shows the estimated area in identified locations for release 2006-2016 through the LDF process. Further sites, not currently identified 2006-2016 for release via the LDF process are included in the penultimate column. Boroughs are recommended, in light of rigorous monitoring, to take a phased approach to the release of these sites towards the latter part of the term of the London Plan.

140. The findings of the East London Industrial Land Study have been reconciled with the GLA’s 2004 Housing Capacity Study34. This indicates that the sub­ regional employment land release benchmarks are sufficient to meet the average annual industrial land release requirement for East London assumed in the Housing Capacity Study. To ensure that a sufficient supply of land is brought forward in each borough consistent with the Housing Capacity Study, the benchmarks for industrial land release in Table 1G.2 have been expressed as ranges. For the sub-region as a whole the range is 474 to 484 hectares from 2001 to 2016. Note that the benchmarks provided are indicative only and are based upon interim estimates of East London’s industrial land stock derived from ODPM/Valuation Office data on factory and warehouse bulk classes. The benchmarks can be updated when a more accurate baseline for East London’s industrial land is established.

36 Table 1G.2 Indicative borough monitoring benchmarks for the transfer of Industrial Land to other uses 2001-2016 (hectares)* Borough Estimated Estimated Area Identified Further sites, Suggested Total of Industrial locations for not currently Monitoring Industrial Land Released release 2006­ identified for Benchmark for Land Stock 2001-2005 2016 through release 2006­ Transfer of Industrial 2001 LDF process 2016 via LDF Land to other uses process 2001-2016 Barking & Dagenham 474 44 15 3-25 62 - 84 Bexley 293 3 22 0-1 25-26 City of London 5 0 0 0 0 Greenwich 214 30 8 2 40 Hackney 241 12 12 5-8 29-32 Havering 265 0 34 0 34 Lewisham 143 16 4 0-2 20-21 Newham 480 94 93 0-10 187-197 Redbridge 87 2 2 0-9 4-13 Tower Hamlets 344 10 40 0-10 50-60 Totals 2,546 211 230 33-43 474-484 Source: URS/GLA. *Note: Benchmarks provided are indicative only and are based upon interim estimates of East London’s industrial land stock derived from ODPM/Valuation Office data on factory and warehousing bulk classes.

141. The particular need to upgrade East London’s appeal to residents and to make the fullest use of its public transport infrastructure is recognised. Land released for housing and other community purposes should as far as possible consider sites in locations which have or can be made to have an attractive environment, diverse local facilities and high public transport accessibility. Care must be taken to avoid the emergence of isolated communities and to maintain the viability of retained industrial areas. This type of new development must be complemented by investment to improve the operation and amenity of retained industrial areas (see also Section 2E).

142. Inward and indigenous investment can be stimulated through improvements to local and strategic infrastructure, environmental improvements, business support initiatives, skills programmes and marketing. The Centre for Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence in Rainham is one example of an initiative to stimulate job creation in advanced and hi-tech engineering through education and business support in association with the provision of an adjacent modern serviced business park with excellent access.

143. The designation of specialist Strategic Logistics Parks (SLP) should be considered in locations with good trunk road access. Possible strategically important concentrations of warehousing provision, including dedicated SLP, could be in areas with good access to the M25 at the eastern end of London Thames Gateway. There may be particular scope for multi modal freight transfer there. Account should also be taken of logistics opportunities to be opened up by the Thames Gateway Bridge. In view of the close inter­ relationship between the economies of London and the wider south east, authorities bordering London should also be engaged in making provision for SLP and more general warehousing serving the wider city region.

37 Wholesale Markets

144. The Mayor’s Food Strategy35 recognises that London’s wholesale markets have a combined turnover of about £1.6bn and represent 20% of fresh meat, fish, fruit and vegetable supplies to London and the South East. Though some individual wholesale markets serving London have been modernised, the London Plan recognised that there is a need to review the framework of markets as a whole in light of overall requirements for wholesale market functions.

145. An initial review of wholesale markets36 has been undertaken suggesting that three markets located in East, Central and West London might efficiently meet the capital’s needs. Its conclusions must be tested more rigorously, especially in terms of their transport implications and the way in which the requirements of different communities and groups will be addressed. This review will have particular implications for East London because three of the five current markets occupy strategically important sites here. The City of London has indicated that it does not anticipate that the meat market at Smithfields would be relocated within the time horizons of the current London Plan (2016).

Action 1G

(i) Boroughs in collaboration with the Mayor and TGLP at the sub-regional level are encouraged to take into account the indicative Borough-level monitoring benchmarks for the transfer of industrial land to other uses 2001-2016 in Table 1G.2 to inform the preparation of LDFs to ensure the efficient use of land including capacity for waste management, recycling, utilities, transport functions and other industrial type uses.

(ii) Boroughs, TGLP and the GLA group are invited to establish a coordinated system to monitor and manage the release of industrial land within the sub- region building upon the joint working undertaken on the East London Industrial Land Study and to identify measures to improve the quality of retained industrial locations.

(iii) In their LDFs boroughs are asked to develop a positive and proactive approach to accommodating warehouse provision in appropriate locations. This should be taken into account in assessing future industrial demand. Boroughs are asked to consider locations particularly suitable for warehousing including that which will be opened up by the Thames Gateway Bridge, taking into account wharf and rail freight issues.

(iv) Stakeholders are asked for their views on the proposition that, in the medium to long-term, London’s wholesale market functions could be consolidated on multi-purpose markets located at New Spitalfields, New Covent Garden and Western International.

38 Section 2. Allocating growth spatially across East London

146. The growth requirements of all the matters discussed in Section 1 can be summarised as follows:

Table 2.1 Growth requirements: summary 2001-2016

Land Use Growth Housing At least 142,300 dwellings, 1997-2016 or 7,140 per annum. (The draft Alterations to the London Plan proposed for consideration at the Examination in Public in June 2006 indicate capacity for 13,945 homes per year between 2007/8 and 2016/7). Jobs 249,000 jobs (revised emerging estimate 201,000). Retail Up to 204,000 sqm (comparison goods). Culture/leisure/tourism Miscellaneous + 4,200 hotel rooms. Healthcare Miscellaneous primary care. Other care sites known. Education Primary and secondary schools requirement to be identified through ongoing liaison with DfES and other partners. Higher and further education: to be determined with stakeholders. Community facilities Miscellaneous, small scale. Open space See section 4D. Recycling/waste Estimated gross additional land requirement of management facilities approximately 6.1 hectares per annum (2005-2020). Other Infrastructure No significant land take identified but some major investment required. Land for Transport See Land for Transport SPG. Industry/warehousing Reduction of 474-484 hectares or 32 hectares per annum for the period 2001-2016, which falls to 27.6 hectares per annum for the period 2005-2016 when net additional recycling/waste management land requirement is factored in.

147. The land take required for some of these activities is hard to quantify precisely. The SRDF process has enabled these to be refined. Further engagement with education, health and waste related sectors will be especially important. Existing permissions will more than accommodate the land required for growth in jobs, with a particular concentration of potentially surplus office capacity in the centre and towards the east of the sub-region. Most office demand is likely to be focused on the City of London in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and the Canary Wharf and City Fringe Opportunity Areas and Stratford, a national regeneration priority. The scope for the Royal Docks to serve a distinct market is being tested.

148. Other land demands are comparatively small and will be addressed further by mixed use policies and intensification. The biggest challenge (apart from housing) is likely to be the identification of land for schools, recycling/waste management and open space.

39 149. This growth must be accommodated in those areas with the greatest potential for sustainable development. A core principle in allocating growth will be to optimise the relationship between the intensity of development and the existing and potential capacity of the public transport system. The main locations for growth include:

150. A. The Central Activities Zone (CAZ) which provides the framework for coordinated planning of world, national and regional activities and must be considered as a whole. A common section on CAZ (section 2A) is provided in the SRDFs for both East and Central London. The Central London SRDF provides further detail on the West End. B. Town Centres. These include the two Metropolitan centres of Ilford and Romford, which perform strongly and have important potential for mixed development as well as retail expansion. There is also the important network of Major centres. C. The Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification. Relative to those in other sub-regions they are likely to be a particularly important source of housing capacity. D. Suburbs that are entering a period in which renewal of their fabric will be needed. E . Industrial Locations including Strategic Employment Locations as well as some Locally Significant Employment sites. F. Transport and accessibility, including areas that will benefit from improved access, particularly once Crossrail 1 is implemented.

151. Before looking at the role that each of these potential locations can play, it is helpful to take an overview. As far as employment is concerned, the London Plan anticipates 249,000 additional jobs in the sub-region by 2016, of which 225,000 are likely to be in offices, very largely associated with the central London office market. The London Plan indicative estimates of capacity for growth in the Opportunity Areas (OAs) and the Areas for Intensification alone total 213,000 jobs. Emerging estimates suggest that capacity in these Areas to 2026 based upon emerging indicative boundaries (see Annex 2) might be in the region of 285,000 jobs. As shown in Section 1, developments in the pipeline could more than accommodate the bulk of the potential employment growth. Diagram 6 in Section 2F shows the areas where there is increasing access to employment (within 45 minutes public transport travel time). There is a good correlation in the inner parts of the sub-region between increased job accessibility and the location of the OAs. In the outer parts of the sub­ region the improved employment accessibility is limited to the town centres, Strategic (and local) Employment Locations and the Opportunity Areas.

152. The issue for most boroughs will be the sensitive programming of development in town centres and OAs to sensitively and realistically reconcile supply and demand for employment capacity and to maximise the use of those locations that are most accessible. The London Plan anticipates at least 142,000 dwellings being built in the sub-region between 1997 and 2016 or 7,140 per annum over that period. The 2004 Housing Capacity Study informed draft Alterations to the London Plan proposed for consideration at the Examination in Public which indicate an average of 13,945 dwellings per annum 2007/8 to 2016/17. The London Plan allocates over 54,000 dwellings to the Opportunity Areas. Emerging estimates for these areas and the Areas for Intensification are set out in Annex 2.

40 153. The mixed use policies in the Plan will lead to new concentrations of land uses in town centres. The release of industrial land, assuming that most of it would go to housing would make a significant contribution but more capacity will need to be identified. The critical conclusion is that in appropriate locations densities will have to rise and intensification and mixed use development be sought across the sub-region.

2A. The Central Activities Zone

154. The Central Activities Zone (CAZ) is an extraordinarily diverse, dynamic and innovative place. It contains a unique mix and agglomeration of activities that define London’s World City role including central government, culture, retail, entertainment, tourism and the largest concentration of London’s financial and business services sector. It is also the national centre of higher order functions of hospitals, universities, law and medicine. In 2001 employment in the CAZ as a whole was estimated to be 1.16 million, and was then expected to grow by 239,000 (20%) between 2001 and 2016.

155. The CAZ is critical to and interdependent with the national and metropolitan economies and their continuing success. Along with Canary Wharf in the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area (see Annex 2), the CAZ contains a competitive, integrated and varied global business offer. The Zone is also the focal point for London’s linkages with the wider south east, the UK and the World. It has a uniquely dense and complex infrastructure network which include international linkages and termini (see Section 2F).

156. The CAZ contains London’s two International centres: the West End, where retail expenditure is likely to almost double to £8bn by 2016, and Knightsbridge where current estimated turnover of approximately £1bn is expected to double by 2016. Other key uses and activities including those associated with tourism, culture and entertainment are also concentrated in the CAZ. Many of these are located within identified Strategic Cultural Areas including Soho, West End and Covent Garden, the Barbican and the South Bank as indicated in Diagram 2A.1, Annex 4 (see Sections 1E and 1F). Despite the diversification and increase in visitor facilities and hotels throughout London, the CAZ remains the main magnet for visitors, especially through its concentration of premier quality hotels. The majority of London’s main tourist attractions are in the CAZ. There are 40,000 theatre seats and 15,000 cinema seats in the West End and an increasing number of entertainment venues. One of Europe’s largest arts centres is located on the South Bank.

157. Adjoining and intermixed with the strategic activities is wide range of other uses. Some of these provide essential support for the strategic activities while others provide more locally based services. Housing in the CAZ contributes both to supporting the strategic functions and to meeting more locally generated needs.

158. The CAZ also has a diverse set of residential communities and a unique environment. It contains some of London’s wealthiest neighbourhoods as well as significant concentrations of social and economic disadvantage, particularly in London South Central and parts of the City Fringe. A substantial proportion

41 of the CAZ has conservation area status and places lying within protected view corridors.

159. In accordance with London Plan policy 5B.2, boroughs should accommodate commercial development associated with business, tourism, retail and provision for national and international agencies, institutes and services, subject to the protection of housing and identified special policy areas. Management of growth to build upon the special qualities of the CAZ outlined above has to be sensitive to the unique environment and needs of residents of the area. With careful and proactive planning there are many conservation areas within which growth can be absorbed without detriment to the environment. Indeed, some of these areas, for example in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, have absorbed substantial growth in the past decade without damage to their environment or compromising policy.

160. Growth in CAZ can be accommodated sustainably in a number of ways:

(i) Some will be partly absorbed by higher productivity, as in the office and retail sectors; (ii) Some will be managed by more innovative mixes of uses, as for example is increasingly happening across the office, retail and leisure sectors (see paras 314–316); (iii) Some will be accommodated by expansion into the Opportunity Areas on the CAZ fringe (see Section 2C); (iv) Some will require specific management, for example the tensions caused by strategic leisure and night-time economy (see Section 1D) or tourist concentrations, for example through policies such as Tourism Action Zones. (v) Some growth can be mediated by more collaborative forms of development: for example, businesses and other stakeholders in the West End are now seeking to address the fragmentation of ownership and effort by working together on a master plan that would address the overall needs and strengths of the area, supported by a Business Improvement District (BID). Other BIDs have been established in Holborn, Piccadilly/Leicester Square, Bankside, London Bridge and Waterloo. (vi) Some growth will simply take advantage of the churn of uses that is characteristic of a dynamic area like the CAZ in order to replace previous activities with more intensive ones. (vii) Where feasible there may be scope for some substitution of capacity to other parts of the zone for those occupiers whose demand for accommodation is more mobile. (viii) There is also some scope to provide attractive, alternative provision outside the Zone for activities which historically were associated with it, for example lower cost hotels in locations which still have good access to the centre (see para 78).

Offices and mixed use

161. Overall the CAZ should be able to accommodate the anticipated office growth. While a broad reconciliation of long-term demand and supply of office space does show some tightness in the office market in the west of the CAZ, the scale of the potential capacity in the Opportunity and Intensification Areas,

42 coupled with that to the east, demonstrates that overall there is sufficient to meet future needs. This arguably reduces pressure for a level of office intensification within the western part of the CAZ, which might otherwise change its varied character more towards that found in the eastern part of the CAZ.

162. Initial emerging results from the London Office Policy Review 2006 suggest that, at this point in the development cycle, the central London office market has moved from generalised oversupply, low demand and low or falling rents at the end of 2003 to localised undersupply, rising demand and selective rental growth for the best quality space.

163. Rental growth has important implications for the location of office development, making it increasingly viable in fringe locations, including defined areas of Opportunity and Intensification, which form a key element of the increased office space required to accommodate the growth in office employment projected in the London Plan. Much of the increase in new space take-up can be attributed to a strong return of the pre-letting market.

164. Accommodating growth in office space will require coordination of provision and an understanding of more localised sub-markets within CAZ. The variation in availability rates between western and eastern sub-markets has been reinforced over the past two years. Midtown had the lowest availability rate of the six Central London sub-markets at the end of 2005 at just 5.3%, with the West End at 6.4% and the North and West End Fringes at 6.7%. In contrast, the City availability rate at the end of 2005 was 8.8%, the South and East Fringes 8.6% and Docklands 10.5%, the only sub-market with a rate in excess of 10%. While rental growth has been in evidence in the West End since early 2004, there was virtually no growth in the City market until the second half of 2005, and then only for the best of the new and refurbished supply.

165. Given the variation within CAZ between different sub-markets and quality of space, a more sensitive range of indicators may be required to monitor the CAZ related office market. Table 2A.2 in Annex 4 provides a starting point for discussions with the Central London Partnership, boroughs and other stakeholders to consider how these might be refined and developed further.

166. A relatively tight office market will provide an incentive and flexibility to secure mixed use re-development which can enhance both the quality and quantity of stock as well as adding to the diversity of uses which are a key part of the offer of the CAZ in Central London. Several boroughs, such as Westminster, are implementing London Plan policy 3B.4 on mixed use development by seeking the inclusion of a 50% increment to development capacity for housing in major offices schemes. The allocation of affordable housing to this increment should, in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.7 and 3A.8, have regard to the Mayor’s 50% target, if necessary through off-site provision.

43 Diagram 5: Central Activities Zone (CAZ) Diagram (source: London Plan, 2004)

44 167. As indicated in London Plan para 3.125 exceptions to the mix use policy should only apply where such a mix would demonstrably undermine strategic policy for other developments including retail and leisure in the West End and the strategic office offer of parts of the City and the Isle of Dogs. In these areas, off-site provision of housing elsewhere will be required as part of a planning agreement.

Retail, cultural and leisure uses

168. The scale of demand for new retail floorspace in East London and its town centres is set out in Sections 1C and 2B respectively. Comparison goods expenditure in CAZ is projected to increase by over 98% between 2001 and 2016, driven largely by its workers and visitors. This accounts for 30% of London’s overall growth. This growth could generate demand for 200,000 - 285,000 sq m comparison goods floorspace in addition to schemes in the planning pipeline. A substantial proportion of this growth is likely to focus on London’s International shopping centres in Knightsbridge (20%) and, to an even greater extent, the West End (62%).

169. To assist the co-ordination of retail and town centre policy in CAZ it would be sensible to seek a consistent approach in borough’s LDFs. Given the unique mix and agglomeration of commercial and other uses in the zone, a ‘CAZ frontages’ approach is considered to be the most appropriate for guiding retail and related development in accordance with the sequential test in PPS6 and the London Plan, policy 3D.2. CAZ frontages are typically street frontages within the Zone and in general the approach should be applied in preference to the London-wide hierarchy of Metropolitan, Major, District and more local centres. The main exceptions would be the explicit recognition within the CAZ of London’s two International centres (the West End and Knightsbridge).

170. Planning policies in the CAZ need to support its distinctive clusters of uses, each with their own support systems and economies of scale. They include the Strategic Cultural Areas (SCA) broadly indicated in the London Plan (see Diagram 2A.1, Annex 4). Enhancement of the cultural offer of both the South Bank and the Kensington Museums complex will be particularly important in this respect. Areas of night-time economy activity, including Soho, Covent Garden and other strategic clusters within and adjacent to CAZ, form part of London’s World City offer and will require support and integrated management (See Central London SRDF section 1F).

CAZ boundary

171. The CAZ includes the whole of the City of London and parts of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Camden, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth and Wandsworth. The indicative boundary of the CAZ outlined in the London Plan (see Diagram 5) is now dated and some parts have been changed through UDP reviews. Parts of the boundary may not take into account the balance of strategic and local concerns outlined in the London Plan. During consultation on the SRDFs a number of stakeholders put forward suggestions on how the boundaries of the CAZ diagram and how the components of the CAZ diagram and associated policy could be refined. Some SRDF stakeholders have suggested that the boundaries might be selectively reviewed to provide

45 development capacity in more sustainable locations. These considerations have been taken into account in a suggested revision to the CAZ diagram (see Figure 2A.3 Annex 4) which will inform the review of the London Plan (see Annex 5).

172. The draft SRDF also posed the question of whether the CAZ related Opportunity Areas (see Annex 2) are considered to be inside or outside of CAZ for planning policy purposes. It is considered that CAZ related Opportunity Areas (and Areas for Intensification) all have the potential for CAZ type uses and CAZ policies may therefore be appropriate for either the whole or substantial parts of those areas. This should be taken into account in the preparation of planning frameworks for the Opportunity or Intensification Area and the boundary of CAZ should be re­ affirmed through these frameworks and upon implementation of development. The boundary of CAZ should be continue to be co-ordinated strategically and refined in light of SRDFs, SREDIPs and Development Plan Documents.

Action 2A The Mayor will, and boroughs and other stakeholders are encouraged to identify sources of development and other capacity which will sustain the CAZ as an international centre for finance, business and other high level services, support its clusters of specialist activity and develop its distinct contribution to meeting housing needs. Efforts by key stakeholders to foster partnership working, such as BIDs, to address issues facing distinct parts of the CAZ should be strongly supported.

2B. East London Town Centre Network

173. The East London sub-region is characterised by a network of town centres including two currently designated as Metropolitan centres, Ilford and Romford, and nine Major centres (see Table 2.2 below). These centres are all anticipated to grow. A full list of centres in the sub-regional network can be found in Annex 1.

174. The ability of the sub-region’s town centres to improve their image and attractiveness will be a key to accommodating sustainable growth. Much of their vitality will be driven by a suitable retail offer, a consolidated office market, and a spread of other attractions – cultural, leisure and public services – as well as housing as anticipated in Romford. Mixed use re-development provides particular scope to secure town centre renewal and a significant uplift in development capacity. A broad assessment of the demand and supply of offices and retail floorspace was outlined in Section 1.

175. National planning guidance (PPS6) provides scope to consider distributing growth to smaller and middle tier centres (Majors and Districts). The Mayor’s view however is that in the unique circumstances of London, it would be more appropriate to make provision for most of the growth in comparison goods expenditure (including some of the ‘residual growth’) on the established Metropolitan and some Major centres as these provide the greatest level of accessibility by public transport and widest choice of higher order comparison goods shopping. Whilst some District centres could accommodate part of the demand for comparison goods floorspace and especially those centres that are most accessible by public transport and with potential for intensification, they will

46 play a greater role in accommodating changing requirements for convenience space.

176. London Plan policy 3D.2 urges boroughs to allocate sufficient sites to meet identified need using the sequential test and PPS6 suggests that this should be at least five years from the adoption of the development plan document. Capacity for new retail space in East London has been already been identified at Stratford and Lewisham in particular. Limited data from the 2004 town centre health checks indicates that there is capacity to accommodate some of East London’s need for new retail floorspace in Ilford, Romford, Canary Wharf and in the City of London. A supplementary assessment of vacant floorspace sourced from Experian GOAD suggests that further potential capacity also exists in Woolwich, Dalston and a number of District centres across the sub-region. Further assessments of capacity at the local level will be necessary to supplement the broad estimates derived from the town centre health checks. As indicated in Section 1C, the Mayor will continue to work with boroughs and other stakeholders to consider areas where reconciliation of retail need and capacity requires coordination between the East London sub-region and its neighbours including those beyond the London boundary.

177. Clusters of cultural and leisure uses are focused primarily in the Metropolitan centres and office clusters (Annex 4, Table 1D.2). However leisure services in these centres are more focussed on pubs and bars than in other sub-regions. Centres with a higher proportion of pubs and bars could benefit from encouraging a more diverse range of activities that appeal to a broader spectrum of people as part of a wider integrated approach to managing the night-time economy. The Mayor has been working with stakeholders to produce Best Practice Guidance to explore a balanced approach to support and development of the night-time economy in appropriate locations. It promotes an integrated approach to managing its impacts together with broader measures to enhance culture, tourism and other leisure provision as part of town centre renewal.

178. The growth in leisure services needs to be considered with regard to the town centre network, along with potential future visitor accommodation provision and type (Annex 4, Table 1D.3), and provision of cultural services for the increasing residential population, particularly in the Thames Gateway. There is scope to use the sub-region’s town centres as locations to diversify and increase tourism provision throughout London in accordance with the Mayor’s London Plan and Tourism Strategy. The Mayor’s Culture Strategy37 identifies a range of cultural uses particularly appropriate in London’s network of town centres. The ‘cultural quarter’ concept outlined in the London Plan also has potential to contribute to the regeneration of town centres and other appropriate locations as well as enhancing broader cultural, leisure and entertainment provision.

179. The social and ethnic composition of East London makes street markets especially important here. Columbia Road (plants) and Petticoat Lane (bric a brac) also form part of the central London strategic street market offer. Maintaining and enhancing the quality of the public realm is vital to the attractiveness of both local and strategic street markets.

180. A Town Centre Enhancement Study38 commissioned by the North London Strategic Alliance, GOL and LDA has identified a range of innovative ways of

47 increasing housing capacity and revitalising town centres, two of which are in East London (South Woodford in Redbridge and Mare Street in Hackney). Whilst the study does not necessarily provide complete solutions for the town centres studied, it does give a range of options from which combinations could be chosen including possible wider application to other town centres.

181. The potential growth prospects to 2016 for new comparison goods retail and office space across the Metropolitan and Major centres detailed in Annex 1 is summarised below in Table 2.2.

182. It is essential that East London develops and sustains a co-ordinated town centre network that optimises the performance of each town centre within the whole. The town centre network is dynamic and changes to the role and function of centres will change over time. Romford remains the strongest of the town centres in the sub-region despite competition from retail destinations outside London including Lakeside and Bluewater. Romford’s Metropolitan role should be sustained through both quantitative and qualitative improvements to the retail, culture and leisure offer including integrated approaches to the management of the evening economy and significant new housing provision as part of broader, mixed use development.

183. Ilford, is the second Metropolitan centre in the sub-region and designated a London Plan Opportunity Area. The centre should build upon its strategic role as a retail and leisure destination with a diversified leisure economy and realise opportunities for mixed use intensification including a substantial proportion of housing. Exploiting these opportunities and with qualitative improvements to the public realm this centre should be well positioned to maintain its role as a Metropolitan centre upon implementation of the development aspirations for Stratford.

184. Stratford, currently a Major centre and an Opportunity Area, is set to change its role within the town centre network. Implementation of the Stratford City mixed use regeneration proposals and the Stratford town centre redevelopment scheme would increase the retail floorspace of the centre by over 140,000 sqm. With these proposals, the turnover of Stratford is projected to increase to over £1.1bn by 2016. Upon implementation of these developments, Stratford is likely to emerge as a Metropolitan centre alongside Romford and Ilford in terms of scale, role and catchment.

48 Table 2.2 Town Centres: Potential Growth Summary to 2016

Borough/ LP town Total Indicative Office Comment Town Centre centre Floorspace comparison goods action (see (see Annex 1) category (sqm) floorspace need, Table 2B.1, sqm(1) Annex 4) Barking & Some Exploit potential Dagenham Major 49,000 4,000 - 7,000 mixed use for mixed use Barking regeneration. Bexley Some Strengthen retail Bexleyheath Major 86,000 9,000 - 14,000 mixed use offer in face of competition. Greenwich Some Potential for Woolwich Major 71,000 3,000 - 5,000 mixed use regeneration. Eltham Major 46,000 3,000 - 6,000 No Sustain role as strategic strong focus for demand community. Hackney Some Exploit scope for Dalston Major 60,000 <1,000 mixed use regeneration. Havering Some Strengthen retail Romford Met 186,000 13,000 - 20,000 mixed use & leisure role and encourage mix use. Lewisham Some Review role after Lewisham Major 88,000 4,000 - 7,000 mixed use retail offer expanded. Catford Major 51,000 <1,000 Some Exploit mixed use mixed use potential. Newham Substantial growth Stratford Major 47,000 2,000 - 9,000 See of Metropolitan Annex 2 scale. East Ham Major 50,000 4,000 - 7,000 No Exploit scope for strategic regeneration. demand Redbridge Strengthen retail Ilford Met 168,000 8,000 - 14,000 Some & strategic leisure mixed use role and encourage mix use. Tower Hamlets Canary Wharf Canary Wharf/ District 96,000 10,000 - 14,000 See appears to function Isle of Dogs Annex 2 as a Major centre. Source: Experian/GLA/London Property Research Note (1): Indicative modeled requirement only, based upon £4,000/sqm sales density, range 2.0-2.5% productivity growth. Development schemes in pipeline have been taken into account.

185. Expenditure in Lewisham is expected to increase by 40% by 2016 with the implementation of new development proposals in the centre. This increase in expenditure is mainly generated by a deeper penetration in the existing catchment rather than an expansion in its size. It will be appropriate to review the role and function of this centre following completion of the development.

186. Data emerging from the 2004 town centre health checks suggest that Canary Wharf, currently identified as a District centre in the London Plan, is actually functioning as a Major centre in terms of its size and turnover but not in other town centre functions. Table 2.2 shows that Canary Wharf is currently the third

49 largest town centre in the sub-region ranking just above Lewisham and Bexleyheath in terms of existing total floorspace. It also has the largest amount of leisure service floorspace in East London. Despite this the non-commuter catchment area of Canary Wharf remains relatively small compared to neighbouring centres with its penetration concentrated around the Docklands area.

187. According to data from the health checks, the town centre of Erith in the borough of Bexley should be recognised as a District centre as part of the review of the London town centre network. Upton Park currently a District centre might be functioning on the borderline between a District/Major centre according to current indicators of total comparison goods floorspace and should continue to be monitored closely. Informal consultation suggests that, in view of expected growth, a number of other District and small centres should also continue to be monitored closely to see if they could viably play a higher level role in the network including West Ham, Bromley By Bow, Hackney Wick, Chequers, Silvertown Quay and Barking Riverside.

Town centre office provision

188. The future of the office market in East London needs to be considered alongside retail needs, with the sub-region developing a distinct sub-regional approach to managing office provision, distinguishing between centres where:

(i) speculative office development could be promoted on the most efficient and accessible sites. (ii) some office provision could be promoted as part of wider residential or residential and retail/leisure mixed use development. (iii) there is “no purpose in promoting offices” and static or declining demand should be managed.

189. Table 2.2 above, summarises these designations in the penultimate column for Metropolitan and Major centres. Table 2B.1, Annex 4 provides information for other centres. Borough designations of individual centres will need to take into account this general typology taking into account local capacity, transport, environmental and market appraisals and the office typology set out in London Plan paragraph 3.123. The potential for offices in East London’s town centres should continue to be monitored closely and the forthcoming London Office Policy Review 2006 will provide a further strategic update.

190. The SRDF process provided an opportunity to co-ordinate potential changes to the existing town centre network in light of the London-wide town centre health checks. These revisions are indicated in Annex 1 and should be taken into account in subsequent reviews of the London Plan and UDPs/LDFs.

50 Action 2B (i) When making provision for anticipated retail demand in LDFs, boroughs are asked to take into account the indicative ranges of comparison goods floorspace need for town centres in Annex 1 and make provision for ‘residual’ growth in town centres, where it can best enhance consumer choice, improve vitality and viability and is most accessible by public transport.

(ii) Boroughs and other stakeholders are asked to consider how to develop the cultural, leisure and tourism roles of town centres including potential hotel provision, and to explore with strategic and local partners how future growth in the night-time economy might be accommodated in appropriate centres supported by coordinated and sensitive management practices.

(iii) In light of local circumstances the Mayor and boroughs are encouraged to test and refine the broad office policy and location approach set out above and in Table 2B.1, Annex 4 to inform the preparation of LDFs.

(iv) Boroughs and relevant stakeholders are asked to explore the potential of local street markets to meet community needs and investigate how the role of strategic street markets can be developed through LDFs and other policies, taking into account the need to protect and where necessary enhance provision and ensure that management measures address local concerns as well as those of market customers.

2C. Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification

191. Beyond the CAZ, the greatest identified capacity for substantial growth in East London lies in its thirteen Opportunity and three Intensification Areas. Based upon the London Plan estimates, together they have capacity for 213,200 new jobs and at least 56,100 new homes.

192. The SRDF process provided a wider opportunity to review the key issues, infrastructure provision and phasing, initial working boundaries and capacity estimates for individual Opportunity and Intensification Area frameworks. These are set out along with the current status of frameworks and implementation in Annex 2. This Annex will help identify principles which will rationalise and consolidate the approach to be taken to their future development in light of overall sub-regional and wider needs.

193. The relationship between Opportunity Areas, the major drivers of change in most of the sub-region, and their immediate hinterlands will be an important consideration in developing frameworks and implementing development within these areas. In preparing the London Plan, the boundaries of the Opportunity and Intensification Areas were drawn relatively tightly. However, in order to take account of the relationships between these Areas and their hinterlands they should be cast more widely, perhaps as shown indicatively in Annex 2. This reflects the approach already being adopted in the Thames Gateway UDC areas where it is intended that the Opportunity Area Development Frameworks should cover the

51 whole UDC area and in the case of the Lower Lea, a wider area including part of the North London sub-region (Annex 2). There may also be some merit in allowing for an element of overlap of the boundaries of these bigger Areas to allow cross boundary co-ordination and linkages to be better addressed.

194. Different approaches to office development are needed for those Opportunity Areas which are integral parts of the central London office market and for those which are not, see Annex 4,Table 2C.1. For those in the former group this will essentially entail retaining strategic office capacity within CAZ and in the City Fringe, Canary Wharf and Stratford Opportunity Areas and, if it demonstrably meets distinct needs, the Royal Docks.

195. Though other locations cannot be excluded at this stage, these Areas may be particularly appropriate for a facility which will enable London to forge stronger links with China, the fastest growing major global economy. China is likely to have an expanding need for London’s sophisticated financial, business and other services and if such a facility was located here it could, in the longer term, make a significant contribution to East London regeneration. The Mayor will work with relevant partners to establish the form this facility might take.

196. The Framework for the City Fringe and its two Opportunity Areas centred on Bishopsgate and Aldgate/Whitechapel must take particular account of the need to coordinate office provision with that for other uses, including housing, leisure, culture and tourism, as well as addressing the needs of local communities some of which have historically been excluded from the benefits of economic growth.

197. In the Opportunity Areas not serving the central London market, office viability and transport capacity to accommodate strategic provision will require careful monitoring. Frameworks for these Areas should investigate whether alternative uses could make more timely, viable and effective contributions to achieving the broad objectives of the London Plan. It is anticipated that as well as housing and local services, strategic leisure and visitor related uses will be particularly important in some areas, for example those associated with the O2 Centre at the Dome on Greenwich Peninsula, the proposed aquarium in the Royal Docks and Shoreditch in the City Fringe. The East London Industrial Land Study (see paras 138-140) will bear particularly on some of these Areas and provide essential coordination to help manage the restructuring of industrial provision across the sub-region as a whole, including additional strategic logistics capacity in the east. Proposed actions to coordinate strategic office provision across East London are summarised in Annex 4, Tables 2B.1 and 2C.1.

Action 2C (i) The relevant boroughs, GLA group and other stakeholders are asked to progress and agree development frameworks for individual Opportunity and Intensification Areas taking into account the issues and parameters summarised in Annex 2 including emerging capacity estimates.

(ii) Boroughs are asked to identify boundaries of Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification in LDFs taking into account the indicative emerging boundaries illustrated in Annex 2.

52 2D. Suburbs

198. The suburbs in East London generally provide a good living environment and have proved very adaptable. Groups of new Londoners have been able to remake suburban spaces to meet their community needs. This popularity has been enduring – for example, between 1973 and 2000 Greenwich and Bexley added up to 5,000 residents in suburban areas.

199. There has also been some employment growth in suburban areas and this is likely to continue. Places with increasing population tend to experience an increase in demand for business and other services. For example, in the 12 years to 2000 Greenwich gained around 12,000 business service jobs. Significant growth in the creative industries was recorded in Havering and in retail in Redbridge. Generally, an increase in resident population of 1,000 has potential to generate a further 230 jobs in a locality39. Stakeholders are invited to explore how suburban densities and quality might be enhanced in places with good public transport access, especially within the wider hinterlands of Opportunity Areas.

200. These facts underscore the importance of policies aimed at sustaining the town centre network, highlighting the importance of policies adopted by many boroughs including attention to environmental issues, traffic and parking and town centre management.

201. New housing in town centres is not necessarily the enemy of jobs; not only does it provide demand for local services and shopping, but many entrepreneurs in the growth sectors will base themselves at home. This is why the London Plan encourages boroughs to manage the protection, release or enhancement of some former employment sites in and around town centres.

202. Non-food retail seems to be consolidating in fewer centres, and recent evidence suggests that between 1971 and 2000 medium-sized centres have performed the worst (as measured by retail floorspace). This implies an approach that helps declining centres find a niche (in terms perhaps of addressing specialist markets). It will also be important to stress the quality of the environment, education standards, real or perceived levels of crime and the availability of good quality and accessible health facilities. The need to look at public services in the round underlines the importance of making sure that regeneration and economic development strategies are developed and implemented by all the organisations involved in local governance or service delivery.

203. Welling and Hornchurch have been identified by the Mayor as pilots for testing the guidance in “Tomorrow’s Suburbs”.

Action 2D Boroughs are asked to examine their suburban areas and consider locations where selective intensification could assist with the renewal and continued vibrancy of those suburbs.

53 2E. Industrial locations

204. Strategic Employment Locations (SELs), together with the aggregate of locally significant industrial areas, are East London’s strategic reservoir of land for industrial capacity (See also Section 1G). When defining detailed SEL boundaries in their LDFs boroughs are asked to take into account indicative boundaries outlined in Annex 2 and the final conclusions of the East London Industrial Land Study (see Section 1G). The London Plan anticipates that SELs should be promoted as the sub-region’s prime locations for industrial related activities and designated in development plans. Draft SPG Industrial Capacity40 suggests that local guidelines should be produced to manage and enhance the distinct offers of different types of SEL and that other than as part of a strategically coordinated process, development of significant non-industrial uses within them should be resisted. Since policy aims to tighten the supply of industrial land, priority should be given to achieving more intense use of industrial land.

205. Preparation of the SRDF informed by the East London Industrial Land Study provided an opportunity to engage in a coordinated review of SELs in light of the recent strategic, and emerging local assessments of demand for industrial land and the pan London Housing Capacity Study. The emerging outcome of the review indicates that there are approximately 1,890 hectares within SELs in the sub-region, which in net terms is a marginal increase of 0.4% or 8 hectares between 2000 and 2006 (see Annex 4, Table 2E.1). This limited net change masks an active process of industrial land management. Almost 150 ha of land in strategic utilities functions in Beckton and Belvedere have now been included within SELs. This has been counter-balanced by the removal of Rainham Marsh from the SEL framework and through consolidations at Dagenham Dock and Havering Riverside. Further reductions to the areas within SELs have occurred in Tower Hamlets, Newham and Greenwich.

206. Land use change associated with the 2012 Olympic Games and the Lower Lea Valley Regeneration Strategy has led to some re-configuration of SELs in Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney. This is reflected in the draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework for the Lower Lea Valley and in the indicative boundaries provided in Annex 2 to this SRDF.

207. Potential for land use change in Thameside West is dependent on further work and agreement between the strategic and local authorities on the appropriate extent and geography of industrial land release and other land use. Thameside West is currently a Strategic Employment Location and contains four Safeguarded Wharves: Thames Wharf, Peruvian Wharf, Manhattan Wharf and Sunshine Wharf, which should be protected for cargo-handling uses, including waste and aggregates. Any changes to the boundary of Thameside West SEL will be informed by the industrial release benchmarks in this SRDF and by further work and agreement by the strategic and local authorities. In any scenario, a significant quantum of industrial space and associated employment activity should be focussed on the Safeguarded wharves along the riverside and maintain a contiguous geography of industrial land.

208. Smaller scale consolidation of some SELs elsewhere in East London might be appropriate to consider in preparation of LDFs and Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks. At Rippleside, the buildings directly fronting Renwick Road have

54 been suggested as being suitable for a mix of uses as part of the gateway entrance to housing proposals at Barking Reach. Selected and limited parts of North Charlton Employment Area might be considered for consolidation related to improvements in public transport accessibility.

209. It is recommended that Coldharbour Lane be retained as SEL at present given its current operational requirements, which include waste use and its valued potential to receive and transport material by river. The future use of this location, including its relationship with the Rainham Conservation Park should be the subject of further discussion between strategic and local stakeholders.

210. In Havering, Barking & Dagenham and Bexley, vacancy levels would have to be reduced to accommodate re-locating businesses on SELs there, together with some expansion of capacity, especially to meet logistics requirements in appropriate locations. The sub-regional SEL framework will continue to be monitored closely in light of this. The process of reconfiguration of SELs and industrial land in East London must be planned and managed very carefully and informed by the East London Industrial Land Study and local qualitative assessments of sites to be retained or released using best practice such as the ODPM guidance note on employment land reviews41.

Action 2E (i) When implementing London Plan policy 2A.7, boroughs are asked to take into account the indicative boundaries of SELs in Annex 2 and the emerging East London Industrial Land Study in defining them in LDFs and to identify Locally Significant Industrial Sites in light of local and strategic industrial demand assessments and London Plan policy 3B.5.

(ii) The boroughs, LDA and other stakeholders through the forthcoming Sub- Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan for East London, are asked to consider measures to improve the quality of retained industrial locations in order to stimulate business development and employment.

2F. Transport and accessibility

211. The close integration of transport and land use development will support East London’s development and growth, ensuring that residents, business and visitors have access to the services and facilities they need. The spatial allocations discussed above need to be related and carefully phased to integrate with areas which have, or are planned to have, good transport accessibility, particularly by public transport. Much of the sub-region has relatively poor levels of accessibility, particularly reflecting the barrier effect of the Thames and the configuration of the network to serve port and industrial uses that have long since relocated. There is a significant challenge to improve the accessibility of these areas, particularly by good quality public transport services, which the London Plan and the Transport Strategy seek to address. In addition to the infrastructure required, there is a need to manage traffic growth and congestion both within and beyond the sub­ regional boundary. This section addresses those issues, starting with an examination of the existing transport network and performance.

55 212. The East London sub-region generates around four and three quarter million trips in an average weekday. The car is the predominant method of travel for many journeys and nearly three quarters of all weekday journeys are made entirely within the sub-region. Of those trips just over half are by private transport, 30% are by walking or cycling and 20% are by public transport. Trips beyond the sub­ region are primarily work related and 10% of all trips go to the Central London sub-region.

213. The sub-region encompasses areas of central, inner and outer London, with consequent differences in transport network density and service provision and hence accessibility by road and public transport. In central London, development densities and public transport provision and use are all exceptionally high, whilst in outer London the car plays, and will continue to play, a significant role.

214. The road network is predominantly radial. Key strategic radial routes are provided by the A2, A20, A12, A13 and M11. The main orbital routes through the sub­ region are the A406 North Circular and A206 South Circular, with the M25 providing a strategic orbital route to the south, east and north of the sub-region.

215. East London also has a relatively extensive public transport network. The National Rail network serves 87 stations, mostly providing for radial travel to central London and to East Anglia and Kent. The North London and Barking – Gospel Oak lines provide useful inner orbital services. The Underground network is also relatively extensive, with 85 stations on the Central, Metropolitan, East London, Jubilee, Waterloo & City, District and Hammersmith & City lines. In addition the Docklands Light Railway plays an important and expanding sub-regional role. There are also over 4,900 bus stops in the sub-region - 74% of residents are within 200m of a bus stop and 98% are within 400m.

216. The River Thames is a positive resource for East London providing potential for the movement of people and goods including waste in a sustainable manner. The River also poses a significant barrier to local movement for people and goods north to south across the East London sub-region. The current lack of river crossings necessitates lengthy diversions via the limited number of existing links. For example, within the M25, there are currently only three road and five rail river crossings east of Tower Bridge compared to 16 road and eight rail crossings west of Vauxhall Bridge. The net effect is overloading on existing East London cross river links and limited opportunities for cross river bus and transit services.

The challenge and opportunity

217. The large scale land use changes, transport investment, green grid linkages and lifestyle changes within East London create a unique opportunity to encourage more sustainable patterns of travel for new development. The proximity of public transport to growing business areas and new housing will create an opportunity for a relatively high proportion of new trips to be by public transport. The Olympics provides an impetus for some significant transport investments in the sub-region between now and 2012, including enhancements to the bus and tube networks, DLR extensions and capacity increases and walking and cycling improvements in and around the Olympic Park. Transport investment across the sub-region, concentrated mainly on public transport infrastructure, supported by

56 demand management to prevent rising congestion on the roads, also creates an opportunity for a major shift in transport use. The river and the ‘green grid’, as well as opportunities for transit and tram running on exclusive rights of way create opportunities for short distance trips to be much more attractive by sustainable modes. The general increase in residential density, especially for town centres and the Opportunity Areas, will mean that short distance walk and cycle trips can satisfy more journey purposes - if the land use mix and social infrastructure investment are put properly in place.

218. The level of growth forecast for the sub-region will be accommodated by a combination of improvements to the existing network, new infrastructure and measures to reduce the need for travel. For all of these, integrating land use and transport, ensuring high trip generating developments are located in areas of good public transport accessibility and spare capacity, will play an important medium and longer term role.

Improving transport provision

219. The London Plan, Mayor’s Transport Strategy and TfL’s Five Year Investment Programme identify a substantial number of transport projects serving East London, ranging from regional schemes to those of a more local nature. These projects, of which the principal ones are described in summary below, aim to improve accessibility to, from and within the sub-region, as well as providing the strategic public transport capacity to meet the forecast growth.

220. Crossrail Line 1. Crossrail 1 provides the most significant element of additional capacity and enhancement to accessibility across East London. A Crossrail hybrid Bill has been deposited in Parliament and entered the Select Committee stage in early 2006. The scheme provides substantial capacity increases into and from Central London via two branches serving East London that join at Whitechapel, with the northern arm serving Stratford and continuing on existing lines to Shenfield. The southern arm serves Canary Wharf, the Royal Docks and Abbey Wood. Safeguarding to allow for the future provision of extending services to Ebbsfleet is being considered. Crossrail is vital to East London; it provides the necessary strategic capacity to support development at a strategic scale along the two branches of the link, supports regeneration and provides substantial increases in accessibility across the whole of East London by forming a strategic backbone interlinking with existing and planned public transport schemes.

221. Channel Tunnel Rail Link - Phase 2. Currently under construction and due for completion in 2007, the scheme will deliver significantly enhanced international capacity to Stratford and by 2009 will provide increased capacity for commuting from Kent into the sub-region and central London. It will also provide an important component of public transport capacity to serve the proposed Olympic venue for 2012.

222. The Thameslink 2000 project will serve a north-south axis, including South East London, allowing more through services and longer trains, with connections to Gatwick and Luton airports, an interchange with Crossrail at Farringdon and CTRL at Kings Cross / St Pancras. The scheme will increase capacity and accessibility, with up to 24 trains per hour operating through the core central section during peak periods. Following the initial Public Inquiry and subsequent revisions to the

57 scheme, a new Public Inquiry for the TWA powers process was completed in late 2005.

223. River Crossings. In response to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and London Plan policies, TfL has developed a multi-modal package of river crossings to improve local accessibility and assist regeneration. In addition to the wholly public transport schemes providing cross river capacity, notably Crossrail and the DLR extension to Woolwich, road based crossings should be taken forward. Of these road based links, the Thames Gateway Bridge is the first priority, and has been considered at a public inquiry, which ended in Spring 2006. It will provide a key link between employment and residential areas north and south of the river; improving sub-regional and local movements by road and public transport and stimulating regeneration without encouraging long distance commuting by car. Traffic demand on the Thames Gateway Bridge will be managed through flexible tolls and allocation of road space to an attractive level of public transport service via Thames Gateway Transit (see para 226 below) and regular bus services. Longer distance traffic will pay a higher toll than local traffic, to support the role of the Thames Gateway Bridge as primarily a local crossing, assisting regeneration. Plans for the Silvertown Crossing will be developed at a later stage.

224. Docklands Light Railway. DLR extensions and enhancements comprise an important component of local accessibility and capacity increases in East London in the London Plan. The link to City Airport and North Woolwich was opened in late 2005. This will be followed by the Woolwich extension (complete 2009), capacity enhancements through the introduction of 3 car trains between Bank and Lewisham (complete 2009) and the replacement of the North London Line from Canning Town to Stratford with an extension to Stratford International (complete 2010). Towards the end of the London Plan period, the planned extension through Barking Riverside to Dagenham Dock would provide improved accessibility further eastwards.

225. The East London Line project will extend and upgrade the existing London Underground service, converting it into a new metro-style rail service. Phase 1 will serve New Cross and New Cross Gate, extend the service southwards to West Croydon and Crystal Palace, and northwards to a future interchange with Crossrail at Whitechapel and Dalston. It is scheduled for completion by 2010. Phase 2 is planned to extend the line west to Clapham Junction and connect to the North London Line stations at Canonbury and Highbury & Islington. The project will increase train frequency on the central section of the line by 60%, act as a catalyst for significant regeneration, includes 4 new stations and will enhance north/south cross-river movement.

226. Transit Schemes. The Thames Gateway Transit project combines the East London Transit and the Greenwich Waterfront Transit schemes into an integrated high quality bus based network linked by the public transport priority lanes on the Thames Gateway Bridge. The first phase of East London Transit, north of the Thames serving Ilford, Barking, Barking Riverside and Dagenham Dock will be operational in 2008. The first phase of Greenwich Waterfront Transit south of the Thames, serving Abbey Wood, Woolwich and North Greenwich will be operational in 2009. Further phases are under development. The Thames Gateway Bridge link and further phases of Transit will complete a comprehensive network providing

58 enhanced accessibility by public transport for existing communities and the principal development areas.

227. There will also be significant upgrades to the London Underground network serving East London, through the PPP programme - upgrades to stations, rolling stock, line capacity and reliability. Longer trains on the Jubilee Line were introduced in early 2006, and these will be augmented by enhancements to the signalling system to increase line capacity by 45% by 2009. Other planned improvements include replacing the Metropolitan Line rolling stock from 2009 and refurbishing District Line trains by 2009.

228. Other Rail Improvements. The London-Tilbury-Southend (LTS) railway is a key to the successful regeneration of London Riverside and Government funding for an upgrade to 12 car operation was announced recently. Further improvements to the LTS line include station enhancements at Rainham, Dagenham Dock and Barking, and potential new stations at Beam Reach and Renwick Road.

229. Proposals by Government to give the Mayor a greater role in specifying fares and services on the National Rail network in London will produce potential benefits from a more integrated public transport network. An initial example of this is the transfer of control to TfL of a number rail services, collectively termed the North London Railway and including the North London Line and Gospel Oak to Barking line, from Autumn 2007. The transfer has brought forward investment in new services, information and security measures on the North London Railway network by TfL. It is hoped this will be a first step towards rolling out similar improvements across the London suburban rail network. More generally, the introduction of full Oystercard facilities on National Rail will help make bus, National Rail and Underground services more integrated for passengers.

230. Annex 3 gives an indicative phasing of the major transport schemes and has been updated following the publication of TfL’s 5 Year Investment Programme.

231. The implementation of the transport schemes outlined above will lead to improvements in public transport accessibility across the sub-region. The phasing of the transport schemes within the TfL Five Year Investment Programme results in areas in the west of the sub-region being the main focus of the improvements in accessibility over the next decade.

232. Improved access by employees and passengers to airports by public transport and more sustainable modes is a key issue. It is clear that additional public transport infrastructure over and above that recommended in the Government’s South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS) report is essential to achieve more balanced and sustainable access to London’s airports for both travellers and workers. The Government and BAA should continue to work with the GLA, TfL, boroughs and other partners to clearly identify additional measures to ensure that a higher public transport mode share is achieved. The expansion of airport capacity, assuming the environmental impacts are shown to be acceptable, would also have to clearly identify additional measures to ensure that a higher public transport mode share would be achieved and guarantee that adequate funding is provided to implement these measures. Airport expansion and its significant implications are identified in Annex 5 as an issue for the review of the London Plan.

59 233. London City Airport has published a masterplan which is a further development of its Statement of Intent to the Department of Transport in December 2004. The masterplan sets out the airport’s proposals to 2015 with indicative land use plans to 2030 including an assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the proposals.

Land use and development

234. Trip making and travel patterns can be positively affected by spatial allocations and the appropriate development of land.

235. The importance of locating major development in places where the public transport system either has the capacity now, or will do in the future, has already been stressed and forms the basis of the allocations above. A key issue will be maximising development in these locations. Higher densities are important because they support:

x increased demand for public transport where otherwise volumes would not support a high quality service; x increased number of trip destinations within a comfortable walk, short distance public transport or cycle trip, and x increased development value, which itself allows higher densities, and which can facilitate greater public realm improvements as well as direct contributions to sustainable transport.

236. Without a commitment that vital public transport services will be in place when needed, there are risks that the type of development necessary for the success of the development aspirations will not come forward. Planning authorities might then be prepared to grant permission for less dense applications which would not use the opportunities to the full. On the other hand, if applications for high density developments are approved and implemented long before the public transport services are provided, adverse patterns of car use and parking could be established.

237. It is therefore vital that at a site level the form, scale and phasing of development should be integrated with the capacity and accessibility of the public transport system expected for different locations. Developments that generate a significant number of trips should be sited in or near locations with good accessibility by public transport, and with sufficient existing capacity or planned capacity coming on stream in time to meet the expected demand. Borough guidance will be prepared on transport assessments to support S106 negotiations, especially to encourage more sustainable modes and reduced parking provision.

238. Increased accessibility that Crossrail will bring to the areas around its stations will open up opportunties for new and more intensive development. These opportunities need to be coordinated and brought forward through masterplanning, and the GLA will work with boroughs and other relevant stakeholders to develop such masterplans.

60 Managing demand

239. Complementing the infrastructure improvements outlined above, there is also a need to manage demand for car travel. The policies in the London Plan and Transport Strategy aim to change travel behaviour in combination with the provision of significantly enhanced public transport services, so as to achieve the vision of a sustainable East London. Managing the demand for car use through targeted initiatives to encourage behavioural change, management of parking, and where appropriate, when combined with sustainable land use patterns and effective public transport alternatives, will discourage car use and play a crucial role in achieving a change to other forms of transport.

240. The long-term role (certainly towards the end of the Plan period) of road user charging is being considered by central government, and the planned tolling of the Thames Gateway Bridge provides a valuable opportunity to help manage demand. Effective network management will also be vital to ensure sustainable distribution of goods and services. Thames Gateway London Partnership has stated that it wishes the Mayor to establish a study programme to explore options for managing travel demand.

241. Even with the implementation of the policies and proposals of the London Plan and Transport Strategy, it is recognised that the increase in activity in the sub­ region will lead to growth in road traffic, albeit at a slower pace than growth in public transport use. However, the levels of growth will be significantly lower than those resulting from a policy scenario without an emphasis on new public transport infrastructure, the integration of transport and land-use planning and the management of demand. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy Local Implementation Guidance (July 2004) sets out sub-regional targets for changes in traffic growth between 2001-2011. For East London, the targets are to limit traffic growth to a 4% increase in the Inner London area, a 6% growth in the Outer London area, and a 1% increase in town centres. These are demanding targets in the context of expected population and jobs growth in the sub-region, and the Thames Gateway London Partnership has indicated its support for consideration of potential additional traffic demand management measures in East London as part of the review of the London Plan.

Freight and distribution

242. Freight and distribution make a significant contribution to the East London economy. The implications of development for the movement of freight must be planned for. All too frequently the movement of freight is seen as a negative factor. However, without efficient and economic freight services, the development of a sustainable East London will not succeed.

243. The London Plan recognises the importance of freight within a wider transport strategy, both in terms of supporting the significant logistics and distribution sector within the sub-region, promoting the efficient servicing of businesses, and reducing the acute environmental impacts which can result particularly from road- based distribution. The London Construction Consolidation Centre opened in South Bermondsey in 2006 aims to meet these objectives.

61 244. The Mayor wishes to see a multi-modal Lower Thames Crossing and wishes to encourage a feasibility study on the scheme to establish the key options and overall business case. The Mayor will work with Dept for Transport, Network Rail, Highways Agency and local and regional interests outside of London in taking any feasibility work forward.

245. TfL are currently developing a London Freight Plan in consultation with the London Sustainable Development Partnership. The South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) intend to develop a regional freight strategy and co-ordination between these strategies should be secured through partnership working. Boroughs have a role to play in managing freight traffic within their Local Implementation Plans through measures to discourage freight traffic from residential and other environmentally sensitive areas, managing loading and unloading in town centres and ensuring that servicing needs are considered within travel plans for new development. There is also potential to explore Intelligent Transport Systems for maximising efficiency of freight journeys and delivery schedules, especially in congested locations.

246. It is vital that freight access from the trunk road and main rail networks is improved to increase the efficiency of distribution and support economic development (see Section 1G). It will be equally important to discourage the use of unsuitable roads by heavy freight and working with railway industry partners to explore the potential to move more heavy freight by rail whilst balancing the competing demands of passenger and freight movement on the rail network. The importance of wharf safeguarding is an integral component of supporting sustainable water transport (see the Blue Ribbon Network section 4F below).

Analysis of capacity and accessibility

247. Recent analysis by TfL of future capacity and accessibility in the sub-region is summarised on Diagram 6.

248. It can be seen that substantial parts of the sub-region will benefit from significant improvements in accessibility, in terms of jobs and population accessible within 45 minutes. There is generally a good correlation with the Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification. Crossrail will have an impact in terms of additional capacity, congestion relief, and reductions in journey times, giving significant benefits for travellers to and from East London.

249. It is recognised that over time further transport initiatives, proposed by TfL and sub-regional stakeholders, will be needed to deliver the objectives of the London Plan. This should include initiatives to improve transport links in those parts of the sub-region where all-round accessibility is relatively less good. Proposals brought forward will be considered by TfL in the context of the sub-regions’ transport needs, in consultation with key stakeholders.

Monitoring and review

250. As part of the monitoring and review process of the London Plan, TfL will undertake regular assessments of transport capacity to support development in the Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification (London Plan Objective 5 KPI

62 16). This will be reported on and made available to the boroughs and strategic partners.

Action 2F (i) Relevant policies regarding transport and development are set out in chapter 3C of the London Plan. In addition, in preparing their LDFs boroughs are asked to have regard to the implications of the phasing table (in Annex 3) on the need for higher densities and the creation of sustainable communities.

(ii) The Mayor, TfL, boroughs and other strategic partners will use the TfL Business Plan, Borough Local Implementation Plans and other delivery mechanisms to support investment in transport, particularly by sustainable modes;

(iii) In view of the high growth expected in the sub–region, particular emphasis should be given to integrating improvements to sustainable modes with appropriate adjustments of parking standards and strategies, reflecting the London Plan approach of lower parking provision for areas where good alternatives to the car are available;

(iv) TfL is currently exploring how best to develop measures to change travel behaviour and will work with sub-regional stakeholders and government to explore innovative options.

(v) Working with partners, TfL will plan and deliver selective highway improvements to provide shorter and less congested routes and access for goods vehicles, including new crossings of the Thames and new road links in London Riverside, the Lower Lea Valley and Belvedere;

(vi) Working with the London Sustainable Distribution Partnership, TfL and other partners will promote a collaborative approach to local distribution issues and opportunities, for example through sub-regional freight quality partnerships, in particular those being developed by Thames Gateway London Partnership for Bexleyheath and Belvedere;

(vii) The Mayor will encourage the provision of two inter-modal freight facilities in the sub-region, one north and one south of the Thames. In determining applications for such facilities, boroughs should have regard to the forthcoming London Freight Strategy and weigh economic benefit against strategic and local impacts.

(viii) TfL, in consultation with key stakeholders, will produce an integrated sub- regional transport network plan to ensure a co-ordinated approach to meeting the sub-regions transport needs, which appropriately reflects development planning issues, and to feed into the reviews of the London Plan and the Transport Strategy. As well as reviewing infrastructure needs, this would consider issues such as improving travel information and influencing travel behaviour.

63 Diagram 6

64 Section 3. Ensuring development brings benefit to communities.

251. The London Plan recognises that the benefits of growth must be targeted to address the needs of groups who historically have had particular difficulty in gaining access to them. The Plan identifies these groups as people with disabilities, older people, children and young people, women, black and minority ethnic groups, refugees and asylum seekers, gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-people.

252. Benchmark data providing proxies for the sub-regional distribution of these groups are not available for all, but Tables 3.1-3.3 in Annex 4 show that within this sub-region there are particular concentrations of Black African (6.2%) and Bangladeshi (5.2%) communities in comparison to the London average (5.3% and 2.1% respectively). East London has the highest number of households containing people with a limiting long-term illness, health problem or disability (33.2% compared with the Greater London at 29.6%). The sub-region has the highest number of children under 16. Diagram 7 shows that there are particular concentrations in East London of areas with children under 19 in families in receipt of jobseekers allowance.

253. The London Plan also identifies the main concentrations of deprivation and Map 2A.2 of the Plan shows the Areas for Regeneration which will target these. In East London they are concentrated in Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham, all of which rank in the ten most deprived local authorities in the country. However there are also substantial concentrations across much of the inner part of the sub­ region as well as pockets elsewhere. The Plan asks boroughs to prioritise these areas for action and investment, in particular to develop integrated strategies for them through LDFs, Community Strategies and Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies. These should be informed by the Economic Development Strategy’s policies on tackling barriers to employment, reducing disparities in labour market outcomes between groups, addressing concentrations of disadvantage and encouraging affordable childcare provision. Local communities should play an active and visible role in the regeneration of their areas.

254. Boroughs are asked to take into account Policies 2A.4 and 3A.14 of the Plan through their LDFs, Community Strategies and Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies, and to consider whether there are any additional areas which should be identified.

65 Diagram 7

66 3A. Promoting Social Inclusion

255. There is evidence of health inequalities across London. East London has higher levels of mortality for people under 75 than the England or London averages as shown in Figure 3.4, Annex 4. Newham has the highest level in London. Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Barking & Dagenham, Lewisham and Greenwich also have particularly high levels of mortality. While the City of London has a very low level there is greater variety between wards which may be a result of the small population of the area. The work of the Healthy Urban Development Unit (see Section 1E) will therefore be particularly important in addressing social needs in East London. The London Food Strategy42 includes actions to improve Londoners health by improving access to a range of food. There is a particular need for residential care homes for older persons, children and other groups throughout London and particularly in parts of East London, as well as discretionary support services. The lack of affordable childcare is a major factor contributing to London’s high rate of child poverty and social exclusion (see Section 1E) which are particularly prevalent in the sub-region.

256. To address social needs fully requires detailed local assessment of issues and options both geographically and in terms of communities of identity or interest. Many of the necessary actions will be of a purely local level and fall beyond the scope of this SRDF, for example training to help women return to work or lifetime learning schemes, particularly for older people. The Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy43 provides the wider context for addressing economic and social inclusion. The emerging Sub-Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan (SREDIP), sponsored by the LDA, and the Community Strategies produced by cross-sectoral partnerships will also be important.

257. It is anticipated that Community Strategies may need to be set in a sub-regional and pan-London context. The ongoing process of sub-regional working provides an opportunity to explore the relationship between strategic and local targeting in addressing the needs of these communities and the sorts of guidance and actions that may be required.

258. The Mayor has already produced Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on achieving an inclusive environment44 and on housing45, which includes guidance on the housing needs of London’s diverse population and affordable housing. SPG and Best Practice Guidance are in preparation on meeting the spatial needs of London’s diverse communities, and on health issues in LDFs are in preparation. Stakeholders should also take into account the Mayor’s Strategy for children and young people46 and the Strategy for older people47.

67 Action 3A (i) The Mayor will, and boroughs and other partners are asked to, maximise the benefits of growth to East London’s excluded communities, making use of the Sub-Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan, targeting of government and EU resources, and action plans to support community-led regeneration.

(ii) The Learning and Skills Councils and the London Skills Commission are asked to review their strategies to maximise the engagement of deprived communities and disadvantaged individuals in the economy, including the development of BME/SME business development strategies with LDA, LSC and Business Link.

3B. Access to employment

259. The London Plan stresses the need to improve access by disadvantaged communities to Opportunity Areas and other places of employment. This potentially requires physical actions for local communities to be able to reach the jobs there. It also requires a greater focus on access to information networks, and strong pathways to good education, employment structure, raising aspirations, training and access to affordable and quality childcare (see Section 1E).

260. In their Community Strategies boroughs may wish to examine the possibility of focusing more training resources in areas of deprivation and to re-examine the content of schemes. These should be developed to increase access to employment arising from both local regeneration initiatives and, more substantially, the growth in job opportunities across London. Further education, as well as work-based learning, community learning and apprenticeships, plays a crucial role in improving the job prospects of East London’s population through skills development and is therefore a key tool in promoting social inclusion.

Action 3B Boroughs (primarily through LDFs and Community Strategies), Local Strategic Partnerships, the LDA and other key partners are invited to consider the linkages between disadvantaged communities, areas of deprivation and access to labour markets. This may include working with TfL and other partners to identify a package of measures to improve the situation.

68 Section 4. Ensuring development improves the environment

4A. Conservation, design and the public realm.

261. There are many exceptional spaces and iconic buildings, old and new, in East London including two World Heritage sites and the outstanding asset of the River Thames. Mention has already been made in Section 1D of several cultural and leisure assets in the sub-region and Section 4D looks at open space and the Blue Ribbon Network. Alongside these assets, a number of issues have blighted the environmental quality of the sub-region brownfield/derelict land, power transmission networks, prominent historic roles in waste management and poor quality of much of the built environment.

262. A much enhanced image is critical to the future direction of East London as set out in Part One of this document. The staging of the 2012 Olympics provides an opportunity to showcase London, and with its focus on East London, the scope to promote the image of the sub-region will be given a powerful impetus. Given also the scale of change and development anticipated in East London associated with the Olympics, Stratford, Greenwich Peninsula, Barking Riverside and other Opportunity Areas, the potential to boost the liveability and image of the sub­ region through design quality is unprecedented.

263. Due to the complexity and scale of the challenge in the Opportunity Areas, there is a particular need to ensure that urban change is led by excellent masterplanning, detailed planning and design. This will best be achieved by close collaboration between key stakeholders.

264. Another challenge will be to raise the quality of public spaces across the sub­ region. Improvements have been made in recent years through programmes including the Mayor’s 100 Public Spaces. Phase 3 of this programme includes many proposed improvements in East London with projects at Bow Church, Gants Hill, the Romford Ring, Silvertown Quays/Pontoon Dock, Kender Triangle/New Cross Gate, Erith town centre and West India Quay. Raising the quality of public spaces across the sub-region is an important local matter and requires vigorous action not just by boroughs, but a much wider spectrum of stakeholders. Best Practice Guidance on Urban Design Principles and the Public Realm is in preparation.

Action 4A i) Boroughs and other stakeholders are asked to work together to promote improvements to the public realm and open spaces, and emphasise increasing the quality of the environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

ii) Boroughs and other stakeholders are asked to work collaboratively in Opportunity Areas to plan for and manage excellent urban change.

69 4B. Sustainable design, construction and energy

265. Climate change and the scale of redevelopment in East London together drive the imperative for enhanced levels of sustainable design and construction within the sub-region. ‘London’s Warming’ (the London Climate Change Partnership) sets out the expected climate change impacts for London. There are no particular East London Sub-Region climate change parameters that are different from London as a whole (see flooding impacts below), which is expected to face significant increases in summer temperatures and winter rainfall, with a decrease in summer rainfall.

266. Development, particularly on the larger sites and in the Opportunity Areas in East London, provides the opportunity for achieving enhanced levels of sustainable design and construction. The Mayor’s Energy Strategy includes a target to implement at least one zero-emission development (ZED) in every borough by 2010.

267. New developments over 10 housing units or 1000m2 should seek to achieve a minimum of a "Very Good" EcoHomes or BREEAM rating. If the public transport infrastructure is in place to enable the development to achieve an "Excellent" rating then this should be the standard sought. All public buildings, schools, libraries or developments with significant public sector participation, regardless of size and location, should normally achieve an "Excellent" BREEAM rating.

268. All surface water run offs should be managed as close as possible to their source. The use of Sustainable Drainage Systems is desirable for developments unless there are practical reasons for not doing so (for example, local ground conditions). Retro-fitting of Sustainable Drainage Systems for existing development should be implemented when opportunities arise.

Energy

269. In order to achieve the London Plan and the Mayor’s Energy Strategy objectives, the sub-region should aim to accommodate a range of sustainable energy technologies at different scales.

270. Taking into account best practice, it is recommended that the installation of on- site renewable technologies, including biomass fuelled CHP plants, anaerobic digestion plants, solar photovoltaic cells, small scale wind turbines, and hydrogen fuel cells within new development should be sought wherever possible. Integration of renewable technologies should come after the application of energy efficiency measures that reduce energy demand. Boroughs should also identify suitable sites for renewable energy schemes to implement London Plan policy 4A.10. Boroughs are encouraged to include targets and guidance for the generation of renewable energy in LDFs having regard to the target of 665GWh for London by 2010, and at least ten zero-carbon developments in the sub-region by 2010.

271. In line with best practice it is recommended that development over 1,000m² (or 10 housing units) provide at least 10% of its energy needs from on-site renewable sources wherever feasible in line with London Plan policy 4A.9.

70 272. Detailed consideration should be given to the use of locally embedded combined heat and power generation and thermal (ie heating and cooling) distribution. In particular, Barking Power Station represents a significant heat source, and efforts should be made to exploit this where feasible.

273. Although there may be limited scope for large scale wind power generation in London, opportunities should be investigated, and where feasible and appropriate, exploited. Careful consideration should be given to realising this potential in new developments and refurbishments.

274. It is considered that the City, Stratford, London Riverside and Barking Reach may be examples of suitable locations for definition as Energy Action Areas in the sub­ region.

Action 4B (i) Boroughs and developers are asked to include the above targets when preparing LDFs and in considering applications.

(ii) The Mayor will work with boroughs and the LDA to define Energy Action Areas to showcase low carbon communities that demonstrate a range of energy technologies and techniques.

4C. Air Quality and Noise

275. Poor air quality damages health and the quality of life. In London it is estimated that air pollution brings forward 1,600 deaths and contributes to 1,500 respiratory hospital admissions each year.

276. By March 2006, all boroughs except Havering had declared Air Quality Management Areas for nitrogen dioxide and fine particles (PM10). Greenwich, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and the City had declared an AQMA for the whole of the borough and Bexley, Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Lewisham had declared one for parts of the borough only. Eight boroughs had produced an Air Quality Action Plan, aiming to reduce emissions and work towards the air quality objectives for these pollutants. The main source of these pollutants is vehicle emissions, which contribute to approximately 60% of emissions in London.

277. Given that the region is a priority area for development and regeneration, the scale of change will require that in terms of the impact on air quality, the developments need to be carefully planned and managed to reduce emissions from all phases, from demolition and construction through to implementation. For example, the projected increase to the region’s population will increase the number of people exposed to existing poor air quality, so the planned improvements to transport infrastructure such as Crossrail, CTRL, the East London line extension and new cross river links to reduce circuitous north-south journeys are vital to reduce the need to travel by car. The commitment to schemes such as the Greenwich Peninsular Low Emission Zone will also benefit the region.

71 278. Many parts of the sub-region are substantially affected by noise from busy roads and railways. Policies in the Mayor’s Noise Strategy48 need to be applied, seeking to improve noise management of road and other sources, and to enhance soundscapes wherever possible through exemplary acoustic design, particularly for housing, community facilities and open spaces. Particular care will be needed in the location, design and management of late night entertainment facilities to minimise risk of disturbance to existing residents, and maximise potential for new housing.

Action 4C (i) Boroughs are asked to ensure that their Air Quality Action Plans are suitably integrated with other relevant strategic plans including the Community Strategies, LDF and Transport Local Implementation Plans and that consideration is given to the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy and Policy 4A.6 of the London Plan in the development and implementation of such strategic plans.

(ii) Boroughs are invited to consider actions that can be included in their community strategies and LDFs to reduce ambient noise.

4D. Open Space

279. The network of parks, open space, wildlife sites and the Green Belt is one of East London’s strengths, making an important contribution to the quality of life and should continue to be protected. With the population projected to grow so significantly, opportunities need to be taken to enhance the quality and range of facilities in parks and open spaces and provide for their future maintenance as well as to ensure that the Green Belt is more fully used.

280. Despite these assets however, there are areas of East London with deficiencies of different types of park and in access to nature. The indicative deficiency areas for Regional and Metropolitan Parks, and District Parks over 20 hectares are shown on Maps 4D.1 and 4D.2 in Annex 4. They also show the opportunities to address the deficiencies. Developing East London’s open spaces should aim to enhance distinctive sub-regional character, notably in terms of riverine landscape and soundscape.

281. Regional Parks. The Lee Valley Regional Park and Epping Forest provide open space in this category of park to the north and east of the sub-region. However, almost two fifths of those living in the sub-region fall within the indicative deficiency area. The deficiency areas in the east of the sub-region and to the south of the Thames can be addressed by providing and managing a regional park within the following opportunities:

x London Riverside Conservation Park – Rainham, Crayford and Dartford Marshes x South East London Green Chain

72 282. Metropolitan Parks. The sub-region is well served by this category of parks. However, there is a significant deficiency on the north bank of the Thames. This deficiency can be addressed by the following opportunities:

x implementing the extension of the Lee Valley Park proposed by the Olympic Legacy; x opening up the River Roding and adjacent open space to public access and improving the linkages between Ilford and the Thames and incorporating the proposed Cross River Park; x providing a linked network of new and existing open space within the Barking Reach, London Riverside, Thamesmead and Belvedere/Erith Opportunity Areas; x linking Mayesbrook Park and Goodmayes Park so that they function together as a Metropolitan Park.

283. District Parks. About a fifth of the population of the sub-region is outside the catchment area of a District Park. Borough open space strategies should address the indicated deficiency areas by identifying opportunities to create new parks, expand and improve the quality and facilities of existing local parks and/or private open space49.

284. Green Arc. The Green Arc initiative promotes the positive management and use of the urban fringe to provide a good quality environment for people and wildlife. Partnership working should deliver the vision and objectives for the Green Arc project area which is identified in Map 4D.3 in Annex 4. Stakeholders are encouraged to establish a Green Arc partnership to cover the south east quadrant of London and adjacent area of Kent.

East London Green Grid

285. The vision for East London is to enhance its mosaic of existing open space and create a strategic network of interlinked multi-functional, high quality open spaces, providing connectivity to and between town centres, public transport nodes, leisure and recreation uses, the Green Belt /Green Arc, the Thames and major employment and residential areas. This is known as the Green Grid and the concept implements the aims of the London Plan and the ODPM’s Green the Gateway Strategy by providing the framework for improving the open space network in the sub-region50 53(see Map 4D.4, Annex 4). The Mayor will work with partners to develop the Green Grid Framework for East London.

286. The Green Grid network should be planned, designed and expanded as an integral part of all development proposals, ensuring that it is:

(i) Designed to link elements into a wider network that functions as a whole, crossing administrative boundaries and connecting, urban, suburban, rural areas and waterways; (ii) Addresses deficiencies in access to public open space and nature; (iii) Planned and managed to include environmental, social and economic benefits; (iv) Designed, located and managed to perform a wide range of functions, including improving pedestrian and cycle access, enhancing biodiversity,

73 reducing flood risk, adapting to climate change, promoting recreational use and healthy living; (v) Engages and incorporates a wide range of diverse disciplines and expertise throughout the process, including planning, urban design, landscape, ecology, environment, conservation and civil engineering; (vi) Engages key partners and involves diverse strategic and local stakeholders in planning and implementation, including the GLA group and government.

287. Map 4D.5 in Annex 4 illustrates the six sub-areas where partnership working should be actively promoted to achieve the opportunities for improving the provision, quality, functions and linkages within the network. The GLA will publish a Women’s Safety in Parks Toolkit later in 2006 which will give advice on safe park design and management.

Action 4D (i) The Mayor will work with boroughs and other partners in helping to redress the deficiency in access to Regional Parks including London Riverside Conservation Park and the South East London Green Chain.

(ii) In their LDFs boroughs are asked to set out proposals to meet deficiencies in access to Metropolitan and District Parks and to take forward the Green Arc initiative.

(iii) Boroughs are asked to adopt the vision and Green Grid principles into planning policy and incorporate them into the delivery and management of projects.

4E. Wildlife and Biodiversity

288. In line with best practice it is recommended that all development in East London should generate a net increase in the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat. Where wildlife habitat is not present on site and all opportunities associated with the site have been considered, financial contributions for the creation, restoration and maintenance of off-site habitats and species (the Mayor’s wildlife sites, and priorities identified by local Biodiversity Action Plans) should be made. Further guidance on implementation is provided in the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy51, in ‘Design for Biodiversity’52 and in ‘Building Green’53. Map 4D.6 in Annex 4 illustrates the main ecological and landscape zones within the East sub-region. The traditional character of the zones should guide the restoration, creation or maintenance of wildlife habitat within the sub-region.

289. The wildlife sites provide a network of natural open space to promote the movement of wildlife through the sub-region. The main corridors follow the Thames, Lower Lea, Roding, Ingrebourne and Cray Rivers and include the saline grazing marshes beside the Thames in the east. Another corridor follows the woodlands and grasslands between Oxleas woodlands and Bostall Heath. Elsewhere in the sub-region there are important grasslands and woodlands in an arc across the north between Fairlop and Dagenham Park.

74 290. To aid in the provision of access to nature, the Mayor identifies Areas of Deficiency in access to nature. These are shown in Map 4D.7 in Annex 4.

291. The Areas of Deficiency can be addressed through three processes:

(i) Improving the natural value of an accessible site, or creating a new site, to provide a significant experience to nature. (ii) Providing access points to a site providing a significant experience of nature, or opening up access to a previously restricted site. (iii) Improving the walking access through areas surrounding a site, bringing more parts of developed London into the one kilometre walking distance.

Action 4E In their LDFs boroughs are asked to identify Areas of Deficiency in access to nature and indicate how they are to be redressed.

4F. The Blue Ribbon Network 292. The Blue Ribbon Network is a distinctive feature of East London giving many opportunities to enhance developments. It includes the River Thames, Rivers Lee, Roding, Ravensbourne, the canal network including the Bow Back Rivers, the West India and Royal Docks and numerous smaller docks and basins and many other smaller tributaries.

293. The River Thames is the single most dominant feature and provides an important transport artery for freight. With the development of the Thames Gateway it can be expected that there will be an increase in the viability of passenger ferry services between East London and the Isle of Dogs or Central London. There is currently a limited range of leisure uses of the Thames in East London, this is in contrast to the situation in west London. As Thames Gateway develops, opportunities should be taken to increase active leisure and sporting use of the river.

294. Developments along the River Thames should provide a continuous publicly accessible Thames Path throughout to the London eastern boundary. In most cases this should run alongside the river but in some cases there will be good reasons for an inland diversion.

295. The Thames Strategy East project is delivering an integrated strategy for the Thames and riverside areas. This partnership project will give more detailed guidance on the design, layout, improvement and management of developments on and near the riverside. It is has been the subject of consultation in 2005 and will be finalised in later in 2006.

296. There are 41 wharves safeguarded for cargo handling in East London (as part of a London safeguarding strategy). Planning for these sites and areas adjacent to them will need to reflect the fact that these will be operational wharves requiring 24 hour operation and must not prejudice their viability or future flexibility.

75 297. East London has a small number of strategically important boatyard facilities. Their functions should be protected and adjacent development designed to minimise any potential conflicts. The GLA will be undertaking research during 2006/7 into the provision of and need for boatyard facilities in London. If any additional facilities are needed then industrial riverside Opportunity Areas may prove to be suitable locations.

298. Most of the tributary rivers in East London have suffered from unsympathetic development and have become degraded. Restoration of these rivers will add to the environmental and amenity value of East London. Opportunities to implement recommendations from the both the South London and North London River Restoration Strategies54, should be taken. Surface water run-off also needs to be sustainably managed to ensure that the overall water management of these rivers more closely reflects natural patterns, this is an integral part of the Green Grid concept. Linked to river restoration and sustainable flood risk management attempts should be made to store surface water during storms within the functional flood plain of tributary rivers.

299. The 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games provide a significant opportunity for the restoration of river corridors and provision of open space for both public use and ecological enhancement. These opportunities need to be addressed through the detailed development of the proposals.

300. The docks on the Isle of Dogs and at the Royals provide large scale open water spaces. The main function of these space so far has been as a setting for development. Future development proposals should recognise the unique value of these water spaces and should promote water dependant uses which make active use of the water for example for sports, recreation, boating or shipping uses.

Action 4F (i) In their LDFs boroughs are asked to seek to protect strategically important boatyard operations.

(ii) Boroughs and other stakeholders are asked to take account of guidance in the Thames Strategy East in managing and improving the riverside and riverspaces.

(iii) Boroughs are advised to use the outputs of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to inform the PPG25 sequential test when preparing Local Development Documents.

76 Section 5. Managing the development tools and processes

301. This section provides guidance on more detailed aspects of land use with the emphasis on accommodating growth.

5A. Densities

302. The importance of achieving higher densities in appropriate locations in order to accommodate growth has already been stressed. Residential densities vary widely within the sub-region – in the inner boroughs, densities are high and increasing, while in Bexley and Havering densities remain relatively low – see Table 5A.1 in Annex 4.

303. One of the issues already emerging from recent applications is that there is a marked switch in supply to apartment style dwellings – with implications for dwelling sizes (see below), access to gardens and for maintenance charges. For many people the switch is entirely acceptable, indeed desirable as research into changing lifestyles shows. For others however, particularly families, more imaginative solutions will be needed, and best practice from the continent needs further study. The issue of maintenance charges goes beyond the brief of the SRDF, but is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently in order to avoid storing problems up for the future which could undermine the approach to sustainable communities.

304. The sub-region’s larger sites will be better able to accommodate higher densities than many smaller infill sites that have to relate sensitively to their surroundings. On the other hand, there is likely to be an increased need to accommodate additional social infrastructure on the larger sites in order to achieve sustainable communities.

305. Both of these requirements underline the need to prepare masterplans for the larger sites in a way that mirrors the full range of requirements of this SRDF. These masterplans need to address the appropriate introduction of higher densities in a consistent way across all boroughs.

306. Boroughs are asked to include detailed proposals for appropriate densities in their LDFs, in accordance with the SRQ matrix and other London Plan policies, (including masterplans for larger sites)

5B. Housing mix

307. Linked to the issue of density is that of housing size, type and mix, and much of the need is for family homes. The GLA’s Housing Requirements Study55 indicates that Londonwide for the next 10 years, to meet both projected population growth and the backlog in unmet housing need, 30% of new provision should be 4 bedroom or larger; 38% should be 2 or 3 bedrooms and 32% should be 1 bedroom accommodation. For social housing, 41% needs to be 4 or more bedrooms. This guidance has been incorporated in the GLA Housing Provision SPG.

308. Current performance in the sub-region shows that there is some over-provision of small units and an under-provision of larger units, see Table 5B.1 in Annex 4. in

77 view of the above average size of households in East London, there is a great need for the provision of larger units – up to 4/5/6 bedrooms especially in the social housing sector. Historic trends need to be addressed in order to develop sustainable communities and meet need.

309. Housing provision needs to meet a range of specialist needs, including provision of supported housing as required by the London supporting people strategy56. There is also an increased need for housing for students, reflecting the large number of higher education institutions in the area and the Government’s targets for a higher proportion of young people having access to higher education.

Action 5B Boroughs, through their LDFs and planning decisions, should ensure that sufficient larger residential units are provided to meet identified housing requirements.

5C. Mixed use and changes of use

310. Mixed uses are likely to become more prevalent in the sub-region. This can bring several benefits, for example larger retail type developments can accommodate residential on upper floors, and the re-introduction of housing into town centre schemes can help to re-vitalise centres and add to safety at night. Consideration should be given to integrating them with local application of the Entertainment Management Zone concept.

311. In general the key to achieving sustainable centres is likely to be a combination of private and public partnership working and mixed-use re-development. Such partnerships will be important in enabling site assembly, usually in connection with more comprehensive town centre renewal schemes. This may entail the use of compulsory purchase procedures. Partnerships are also needed to help enhance and maintain the office, industrial and town centre environments, eg through Business Improvement Districts (BIDS).

312. The provision of affordable housing and infrastructure services will have to be supported by higher value uses, including private housing, retail, leisure and in some locations, offices (see Table 2.2in Section 2B). This is an explicit strategic policy requirement in the CAZ and its Opportunity Areas and has potential application beyond in the sub-region’s town centres and their surrounds.

313. Rejuvenation of the sub-regional office offer may entail a reduction in gross office stock but an uplift in the quality of the remainder. In consolidating the office content of centres, changes from office to other uses, especially housing, should be encouraged in line with the guidance in Section 1.

314. CAZ and Opportunity Areas. There are pressures in some parts of the sub­ region to change office to residential or other uses. Within the CAZ and its Opportunity Areas, including the City Fringe and Canary Wharf, changes from offices to other uses should generally be resisted. This is likely to be the case especially in the City, unless it can be demonstrated that they do not compromise

78 business clusters, but do contribute to achievement of wider objectives eg for housing, especially affordable housing. Elsewhere in the CAZ, there may be more scope for selective and sensitive encouragement of changes to other uses providing there is strong evidence to demonstrate that this will not compromise capacity to sustain the strategic office role and offer of the CAZ as a whole (see Section 2A).

315. Though informal consultation has revealed some concerns, it is apparent that mixed use development is becoming increasingly attractive to investors in many locations within the CAZ office market area. Mixing of uses can take place either within buildings or across a development, taking into account the site characteristics. As a working principle, in situ housing provision should be sought, but there must be flexibility to allow off-site provision, including cash in lieu, where the site is not suitable for housing, either physically or because it might compromise a specialised business cluster.

316. The Mayor’s Housing SPG57 sets out the general principle, now operated by Westminster and Camden and proposed by Lambeth, that 50% of the increment to development capacity associated with office development in the CAZ and associated Opportunity Areas should be for housing. To facilitate integrated planning it may be appropriate for boroughs in reviews of their LDFs to consider the application of this principle to the whole of each Opportunity Area rather than individual sites within it. This will leave flexibility for single use buildings within these Areas providing that the Development Framework ensures that overall, 50% of the increment to development capacity is for housing. It is also expected that, as a general principle and basis for negotiation, the proportion of affordable housing should have regard to the Mayor’s 50% target in accordance with London Plan policies 3A.7 and 3A.8. Similarly it is expected that as far as possible, this should be secured on site.

Action 5C In preparing LDFs, development frameworks and assessing larger proposals, boroughs are encouraged to consider whether the introduction of a wider range of uses could increase the sustainability of the development taking into account London Plan policies 3B.4 and 4B.1.

5D. Tall buildings

317. The London Plan commits the Mayor to work with the boroughs and the strategic Partnerships to help identify suitable locations for tall buildings for inclusion in UDPs and the SRDFs (Policy 4B.8). The Mayor is due to publish extensive guidance on the management of views in the form of a London View Management Framework later in 2006.

318. Potential areas include parts of the Isle of Dogs (excluding the south), Stratford International, parts of the City and parts of other Opportunity Areas. Other locations for tall buildings that can be identified as suitable should be subject to an urban design study that includes an examination of opportunities and constraints including topography, designated panoramic viewing corridors,

79 important local views, local context, scale, height, urban grain and setting. Reference should be made to Policy 4B.8 and 4B.9 of the London Plan. Local Development Frameworks should provide further detail to identify such locations.

5E. Further information

319. There are five Annexes attached.

Annex 1 Gives more detail on the town centre network. Annex 2 Sets out the key issues, emerging capacity estimates and indicative boundaries for each of the Opportunity and Intensification Areas and indicative boundaries of the Strategic Employment Locations that need to be taken into account in planning frameworks for those areas. Annex 3 Updates the London Plan transport phasing diagram for the sub-region. Annex 4 Contains detailed tables, maps and figures to support the main conclusions drawn in the body of the SRDF. Annex 5 Lists potential issues that have arisen which may need to be considered in further Alterations to the London Plan and preparation of LDFs.

80 Abbreviations used in this document

AfI Area for Intensification ALG Association of London Government AUU Architecture and Urbanism Unit (GLA) BAA British Airports Authority BME Black and Minority Ethnic Communities Bn billion CAZ Central Activities Zone CLP Central London Partnership CRP Cross River Partnership CTRL Channel Tunnel Rail Link DfES Department for Education and Skills DfT Department for Transport DLR Docklands Light Railway EMZ Entertainment Management Zone GLA Greater London Authority GoL Government Office for London Ha Hectares IIA Integrated Impact Assessment LDA London Development Agency LDD Local Development Document LDF Local Development Framework LCN+ London Cycle Network Plus LIP Local Implementation Plan (transport) LSC Learning and Skills Council LSCP London Stansted Cambridge Peterborough Corridor LTGDC London Thames Gateway Development Corporation M Metres/million mppa Million passengers per annum NHS National Health Service OA Opportunity Area ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister PPP Public Private Partnership PPS Planning Policy Statement RSS Regional Spatial Strategies SEL Strategic Employment Location SERAS South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study SLP Strategic Logistics Park SPD Supplementary Planning Document SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SREDIP Sub-Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan SRDF Sub-regional development framework SME Small to Medium Sized Enterprises Sq.m Square metres TfL Transport for London TGLP Thames Gateway London Partnership UDC Urban Development Corporation UDP Unitary Development Plan

81 References

1 East of England Regional Assembly, ‘East of England Plan - Draft revision to the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the East of England’ 2004 2 South East of England Regional Assembly, ‘The South East Plan - Draft Plan for submission to government’ March 2006 3 DMAG Ethnic Diversity Indices March 2005 4 Mayor of London London Divided November 2002 5 Mayor of London. 2004 Housing Capacity Study. GLA, 2005 6 Mayor of London. Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2005 7 GLA Economics – emerging estimates – to be published shortly. 8 Cambridge Economics Ltd, ‘Commuter Flows in London and the wider South East 2001 to 2016/21’ Corporation of London, October 2005 9 Roger Tym & Partners. Demand & Supply of Business Space in London. SDS Technical report 21. GLA, 2002. 10 London Property Research, London Office Policy Review 2004. GLA, 2004 11 Comparison goods include items such as clothing, shoes, jewellery, furniture, carpets, household appliances and utensils, bicycles, sports equipment, garden products and books. 12 Convenience goods include items such as food, drinks (alcoholic and non-alcoholic), tobacco, newspapers and periodicals. 13 Experian Business Strategies. , London Town Centre Assessment Stage 1, Comparison Goods Floorspace Need GLA 2004 14 These have been sourced from boroughs, the London Development Monitoring System (LDMS) and a commercial database of new retail development (EMAP Glenigans). 15 Experian Business Strategies. London Town Centre Assessment Stage 2, Convenience Goods Floorspace need, GLA, 2005 16 Mayor of London, ‘London Cultural Capital’, GLA, 2004, pg 129 17 Mayor of London. London Cultural Capital, 2004 – see paras 5.28-5-45 18 Price Waterhouse Coopers, Encouraging the supply of visitor accommodation across London, 2004 19 Grant Thornton, Hotel Demand Study (for Greater London Authority). Due for publication June 2006. 20 www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk 21 See Choosing Health - Making Healthy Choices Easier at www.dh.gov.uk. 22 www.healthyurbandevelopment.nhs.uk 23 Statistics of Schools in England 2005, Department for Education and Skills 24 London Energy Partnership. London Renewables: Integrating renewable energy into new developments: toolkit for planners, developers and consultants. GLA, 2004. 25 Recycling and Recovery Facilities: Sites Investigation in London, Land Use Consultants/SLR for the GLA , July 2005 26 Mayor of London Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance, ‘Land for Transport Functions.’ GLA, May 2006. 27 Roger Tym & Partners et al. Industrial and Warehousing Demand in London. GLA, 2004 28 Roger Tym & Partners Demand & Supply of Business Space in London. SDS Technical Report 21. GLA, 2002 29 Roger Tym & Partners. GLA, 2002 op cit 30 Mayor of London, ‘Draft Alterations to the London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London). Housing Provision Targets, Waste and Minerals. For public consultation’ GLA, Oct 2005 31 Mayor of London “Industrial Capacity, Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance” 2003 32 Roger Tym & Partners et al. Industrial and Warehousing Demand in London. GLA, 2004 33 URS Corporation ‘East London Industrial Land Study’ – to be published shortly. 34 Mayor of London. 2004 Housing Capacity Study. GLA, 2005 35 Mayor of London, ‘Healthy and Sustainable Food for London. The Mayor’s Food Strategy’ LDA, May 2006 36 Saphir N. Review of London Wholesale Markets, DEFRA, Corporation of London, 2002 37 Mayor of London. London Cultural Capital, GLA, 2004. 38 ‘Town Centre Enhancement Study – North London’ Commissioned by LDA, GOL and NLSA (expected to be published in Spring 2006) 39 GLA Economics. More residents, more jobs. The relationship between population, employment and accessibility in London. GLA, 2005 40 Mayor of London. Industrial Capacity Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2003 41 ODPM ‘Planning: Employment Land Reviews: Guidance Note’ ODPM, Dec 2004

82 42 Mayor of London, ‘Healthy and Sustainable Food for London – the Mayor’s Food Strategy’ LDA, May 2006. 43 Mayor of London. Economic Development Strategy. GLA, 2005 44 Mayor of London. Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment. Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2004 45 Mayor of London. Housing. Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2005 46 Mayor of London, Making London better for all children and young people. The Mayor’s Children and Young Peoples Strategy. GLA January 2004 47 Mayor of London, Towards an Older People’s Strategy for London. A draft Mayoral Strategy for consultation, GLA November 2005 48 Mayor of London. Ambient Noise Strategy. GLA, 2004 49 See Mayor of London. Guide to Preparing Open Space Strategies. Best Practice Guidance. GLA, 2004 50 Land Use Consultants, Report of Consultants Studies - East London Green Grid, August 2005. 51 Mayor of London. ‘Connecting with Nature. The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy’ GLA, July 2002 52 LDA, Mayor of London, English Nature, London Biodiversity Partnership. ‘Design for Biodiversity’ LDA, 2004 53 Mayor of London. ‘Building Green’ A guide to using plants on roofs, walls and pavements’ GLA, May 2004 54 Environment Agency Bringing Your Rivers Back to Life 2006 and South London River Restoration Strategy 2002. 55 Greater London Housing Requirements Study Dec 2004. GLA in partnership with Opinion Research Services. 56 Mayor of London ALG, A.R.W. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. “Getting a move on. Addressing the housing and support issues facing Londoners with mental health needs.” GLA, July 2003. 57 Mayor of London. Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. GLA, 2005

83 Annex 1 – Town Centres

East London Town Centre Network Borough/Centre London Plan Total Modeled indicative Commentary Classification GOAD/CASA comparison goods floorspace floorspace need (sqm) (sqm) 2001- 2016(1) Barking & Dagenham Dagenham & Heathway District 18,000 <1000 Chadwell Heath District 20,000 1,000 Barking & Dagenham Major 49,000 4,000 - 7,000 Intensification and mixed use regeneration of town centre including significant new housing, public realm improvements to support role as Major centre. Residual 6,000 - 9,000 Bexley Welling District 38,000 1,000 - 2,000 Sidcup District 36,000 <1000 Crayford District 34,000 <1000 Bexleyheath Major 86,000 9,000 - 14,000 Facing stiff competition from out of centre destinations such as Bluewater, the role of this Major centre should be sustained by realising potential for intensification, including housing, and securing improvements to the quantitative and qualitative retail, leisure and evening entertainment offer. Erith -- 19,000 --* Health check indicates that the centre is now functioning as a District centre. Residual 2,000 - 3,000 City Moorgate District 22,000 1,000 - 2,000 Need for a consistent approach to Liverpool Street District 33,000 1,500 - 2,000 the designation of retail frontages Leadenhall Market District 25,000 4,000 - 5,000 within the Central Activities Zone. Fleet Street District 17,000 <1000 Responses to the SRDF indicated that a CAZ frontage approach could Cheapside District 31,000 1,000 - 2,000 be the most appropriate. Residual 2,000 Greenwich Woolwich Major 71,000 3,000 - 5,000 Improved transport accessibility, the regeneration of Royal Arsenal building on heritage tourism offer and mixed use intensification of town centre opportunity sites should strengthen the role of Woolwich as a Major centre. Thamesmead District 14,000 1,000 Greenwich West District 30,000 <1000 Eltham Major 46,000 3,000 - 6,000 Centre acting as a strong focus for community. Role as Major centre in network should be strengthened by mix of retail, leisure and residential and by building upon strengths such as local heritage assets. Plumstead District 3,000 --* Residual 11,000 - 17,000

A 1 ANNEX 1 Borough/Centre London Plan Total Modeled indicative Commentary Classification GOAD/CASA comparison goods floorspace floorspace need (sqm) (sqm) 2001- 2016(1) Hackney Stoke Newington District 28,000 <1000 Mare Street District 27,000 <1000 Dalston Major 60,000 <1000 East London Line Extension will improve accessibility to this centre and strengthen role as Major centre with specialist roles including strong presence of independent retailers and a vibrant street market.

Residual 3,500 - 4,000 Havering Upminster District 37,000 <1000 Romford Metropolitan 186,000 13,000 - 20,000 Metropolitan role should be strengthened with improved accessibility upon implementation of Crossrail and Thames Gateway Transit and through quantitative/ qualitative improvements to the retail/leisure offer, diversification and management of evening economy activity and residential and mixed use development.

Rainham District 20,000 1,000 Hornchurch District 31,000 <1000 Harold Hill District 9,000 <1000 Collier Row District 11,000 <1000 Elm Park District --* --* Residual 10,000 - 13,000 Lewisham Sydenham District 26,000 <1000 New Cross District 24,000 <1000 Lewisham Major 88,000 4,000 - 7,000 Emerging proposals should strengthen the role of this town centre with expanded retail offer and improvements to the public realm. A review of the role and function of this centre in the network may be required upon implementation.

Forest Hill District 19,000 <1000 Deptford District 29,000 <1000 Catford Major 51,000 <1000 Role as Major centre should be sustained by maintaining diverse functions including civic, leisure and more local retail offer and exploiting opportunities for mixed use intensification including housing.

Blackheath District 12,000 1,000 Lee Green District 11,000 --* Downham District 8,000 --* Residual 7,000 - 9,000

A 2 ANNEX 1 Borough/Centre London Plan Total Modeled indicative Commentary Classification GOAD/CASA comparison goods floorspace floorspace need (sqm) (sqm) 2001- 2016(1) Newham Upton Park District 40,000 1,000 - 2,000 One of the larger District centres in East London. May be functioning on the border between a District and Major centre which should continue to be monitored closely. Stratford Major 47,000 2,000 - 9,000 Currently a Major centre but anticipated to grow significantly into a larger integrated Metropolitan centre as part of wider vision for the regeneration of the Thames Gateway and incorporating Stratford City and town centre redevelopment proposals. Forest Gate District 32,000 <1000 East Ham Major 50,000 4,000 - 7,000 Provides a strong focus for the local community serving a variety of specialist needs. Centre vulnerable to competition from larger neighbouring centres and remains in need of regeneration. East Beckton District 22,000 <1000 Canning Town District 35,000 <1000 Major regeneration & redevelopment project currently underway. Residual 3,000 - 4,000 Redbridge Wanstead District 15,000 <1000 South Woodford District 35,000 1,000 Ilford Metropolitan 168,000 8,000 - 14,000 Metropolitan role should be strengthened by realising the potential of the Opportunity Area with quantitative and qualitative improvements to retail, leisure, housing and public realm and through improved accessibility upon implementation of Crossrail 1. Gants Hill District 22,000 <1000 Barkingside District 30,000 <1000 Residual 4,000 - 6,000 Tower Hamlets Whitechapel District 17,000 <1000 TfL is committed to the removal of the Aldgate Gyratory. Roman Road (east) District 37,000 <1000 Poplar District 15,000 <1000 Isle of Dogs/ District 96,000 10,000 - 14,000 Health check indicates that Canary Canary Wharf Wharf may already be functioning as a Major centre especially in terms of current retail and leisure floorspace. Bethnal Green District 23,000 <1000 Crisp Street District 8,000 --* Watney Market District 14,000 --* Residual 3,500 - 4,000 --* not identified Note (1): Indicative modeled requirement only, based upon £4,000/sqm sales density, range 2.0-2.5% productivity growth. Development schemes in pipeline have been taken into account.

A 3 ANNEX 1 Annex 2 Opportunity Areas, Areas for Intensification and Strategic Employment Locations

Figure A2.1 Opportunity Areas (emerging)

A 4 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Isle of Dogs

Borough: Tower Hamlets

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 100 100 -- 363 Indicative 100,000 100,000 -- 110,000 employment capacity Minimum homes 3,500 5,000 +1,500 10,000

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The London Plan anticipates that “although not physically part of central London, many of the future activities on the Isle of Dogs are interdependent with central London. Development densities should reflect this. The planning framework for the area should consolidate and expand this role. It should aim to accommodate at least 150,000 jobs in total by 2016. This requires not just partnership working to bring forward adequate land but a significant enhancement to transport capacity. Development in the Isle of Dogs should complement the international offer of the Central Activities Zone and support a globally competitive business cluster”.

Key Issues

• How to complement the international offer of Central London and support a globally competitive business cluster in the context of overall office capacity in the Central London Office Market Area, proposals to review the office components of other Opportunity Areas in East London and the need to consolidate the strengths of the suburban office market on key locations. • In light of these office demand and supply relationships, consider whether or how the Millennium Quarter and other parts of the Isle of Dogs should be addressed within the Framework, especially given the market assessment that housing rather than offices might be more viable in the Quarter. • Need to consider also the scale of housing requirements in East London, the way in which mixed use and affordable housing policy might operate in the Opportunity Area as a whole (see below) and the view that office capacity in the Millennium Quarter may not be necessary as a strategic reserve. • What are the implications for Canary Wharf (and possibly the Millennium Quarter and other parts of the Isle of Dogs) of applying an interpretation of mixed-use policy to an Opportunity Area under which the general requirement for in situ housing provision could be addressed elsewhere within the Area covered by the Framework, taking into account London Plan affordable housing policy? • What other capacity exists within the more tightly defined Opportunity Area to meet, at a minimum, the housing guidelines in the London Plan and what would be the implications of this for the role of Canary Wharf as a key business cluster and location? • There is a need to consider linkages with Lower Lea Valley and potential overlaps with that Opportunity Area around Aspen Way. • How to secure opportunities for regeneration in the wider hinterland of the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area especially to the north around South Poplar. • How to reconcile the benefits of good public transport access and the potential for high density residential development in much of this Area with the need for affordable family housing. As part of this process there will be an emphasis on implementing maximum car parking standards which reduce reliance on the motor car and promote more sustainable modes of transport. • Boroughs (in association with TfL) will enter into planning obligations aided by a clear framework for negotiation. Boroughs will seek the maximum reasonable contribution from developers for transport improvements to ensure that development is matched with transport capacity.

A 5 ANNEX 2 • Contributions (via s106) will ensure that current service levels are supported, remain in a state of good repair and meet demand growth. • Land within Opportunity Areas which has been secured for transport functions will be safeguarded for this purpose unless an agreement is reached through the GLA between transport providers and potential developers (land earmarked for such uses should be identified in the plans and policies). • Consider how far can the offer of Canary Wharf be extended so that it performs all the functions of a significant and balanced town centre serving broader sections of the local and wider community. • Improve the quality of the public realm within Canary Wharf and across the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area so that it is safe, convenient and accessible and is fully integrated with other public transport modes, including dedicated public rights of way where appropriate (in accordance with the Mayors Transport Strategy). These public rights of way should also be integrated into the overall land assembly and development aspirations for the Opportunity Area. • Are there any critical development/transport relationships which could affect the phasing of development? How should these be addressed? • Land earmarked for these purposes will be identified in relevant plans and policies (for example, Crossrail). • Development proposals will have due regard to the Isle of Dogs Area Action Plans currently being formed as part of Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework. • How to ensure good transport fit with only limited funded capacity improvements (15 trains per hour to Bank & Lewisham/peak service to Stratford). Major element of capacity increase depends on Crossrail 1. Very sustainable with only 20% modal share to car. • Draw on emerging East London industrial study to inform more local management of industrial land in light of sub-regional industrial land release benchmark (see Section 1G). • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The Isle of Dogs is an area of intensive development with very high load forecast. The 2016 forecast ranges from 71.5MW to 155MW of new demand. There are two primary substations that cover this area, West Ferry Circus and Simpson Road. Neither of these existing substations have sufficient capacity available to feed new loads of this magnitude. EDF propose the establishment of a third substation on the Isle of Dogs, equipped with 3 X 60MVA transformers. This would be a 132/11kV substation with the 132kV cables fed from Brunswick Wharf (West Ham 132kV) 132kV substation. This level of load, taken in conjunction with other loads in the area, would require the reinforcement of the supergrid point at West Ham with a fifth supergrid transformer from NGT. To continue to maintain a high level of security in the area, EDF propose the upgrade of the interconnection between Barking “C and West Ham 132kV supergrid point. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water –Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage – Large scale sewerage infrastructure has been put in for development and discharges to Beckton STW. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment but implications are likely to be limited owing to the presence of flood defences giving a high level of protection however may need to consider measures to mitigate any large scale flooding. Following on-site retention/sustainable drainage systems, surface water should discharge to River Thames and docks. • Blue Ribbon Network - Within the Thames Policy area with an extensive Thames Frontage and considerable dock areas – development needs to reflect this and maximise use of the river and docks, infilling of docks should not be proposed. There is potential for the boundary of this Opportunity Area to be extended to include Wood Wharf along with the Millennium Quarter and the areas adjacent to Millwall Outer Dock. • Police/Emergency Services - Patrol base of up to 5,000 m2 to serve local needs and safer neighbourhood team base required.

A 6 ANNEX 2 Status at April 2006

Borough Millennium Quarter masterplan has been approved together with detailed contributions framework. Supplementary Planning Guidance has been adopted for Wood Wharf. Consultation and discussions underway on the borough-led Area Action Plan for Isle of Dogs. Borough intends to publish submission document in Autumn 2006 with adoption anticipated in the summer of 2008. The Mayor is working with LB Tower Hamlets to ensure that its Area Action Plan supports strategic as well as local objectives and provides a framework for the whole of the Isle of Dogs peninsula.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key Transport Infrastructure Bus Capacity increases Jubilee Line Upgrade DLR Bank-Lewisham Capacity Enhancements DLR 3-car upgrade East London Line Ext (links to) Crossrail 1 Thameslink 2000 (links to) Thames Gateway Bridge Silvertown Link Pedestrian bridges and proposed public rights of way* Blue Ribbon Network and river proposals* North-South spine road* Blackwall Tunnel refurbishment* North-South bus transit corridor* * phasing to be identified

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity With implications Population in 45 minutes PPP & Other Funded Schemes By 2009 without DLR improvements is 2,612,997. JLE Upgrade capacity from the south will be Good radial accessibility. Blackwall Tunnel refurbishment. severely constrained. In 45 minutes most parts of inner London can be Core schemes (TfL Investment Without DLR and Crossrail capacity on reached, and outer Programme and beyond) the western approach will be London in the north east. Base + DLR 3 car exceeded by 2006 bus upgrade Crossrail 1 By 2016, with core schemes in place, Silvertown Link there will be capacity available on all routes into the site.

A 7 ANNEX 2 Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 8 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Stratford

Borough: Newham

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 124 124 -- 1,446 Indicative 30,000 30,000 -- 50,000* employment capacity Minimum 4,500 5,000 +500 32,000* homes * Combined estimates for Lower Lea Valley, including Stratford and Thameside West in Royal Docks.

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

Together with the Lower Lea Opportunity Area, Stratford effectively forms the fulcrum linking two nationally important growth areas in the ODPM Sustainable Communities Plan: Thames Gateway to the east and the London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor to the north. With the Lower Lea it has been identified as the core location for the London 2012 Olympic bid. It is one of only two centres outside the Central London Office Market Area to be designated as a strategic office location. It is also the only town centre explicitly identified in the London Plan for redevelopment from a Major to a Metropolitan centre. Already one of the best connected places in London with substantial planned improvements in transport capacity, the London Plan anticipates that the Framework for Stratford will build on existing proposals to harness transport, development and labour market capacity and create a major new commercial centre there and to intensify the existing town centre. Regeneration will provide the opportunity to redress some of the greatest concentrations of deprivation in the country, which are found in neighbouring communities. Stratford will develop as a new ‘Metropolitan’ town centre with close integration between new development on the rail lands and rejuvenation of the existing town centre, including physical links.

Key Issues

• To ensure that the 2012 games is the most successful and sustainable in its history and that benefits accrue to the Valley, east London and London as whole • Coordination of complex Olympic scenario to ensure efficient, sustainable regeneration, attractive to business as well as residents and visitors. • How to manage the development and impact of Stratford as an integrated, balanced and sustainable Metropolitan centre, reducing dependence on private transport, maximising public transport use and ensuring that strategic retail needs are addressed without compromising the viability and offer of other centres in the network. • How to manage the delivery of major development while maintaining a vibrant city. • How to ensure that the potential of the existing centre is realised and closely integrated with new provision on the rail lands in a complementary, attractive and viable way including provision for effective physical linkages. • How to ensure that the office component is effectively branded, marketed and brought forward at the earliest opportunity to realise the spectrum of objectives for Stratford. • How to maximise the potential synergy between Stratford’s future office offer and its international and other connections while complementing those of Canary Wharf and the City. • How can the Framework complement other policy vehicles to enhance Stratford’s leisure/cultural offer so that it is commensurate with proposed Metropolitan centre status in a way which complements leisure/cultural proposals for Ilford.

A 9 ANNEX 2 • How to ensure that Stratford’s regeneration benefits the wider community including training and physical access. • What scope is there for Stratford to contribute to the anticipated synergy between employment opportunities in the London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor and nearby deprived communities? • Crossrail greatly increases Stratford development potential, however the scope for sustainable development and realisation of public transport utilisation may be compromised by proposed parking provision. • How to ensure integration of public transport infrastructure, walking and cycling with development proposals. • Ensure phased delivery of transport with development. • How to secure key road accesses to Stratford City and surrounding areas. • Draw on emerging East London industrial study to inform more local management of industrial land in light of sub-regional industrial land release benchmark (see Section 1G). • Closely integrated working with LTGDC and other partners essential. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. • To incorporate the extension of the Lea Valley Regional Park (as set out in Olympic Legacy proposals) and ensure good quality, safe access is made from adjacent communities.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for this area up to 2016 ranges from 27MW to 66MW. As the Stratford and the Lower Lea Valley areas are geographically close, it would be economic to find a combined solution for meeting the load. The combined load for the two areas (Stratford and Lower Lea) ranges from 39MW to 108MW. With this level of load, significant grid and EHV reinforcement will be required. Bow substation, located in this area will need to be reinforced with two more 132/11kV 60MVA transformers as well as two new 132kV circuits. The 132kV circuits’ point of connection could be West Ham 132kV or Brunswick Wharf 132kV. The 11kV switchboard at Bow would also be replaced as well in order to meet this load. Infrastructure changes resulting from the London 2012 Olympic Proposals will also make a significant impact in this area. Note that these new connection may lead to the reinforcement of the supergrid site at West Ham 132kV. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. • Sewage – Study already carried out for Rail Lands and system can cope provided surface water is taken to watercourse. Recommend pumped discharge to protect against flooding. Strategic Outfall Sewer is located nearby – although impact on local sewers will need to be investigated. • Flood Plain/Drainage – Most of the area is within the River Lea and Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. Work has already been carried out in this respect in relation to the Lower Lea Valley and CTRL. Following on-site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems, the remaining surface water should discharge to local rivers. • Blue Ribbon Network - Adjacent to river corridors of the Lea Valley and including several important nature conservation sites. Development needs to respect this and contribute to the restoration and enhancement of the river corridors and river processes many of which have been degraded. Olympics proposals have set out the strategic scale and nature of river restoration, in particular of the Bow Back Rivers, which will bring benefits in leisure/cultural terms as well as in overall regeneration for the wider community. The improvement of towpaths along the rivers as part of this restoration will enhance integration with the Green Grid Network and offer the opportunity to increase access for all to the BRN. These improvements will also help to encourage walking and cycling generally and within development proposals. There is also considerable potential in this OA to increase provision of moorings and boating facilities. • Police/Emergency Services (Stratford and Lower Lea Valley) - To police Stratford City a triage facility is required together with a front office and Safer Neighbourhood team base; For the Olympics 2 custody suites of up to 30 cells, numerous Safer Neighbourhood team bases and 1 or 2 patrol bases are needed.

A 10 ANNEX 2 Status at April 2006

As part of the wider Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area, Stratford is the fulcrum of two nationally important growth areas in the ODPM Sustainable Communities Plan: Thames Gateway to the east and the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough Corridor to the north. Development at Stratford will be an integral component of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Consultation Draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework for the wider Lower Lea Valley (which includes Stratford) was published in April 2006. The framework was prepared by EDAW on behalf of the GLA, LDA, TfL, London Thames Gateway Development Corporation in consultation with Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Waltham Forest. The LLV OAPF is a planning policy statement by the Mayor of London and will be a material planning consideration for the LLV boroughs, ODA and the LTGDC (Urban Development Corporation). There is close working between the GLA, LDA, ODA and Stratford City Development Ltd to ensure integration between the Olympic and the Stratford projects. Results of the consultation on the framework will be considered by the Mayor and it is intended to publish the final OAPF in early 2007. The undergrounding of overhead powerlines is currently underway. Draft Access for All Framework for the Olympic and Paralympic Games has been prepared as required by the outline planning permission. Access Statement prepared for outline Stratford City application with access forum established as a result. Future design quality secured through a series of supporting design strategies which area masterplans need to have regard to.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Bus Capacity increases Jubilee Line Upgrade PPP CTRL – Phase 2 Stratford Station Capacity Enhancement Project DLR-Stratford International/ North London Line replacement Crossrail Line 1 Enhanced rail and coach links to Stansted* Upgrade of Carpenters Road* * phasing to be identified

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity - With implications

Population within 45 PPP & Other Funded Schemes Capacity will be significantly constrained minutes: 2,256,326 CTRL Phase 2 on all approaches except on the Good radial access. JLE Upgrade southern approach by 2016. Most parts of inner Core schemes (TfL Investment Core schemes and Regional Station and outer London in Programme and beyond) infrastructure improvements are the north east within Bus connections essential to deliver required capacity to 45 minutes reach, as Stratford Station Capacity support development in Stratford. well as inner London Enhancement Project Development phasing to 2016 therefore in the west and south. New DLR platform at Stratford required. Regional station Throughout the plan period there is DLR extension to Stratford spare capacity on the western corridor International into Stratford. Therefore reverse Enhance rail and coach links to commuting could be encouraged in this Stansted area. Crossrail 1 Upgrade of Carpenters Road

A 11 ANNEX 2 Lower Lea Valley/Stratford Opportunity Area Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 12 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Lower Lea Valley (also part North London)

Boroughs: Tower Hamlets/Newham/Waltham Forest/Hackney

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP 2001-2016 review) 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 250 250 -- 1,446 Indicative 8,500 8,500 -- 50,000* employment capacity Minimum homes 6,000 4,500 -1,500 32,000* * Combined estimates for Lower Lea Valley, including Stratford and Thameside West in Royal Docks

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

A combination of factors determine the importance of the Lower Lea as an essential component for regeneration of East and North London. Together with Stratford it effectively forms the fulcrum linking two nationally important growth areas in the ODPM Sustainable Communities Plan: Thames Gateway to the east and the London-Stansted-Cambridge Corridor to the north. With Stratford it has been identified as the core location for the London 2012 Olympic bid

The London plan states that “the exact boundaries of the SELs in the Lower Lea will need to be defined through the planning framework... (it) must reflect (the Olympic) bid and draw on the area’s excellent public transport connections, particularly at West Ham and Canning Town, where there is potential to create high-density development hubs. It should guide the extensions of creative industries at Three Mills to other parts of the area. The network of water courses creates the potential for a much higher quality environment, able to attract modern business facilities, substantially more than 6,000 new housing units and leisure opportunities, and including enhanced public open space. Site assembly and land decontamination are needed to help enable the full potential of the area to be realised. The SRDF… will be integrated with that for North London and provide flexibility necessary to secure sustainable regeneration of the whole Lea valley and Stratford”.

Key Issues

• To ensure that the 2012 games is the most successful and sustainable in its history and that benefits accrue to the Valley, East London and London as whole. • Coordination of complex Olympic scenario to ensure efficient, sustainable regeneration, attractive to business as well as residents and visitors. • Coordinating replacement of NLL services with DLR and Jubilee upgrade to secure high quality local transport, effective strategic linkages and maximum scope for intensification. • Integration of Stratford growth on transport infrastructure in Lea valley especially at West Ham and Canning Town. • Resolution of complex and extensive site assembly and land decontamination requirements coupled with efficient CPO processes. • Ecologically and environmentally sensitive upgrade of water features to enhance attractiveness and define brand/offer of Area as a whole. • Striking the right balance, and securing the potential for, high quality residential led mixed development with a strong employment component. • Managing of release of industrial land up to a strategic maximum of 173 hectares while ensuring retention of capacity for essential industrial provision serving CAZ or meeting key local needs including waste and transport, maximising scope for intensification and, where viable, industrial

A 13 ANNEX 2 renewal. • Draw on emerging East London industrial study to inform more local management of industrial land in light of sub-regional industrial land release benchmark (see Section 1G). • Coordination of strategic and local industrial and wharf policies, maximising use of retained wharves especially to meet sustainability objectives and minimising external costs associated with mixed-use developments as well as broader objectives to enhance contribution of water features to the Area’s distinct offer/brand. Good design and transport arrangements likely to be essential to this. • Coordinating management of industrial stock with effective and sensitive re-location arrangements for firms which still require a London base, especially elsewhere in East London including London Riverside. • Reconciling environmental externalities of essential remaining firms, for example waste and logistics with the broader land use mix. • Sensitive and creative realisation of the potential to create high density development hubs at West Ham and Canning Town. • Ensuring realism of proposals for office development in light of strategic as well as local needs and aspirations, general over provision in East London as a whole and core strategic concerns to create and support business clusters at Stratford, Canary Wharf, in the City/Fringe and the Royals (see other Opportunity Areas in this Annex). • Efficient and environmental treatment of power lines in ways which maximise development capacity and complement open space, amenity and transport provision. • Harmonisation of dwelling type and mix with strategic and local needs, especially for families, taking into account strategic requirements for affordable housing. • Ensuring permeability and inclusive design of development in light of existing barriers and coordinating this with density requirements, land use mixes and public transport provision. • Closely integrated working with LTGDC and other partners essential. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. • To incorporate the extension of the Lea Valley Regional Park (as set out in Olympic Legacy proposals) and ensure good quality, safe access is made from adjacent communities.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for the area up to 2016 ranges from 12MW to 42MW. As the Stratford and the Lower Lea Valley areas are geographically close, it would be economic to find a combined solution for meeting the load. The combined load for the two areas (Stratford and Lower Lea) ranges from 39MW to 108MW. With this level of load, significant grid and EHV reinforcement will be required. Bow substation, located in this area will need to be reinforced with two more 132/11kV 60MVA transformers as well as two new 132kV circuits. The 132kV circuits’ point of connection could be West Ham 132kV or Brunswick Wharf 132kV. The 11kV switchboard at Bow would also be replaced as well in order to meet this load. Infrastructure changes resulting from the London 2012 Olympic Proposals will also make a significant impact in this area. Note that these new connection may lead to the reinforcement of the supergrid site at West Ham 132kV. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. • Sewage –Sewage should be pumped to the Northern Outfall Sewer, although a private proposal for an on site treatment works may be feasible. Due to existing capacity/operational issues with sewers in this area, developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impact of proposals on existing waste water infrastructure. • Flood Plain/Drainage – Almost entirely within the River Lea and Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. Consideration should be given to the results of the Flood Risk Management Study for the Lower Lea Valley and previous CTRL work. Opportunities for set back of development to allow for future maintenance and upgrades of flood defences should be included in riverside proposals. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining surface water should discharge to local rivers. • Blue Ribbon Network - Includes river and canal corridors of the southern Lea Valley and partially within the Thames Policy Area. Development needs to respect this and contribute to the

A 14 ANNEX 2 restoration and enhancement of the river corridors and river processes many of which have been degraded. Olympics proposals have set out the strategic scale and nature of river restoration. Given the potential for the BRN to be used for ‘freight by water’ it is important that the viability and flexibility of safeguarded wharves in this OA is maintained. • Police/Emergency Services (Stratford and Lower Lea Valley) - To police Stratford City a triage facility is required together with a front office and Safer Neighbourhood team base; For the Olympics 2 custody suites of up to 30 cells, numerous Safer Neighbourhood team bases and 1 or 2 patrol bases are needed.

Status at April 2006

Consultation Draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework for the wider Lower Lea Valley (which includes Stratford) was published in April 2006. The framework was prepared by EDAW on behalf of the GLA, LDA, TfL, London Thames Gateway Development Corporation in consultation with Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Waltham Forest. The LLV OAPF is a planning policy statement by the Mayor of London and will be a material planning consideration for the LLV boroughs, ODA and the LTGDC (Urban Development Corporation). There is close working between the GLA, LDA, ODA and Stratford City Development Ltd to ensure integration between the Olympic and the Stratford projects. Results of the consultation on the framework will be considered by the Mayor and it is intended to publish the final OAPF in early 2007.

The undergrounding of overhead powerlines to West Ham is currently underway and the London Development Agency (LDA) has been active in site assembly. The LDA has seeking a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to secure the land needed to deliver the regeneration of the Lower Lea Valley in East London and enable the development of the Olympic Park for the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. Draft Access for All Framework for the Olympic and Paralympic Games has been prepared as required by the outline planning permission.

Potential for land use change in Thameside West is dependent on further work and agreement between the strategic and local authorities on the appropriate extent and geography of industrial land release and other land use. Thameside West is currently a Strategic Employment Location and contains four Safeguarded Wharves: Thames Wharf, Peruvian Wharf, Manhattan Wharf and Sunshine Wharf, which should be protected for cargo-handling uses, including waste and aggregates.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Underground PPP Bus Capacity increases Jubilee Line Upgrade PPP CTRL – Phase 2 Stratford Station Capacity Enhancement Project DLR-Stratford International/ North London Line replacement East London Line Ext (links to) East London Transit Crossrail Line 1 Thameslink 2000 (links to) Thames Gateway Bridge Connection to Greenwich Waterfront Transit across TGB Silvertown Link Enhanced rail and coach links to Stansted*

A 15 ANNEX 2 2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Pedestrian bridges and proposed public rights of way* Blue Ribbon Network and river proposals* North-South spine road* Blackwall Tunnel refurbishment* * phasing to be identified

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity With implications

Population within 45 PPP & Other Funded Schemes Capacity will exist on the north- minutes: 1,450,419, this can Jubilee Line upgrade south corridor, throughout the Plan fall as low as 819,684 in the Blackwall Tunnel Refurbishment period, which will be enhanced by less accessible locations. Core schemes (TfL Investment delivery of Landon Park DLR Good north-south access. In Programme and beyond) Station. 45 minutes most areas in the Bus connections north east quadrant and DLR extension to Stratford Significant capacity constraints on central London can be International the east and west corridors. reached. Limited access to Stratford Station Capacity Although capacity is available south London. Enhancement Project throughout the plan period on the A11-A13 Spine Road western corridor into the Lower Lea Key pedestrian crossings Valley and east out of the area in DLR station at Langdon Park the morning peak (ie: scope for reverse commuting).

Lower Lea Valley/Stratford Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary

See map – page A12

A 16 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Royal Docks

Borough: Newham

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 368 368 -- 636* Indicative 11,000 11,000 -- 5,500* employment capacity Minimum homes 5,500 8,000 +2,500 14,000* * excludes Thameside West (capacity for which is included in the Lower Lea Valley)

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The London Plan states that the framework for this Area “should draw on existing initiatives to guide the provision of new housing and enhance the quality of the environment. It should also promote the development of a new urban quarter at West Silvertown and promote a major new visitor attraction to provide the focus for facilities and community activity that the area currently lacks. The DLR City Airport extension will support further growth of the City Airport, providing a direct link between the airport and central London, with the extension to North Woolwich improving access from the south. In the longer term, Crossrail 1 or other improvements to public transport could help sustain further housing and economic development. The Thames gateway bridge will be important in opening up links to south east London and so supporting development and intensification”.

Key Issues

• Explore long-term potential of wider Opportunity Area. • Reconcile tensions between historic parking provision and new standards, especially in areas with improving public transport. This is likely to bear especially on historic office proposals. • Coordinate any changes in airport development strategy and operating requirements with general, public transport related, intensification objectives. • Review positive and negative externalities of proposals to expand City Airport. • Co-ordinate linkages with Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area (which includes Thameside West). • Maximise potential uplifts in accessibility/development capacity associated with the river crossings and minimise their environmental impact. • Draw on emerging East London industrial study to inform more local management of industrial land in light of sub-regional industrial land release benchmark (see Section 1G) and the role of the Area in industrial re-location. This will bear on many of the options for the different parts of the Area outlined below. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. • Integrate provision for a major new visitor attraction with the wider leisure and environmental offer of the Area and explore scope for synergy with Excel related development including hotels. • Closely integrate wharf and industry policy in options for the Thameside West and East parts of the Area, taking into account the existing and potential contributions of these to London’s industrial economy including re-cycling. Ensure that re-development does not compromise industrial viability or future flexibility of safeguarded wharves. • Explore options to reduce the isolation of residential neighbourhoods to the south of the docks, especially Silvertown and North Woolwich. • Explore options to realise development potential generated by Crossrail at Custom House in the long-term. • Options for Royal Albert Basin and Gallions Reach should take into account scope for significant

A 17 ANNEX 2 residential development including innovative approaches to affordable housing provision, as well as potential for industrial relocation from elsewhere in the Gateway. This should reflect industry’s need for good road access, its de-contamination requirements and potential for screening residential areas from bad-neighbour uses. • Options for the north side of the docks should take into account academic requirements and the potential for residential/community provision including student accommodation and the scope to foster synergies with business, for example building on Knowledge Dock and perhaps using the Brunel technology park as a model. Viable build out of the Royals Business Park is supported. The Framework should explore options which will and harness improved public transport access and reduce car dependency in line with London Plan objectives. • Options for the Excel quarter should explore ways in which its offer can be extended taking into account implications of the Mayor’s commission into London’s need for conference centre capacity and the sustainability objectives of the London Plan. • Assess the impacts of the airport on the regeneration of the wider Opportunity Area. • S106 to contribute towards filling gaps in current transport provision and increase capacity to cater for increased trips.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The Royal Docks cover a large area and the forecast demand to be met up to 2016 ranges from 15.5MW to 50MW of new load. The area is covered by Silvertown substation on the East and West Ham 132/11kV substation on the west. In order to meet this load and provide the requisite capacity, it is proposed that Silvertown substation should be reinforced with two 15MVA transformers. These transformers would be connected via 66kV cables from West Ham 66kV. The rest of the load would be met from West Ham substation. The proposal is to reinforce West Ham with 2 X 66MVA 132/11/11kV transformers connected via the 132kV cables from West Ham supergrid point. Note that these new connection may lead to reinforcement of the supergrid site at West Ham 132kV. Not withstanding these requirements, the potential to underground the powerlines should be investigated. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water –Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage – Large scale sewerage infrastructure has been put in for development and discharges to Beckton STW. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment which examines the future of flood management and considers mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems, remaining surface water should discharge to River Thames or docks. • Blue Ribbon Network - Includes a significant stretch of the River Thames and the Royal Docks and within the Thames Policy Area. Development needs to relate well to the waterspace including the active and safeguarded wharves. Additional activities on the Royal Docks should be promoted. • Police/Emergency Services - Safer Neighbourhood team base required.

Status at April 2006

The GLA is working with LDA, LB Newham and LTGDC to review the complex existing commitments and uses within the Area. Industrial land management is a key issue, not just because of the extensive existing stock but also because of the role of the Area in accommodating businesses re-located from the Lower Lea and the existence of a number of safeguarded wharves. There are development proposals for several sites across this Opportunity Area, some of these have outline planning permission. A planning approval has been made on Silver Town Quays with key attraction of the Aquarium. Work has commenced on DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal.

A 18 ANNEX 2 Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Underground PPP Bus Capacity increases DLR-Airport-Woolwich Extension East London Transit phase 2 Crossrail Line 1 Thames Gateway Bridge DLR Dagenham Dock Extension Silvertown Link

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity With implications [See TfL] PPP & Other Funded Schemes There are no significant capacity DLR City Airport Extensions constraints for the Royal Docks by 2016. Core schemes (TfL Investment Programme and beyond) Although there are some capacity DLR Woolwich Arsenal constraints on the eastern Crossrail Line 1 corridor between 2006 and 2009 ELT Ilford/Barking prior to delivery of the DLR Thames Gateway Bridge improvements. Bus Connections DLR Dagenham Dock Silvertown Link Transit extensions

A 19 ANNEX 2 Royal Docks Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 20 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Barking Reach Boroughs: Barking & Dagenham

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 210 210 -- See London Riverside Indicative 200 200 -- See London employment Riverside capacity Minimum homes 10,000 10,000* -- See London Riverside *subject to phasing with DLR extension

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The London Plan states that “the planning framework should focus on creating a successful and attractive residential community. It should establish not just a high quality environment and a full range of community facilities but a whole new urban area with a distinct character of its own, which should change the image of the area as a place to live” “The development should be considered as a new settlement within the city, with strong links to Barking town centre, its nearby ‘Major’ centre... It should include a local centre with high density, mixed use development comprising leisure and other services, together with urban residential densities in the surrounding areas. Improvements to public transport such as an extension to the DLR and implementation of the East London transit will be necessary to support this level of development. The Planning framework should also contain proposals to deal with contamination, to provide new access roads and utilities, to deal with unsightly overhead power cables and to provide new public open spaces”.

Key Issues

• Securing the integration of potential at Barking Reach with wider opportunities in the London Riverside Area with close working with the Urban Development Corporation (LTGDC). • How to ensure integrated transport solution throughout development phases with or without major schemes such as DLR extension. • How to provide sufficient capacity on key road access to highway network. • Securing implementation of DLR Dagenham Dock extension. • How to Maximise high quality housing potential. • How to ensure complimentary community facilities. • How to improve the wider environment and provide for new open space. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. • To provide a linked network of new and existing public open space to function together as strategically important open space. • How to link the development with Barking town centre. • Need to Plan on the basis of enhanced Public Transport and ensure good access to all modes, to encourage pedestrian and cycle access. • Consider need for improvements to Barking and Dagenham Dock stations. • Draw on emerging East London industrial study to inform more local management of industrial land in light of sub-regional industrial land release benchmark (see Section 1G).

A 21 ANNEX 2 Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - There is little existing EHV Infrastructure in area. Total new demand approx 72MVA. This demand will require 2 primary substations (incorporating up to 5 transformers), fed at 33kV from Barking West 275/33kV, or alternatively by establishing a new 132/33kV grid site fed from Barking ‘C’ 275/132kV • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure in particular with regard to waste water services may need reinforcement. Subject to nature of proposals, detailed investigations may be required by Thames Water. • Sewage – Sewerage study completed however, will need reviewing in light of higher densities. The area is immediately downwind from Beckton STW. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. A high proportion of the area lies below mean high water spring level and would be at risk from tidal inundation. The area is also at risk from fluvial flooding from water courses within the Gores Brook and Beam catchments. The Flood Risk Assessment should examine the future of flood management and consider mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event. Consideration should also be taken of the Environment Agency’s fluvial flood risk assessment in the Lower part of the Beam and Gores Brook catchments to improve flood risk management. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining surface water should discharge to River Thames or tributaries. • Blue Ribbon Network - Includes a significant stretch of the Thames and other tributaries through the site and within the Thames Policy Area. Development needs to relate well to these assets including examination of the feasibility of river transport into Isle of Dogs/City. Routing of the Thames Path extension will be a key issue. It will also be important for any master plan developed for Barking Reach to provide safeguarding of the Thames frontage via a buffer zone, and also to incorporate set backs from the river to preserve the valuable inter-tidal habitat • Police/Emergency Services (Barking Reach & London Riverside) – Patrol base of up to 5,000 m2 to serve local area, Safer Neighbourhood team bases.

Status at April 2006

GLA working closely with LTGDC and other stakeholders including LB Newham, Havering and Barking & Dagenham on the London Riverside Regeneration Strategy and Opportunity Area Planning Framework (of which Barking Reach forms part). The work is being led by the LTGDC. Consultants are progressing the London Riverside Regeneration Strategy. It is intended to produce the OAPF for London Riverside by the winter 2006/7.

Steering group involved in creating Masterplan with applicant. Application submitted December 2004 and includes 10,800 dwellings, new primary schools and a secondary school, plus commercial, retail, leisure and community uses. Further work has been completed on an urban design framework and an energy and playspace strategies. The affordable housing offer is being tested through the Three Dragons toolkit. Intention to report at Stage 1 to the Mayor in June 2006. Current phasing plans suggests that, subject to planning permission, 5,000 dwellings could be built out by 2016 with additional capacity to follow post 2016.

A 22 ANNEX 2 Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Underground PPP Bus Capacity increases East London Transit C2C: 12-car operation* C2C new stations* DLR Ext to Dagenham Dock Crossrail 1(Links To) Thames Gateway Bridge * phasing to be identified

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity With implications Population in 45 PPP & Other Funded Schemes There are no capacity minutes: 436,102 A13 DBFO Enhancements constraints from and to the Currently limited access Core schemes (TfL Investment Programme east. However, to the west if with no access to the and beyond) DLR and ELT are not delivered, south. The City can be ELT Ilford – Dagenham Dock - Phase 1b capacity on the C2C line will be reached within 45 extension (loop serving Barking Reach exceeded by 2014. This will be minutes. development). further enhanced if ELT is Bus connections upgraded to a Tram. Thames Gateway Bridge Transit to Rainham DLR to Dagenham Dock A13 Renwick Road Junction C2C new Stations C2C Upgrade Rainham Conservation park transit.

Barking Reach Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary

(See London Riverside)

A 23 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA London Riverside

Boroughs: Barking & Dagenham/Havering

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 418 418 -- 2,847** Indicative 4,000 4,000 -- 14,000** employment capacity Minimum homes 3,000 0* -3,000* 20,000** * Note: original area was mostly based upon Strategic Employment Location. ** Wider Opportunity Area includes Havering Riverside, Barking Reach and Beckton

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

London Riverside contains extensive development opportunities at Dagenham Dock and within South Dagenham, South Hornchurch and Rainham and is adjoined by 500 hectares of open space including Rainham Marshes. The area has suffered from economic decline, a degraded environment and poor accessibility but recent development have begun to reverse these trends with, for example, completion of the new A13, development of the Centre of Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence and the establishment of a large RSPB nature reserve. The planning framework should reflect the vision of the Urban Strategy adopted as Interim Planning Guidance by the two boroughs, Barking & Dagenham and Havering. The area has potential for compact, mixed urban communities at South Dagenham, along the A1306 East and in Rainham. The core employment areas should be developed as a leading centre for innovation and high-tech manufacturing, for industries that serve London, and for the growth sector of environmental technology. The adjacent Rainham Marshes and riverside open space should be planned to provide a regionally important environmental and leisure asset for East London. Improved public transport will be needed, building on plans for a DLR extension and East London Transit schemes to serve London Riverside, looking at the potential for improved services and additional stations along the current rail corridor and extended bus services.

Key Issues

• How to establish compact, mixed urban communities at South Dagenham, along the A1306 East and in Rainham. • Securing the integration of potential at Barking Reach with wider opportunities in the London Riverside Area with close working with the Urban Development Corporation (LTGDC) (see map). • This is a relatively remote location and linkages are required for business to capitalise on trunk road network and investment. Enhanced public transport is essential for significant housing provision and to secure modal shift from car. • Require station on C2C line to open up key development sites with potential new station at Beam Reach as well as other public transport improvements to support development including DLR extension to Dagenham Dock and East London Transit to London Riverside. • How improvements in accessibility through the Thames Gateway Bridge can support regeneration and intensification. • A realistic market based approach to the nature and type of economic activity likely to be secured is essential. Strategically significant offices are not viable. London Riverside has established manufacturing base but has particular prospects for logistics. Ensure that account is taken of

A 24 ANNEX 2 emerging East London industrial study to achieve the sub-regional industrial land release benchmark (see Section 1G). This Area is likely to have a key role in accommodating businesses re- located from further west rather than being subject to significant loss, though some scope for consolidation, intensification and mixed use development. • Consider scope for provision of logistics capacity in appropriate locations in London Riverside with good access to the M25 along with other locations at the eastern end of London Thames Gateway. May need links to other logistics related provision taking into account proposals for inter-modal transfer within and beyond London boundary. • Ferry Lane industrial area: need to realise potential of LDA ownership. • How to promote and realise the potential of Dagenham Dock area including the LDA’s Sustainable Industrial Park. • Upgrade in industrial environment required, especially in relation to mixed use and adjacent residential areas. • Sensitive residential development with significant qualitative uplift at appropriate locations and densities which provide a balanced mix of dwelling type and size. Possible issue over isolation from existing communities and neighbourhoods. Need to ensure that new homes are successfully integrated with existing communities and planned public transport links. • Environmental upgrade essential to re-brand the area and make this an attractive portal London Thames Gateway. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. • South Dagenham: resolve suitability of gas works site for housing including tensions with adjacent use (sewage works) and refine proposals for LDA site in light of strategic and local objectives. • Rainham Marshes: realise potential of RSPB reserve/Conservation Park and proposed £20m visitor centre in light of broader leisure and ecological offer as a sub-regional or wider facility. • Explore options for developing the offer of the Centre of Engineering and Manufacturing Excellence and Dagenham Dock area • Maximise potential of safeguarded wharves for sustainable movement of goods by river.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity – There is little existing EHV Infrastructure in area. Total new demand approx 72MVA. This demand will require 2 primary substations (incorporating up to 5 transformers), fed at 33kV from Barking West 275/33kV, or alternatively by establishing a new 132/33kV grid site fed from Barking ‘C’ 275/132kV • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. • Sewage –Currently discharges to Riverside STW. The area is downwind from Beckton STW. Due to existing capacity/operational issues with sewers in this area, developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impact of proposals on existing waste water infrastructure. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. The area is also at risk from fluvial flooding from water courses within the Gores Brook and Beam catchments. Boroughs and developers will need to consider and address this flood risk when allocating/planning development in the area. The Flood Risk Assessment will need to examine the future of flood management and consider mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event. Consideration should also be taken of the Environment Agency’s fluvial flood risk assessment in the Lower part of the Beam and Gores Brook catchments to improve flood risk management. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining surface water should discharge to River Thames or tributaries. • Blue Ribbon Network - Significant River Thames frontage and tributaries including River Beam and Dagenham Breach and within the Thames Policy Area. Development needs to respect these and the operational character of the Thames waterfront including several safeguarded wharves. Routing of the Thames Path extension will be a key issue. Area includes several recommended safeguarded wharves, their function needs to be protected and enhanced. • Police/Emergency Services (Barking Reach & London Riverside) – Patrol base of up to 5,000 m2 to serve local area, Safer Neighbourhood team bases.

A 25 ANNEX 2 Status at April 2006

GLA working closely with LTGDC and other stakeholders including LB Havering, Barking & Dagenham and Newham on the London Riverside Regeneration Strategy and Opportunity Area Planning Framework. The work is being led by the LTGDC. Consultants Arups are progressing the London Riverside Regeneration Strategy. It is intended to produce the OAPF for London Riverside by the winter 2006/7.

Ongoing series of meetings with masterplanners, RPS, the GLA’s Architecture and Urbanism Unit and TfL in respect of South Dagenham West (Macreanor Lavington) and South Dagenham East (West 8). It is anticipated that an application will be submitted in the near future.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Underground PPP Bus Capacity increases East London Transit (Phase 1 Ilford to Dagenham Dock) C2C: 12-car operation* C2C: Review of new stations* DLR Ext to Dagenham Dock East London Transit (further extension to London Riverside) Crossrail 1(Links To) Thames Gateway Bridge * phasing to be identified

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity With implications Population in 45 PPP & Other Funded Schemes There are no capacity constraints minutes: 357,431 A13 DBFO Enhancements from and to the east. If DLR and Limited access with no Core schemes (TfL Investment ELT are not delivered, capacity on access to the south. The Programme and beyond) the C2C line will be exceeded by City can be reached ELT Ilford – Dagenham Dock 2014. This is further enhanced if inside the 45 minute Bus connections ELT is upgraded to a tram. access area. Thames Gateway Bridge Transit to Rainham

DLR to Dagenham Dock A13 Renwick Road Junction C2C new Stations C2C Upgrade Rainham Conservation park transit.

A 26 ANNEX 2 London Riverside Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 27 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Ilford

Borough: Redbridge

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 56 56 -- 55 Indicative - 200 +200 200 employment capacity Minimum homes 5,500 6,140 +640 9,000* *includes provisional estimate for railway sidings and subject to operational requirements

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The London Plan anticipates that the Framework will support development of the Metropolitan centre serving outer east London and provision of “up to 5,500 additional homes on development sites surrounding the town centre. In addition, Ilford town centre should develop a new leisure oriented role to complement the proposed development at Stratford. Longer term development would be assisted by improved transport links, particularly Crossrail 1 and the East London Transit”

Key Issues

• How to sustain and enhance Ilford’s offer as a Metropolitan centre in light of proposals for Stratford. Are there any specialist, complementary retail functions it could develop? • Consider whether there be a need to consolidate quantum of retail space and re-focus on quality or whether the quantum of projected growth sufficient to maintain and improve existing offer. If so, how much retail based development/redevelopment is likely to be required? Does this provide scope for mixed use including housing and possibly selective rejuvenation of office stock providing this justified by demand? • Assess how enhanced public transport provision (Crossrail 1 and East London Transit) can contribute and the implications for parking provision? • Ensure high quality public transport and pedestrian access is provided to all parts of the town centre. • How to integrate East London Transit and improve interchange at Ilford Station. • S106 contributions to improve accessibility and interchange in tandem with new development. • Subject to operational requirements for over ground rail, explore potential for new primary school and residential development on the railway sidings to the east of Griggs Approach. • Opportunity Area framework should also consider potential for intensification along High Road to the east of the town centre. • In view of strategic objectives above, consider what forms of strategic leisure offer might be appropriate to complement Stratford’s retail growth. • Need to identify what role is anticipated for evening/night-time economy, especially in context of role of Romford. Consider whether an EMZ type management approach likely to be necessary • Does special provision need to be made for public realm enhancement? • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. • To open up access and enhance the ecological value of the River Roding as part of improving the open space network between Ilford and the Thames. • How town centre management service could further enhance Ilford’s vitality and viability • Does design and type of proposed housing make maximum contribution to objectives for town centre?

A 28 ANNEX 2 Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for this area up to 2016 ranges from 8.5MW to 32.5MW. The primary substations supplying this area are Clarks Road and Ley Street substations. There is sufficient capacity on these substations to meet this load forecast. There is however a requirement to reinforce the Grid supply point at Redbridge, already near its firm capacity, to accommodate this new load. A third (possibly a fourth) supergrid transformer would be required to meet the new load. As well as the above, the switch board at the 33kV voltage level would have to be replaced to accommodate the new connection as well as provide new bays for future connection. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. • Sewage – Served by generally small sewers which discharge to Beckton STW, study needed to assess impacts on sewer network. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Western parts of the area may be subject to flood risk from the River Roding, this should be examined through a Flood Risk Assessment. Consideration should also be given to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Management Strategy for the Roding catchment (due spring 2006). Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining surface water should discharge to River Roding if possible • Blue Ribbon Network - Adjacent to the River Roding corridor – which could provide local amenity value and would benefit from restoration. • Police/Emergency Services - Safer Neighbourhood team base and triage facility required for shopping provision.

Status at April 2006

The draft Ilford Town Centre Area Action Plan preferred options is anticipated to go to initial consultation in June 2006 aiming for adoption in the summer of 2008.

Headline figures from the Opportunity Area Planning Framework include:

• A minimum of 6,140 mixed tenure new homes • Approximately 30,000 sqm (gross) of new and replacement high street uses (restaurants/cafes/shops) • Approximately 20,000 sqm (gross) other active ground floor uses (secondary retail/service/community uses) • Approximately 45,000 sqm new and replacement B1 office space • Approximately 8,000 sqm new/replacement small scale commercial and employment uses • A range of social, education and leisure facilities

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Bus Capacity increases Crossrail Line 1 East London Transit – Phase 1A

A 29 ANNEX 2 Ilford Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 30 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Deptford Creek/Greenwich Riverside

Boroughs: Lewisham/Greenwich

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 72 72 -- 165 Indicative 5,500 5,500 -- 4,000 employment capacity Minimum homes 1,000 4,900 +3,900 8,000

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The London Plan states that the planning framework “should build on {its] assets (waterside, heritage character, public transport improvements, river crossings, accessibility for deprived communities) and historic regeneration investment to sustain the rejuvenation of the area. It should address large scale regeneration opportunities, including parts of Convoys Wharf, as well as harnessing market potential for smaller scale leisure and tourism related development. It should explore potential for a cultural quarter to complement similar initiatives nearby and seek additional housing”.

Key Issues

• Need for closer, more integrated working between main stakeholders. • Explore scope for closer integration of the core components of the Area (Creekside and river frontage) with the wider area including historic Deptford High Street. Consider also linkages with historic Greenwich, and development potential associated with Lewisham town centre and, possibly, cultural activities associated with New Cross and Goldsmiths to better define the brand and offer of the Area’s environs. • Consider how else to extend the Area’s potential strategic offer to attract greater investment and expenditure by capitalising on its emerging cultural and leisure brand. What role could designation of a cultural quarter have in this? • Stirling Price winning Laban Dance Centre exemplary of potential for creative industry in Deptford Creek and high quality architecture. • Explore how to resolve any tensions between original small scale cultural activities and emerging larger scale proposals. • Identify the role of cafes, restaurants and the evening economy. • Consider what are the implications of this for the mix of commercial activities and how can these be best integrated with significantly enhanced housing provision. • How can this benefit nearby concentrations of deprivation and initiatives to upgrade local social housing? What are the social mix implications? • Consider how to enhance pedestrian permeability both within the core areas, other parts and public transport hubs. • Scope to develop and encourage increased use of river services. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space in particular links along and across Deptford Creek, along the Thames, to Deptford, Greenwich and Lewisham town centres. • Explore the positive and negative aspects of high density development alongside the Creek in terms of massing impact on the surrounding areas including tall buildings and their location in the area. • Reconciliation of retained wharf related activities, especially waste and aggregates, with more diverse and higher value uses (creekside and river). Adjacent uses should not prejudice the viability of safeguarded wharves.

A 31 ANNEX 2 • What guidance is required to maximise contribution of tall buildings to the attractions of the Area? • How to realise potential of sites to the west of the High Street. • Linking Deptford station improvements to higher density development and enhanced public realm • Traffic congestion and delay to buses on Creek Road, a strategic road and at Deptford Bridge, a key junction on the TLRN. • Further DLR related capacity enhancement. • Potential for capacity enhancement associated with Greenwich Waterfront Transit. • Consider the scope for intensification of existing industrial uses and/or rationalisation of traditional creekside employment areas.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity – The load forecast for these areas up to 2016 ranges from 3.5MW to 10MW. The primary substation feeding these areas is Deptford Grid substation, with sufficient capacity available to meet this load forecast. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. • Sewage – Served by trunk sewers which discharge to Crossness STW but a study of impact is needed due to increase in accommodation and impact on local sewers • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain and partly within the River Ravensbourne flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. The Flood Risk Assessment should examine the future of flood management and consider mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining clean surface water should discharge to River Thames and Deptford Creek. • Blue Ribbon Network – Significant, historic and ecologically important Thames frontage and Deptford Creek frontage within the Thames Policy Area. Development needs to respect and enhance the ecology of the area and increase the use of these riverfronts. Improving riverfront links between Greenwich and Deptford will help regeneration at Deptford. Area includes safeguarded wharves whose function should be protected. • Police/Emergency Services - Safer Neighbourhood team bases and contact point/front office, Triage custody facility to serve leisure and shopping provision.

Status at April 2006

A number of major applications have come forward in the area. Lewisham Council are minded to approve Convoys Wharf (3500 units) although outstanding wharf related issues remain to be resolved. Greenwich Council approved Greenwich Reach East in March 2006, a scheme for just under 1000 residential units and which includes the provision of a bridge crossing the mouth of the Creek.

Copperas Street development still unresolved but would deliver up to 1000 residential units and a bridge crossing of the Creek providing better linkage to Greenwich DLR and rail station and GWT interchange.

A joint working group of Greenwich, Lewisham and GLA is to be re-initiated in June 2006 to take forward an OAPF for the area, a 3D electronic model of the area is now available.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Underground PPP Bus Capacity increases Continued…

A 32 ANNEX 2 2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 East London Line Project – Phase 1 DLR-3 Car upgrade Greenwich Waterfront Transit, phases 3 and 4 Crossrail 1-linkages to Silvertown Link

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity With implications Population in 45 minutes: PPP & Other Funded Schemes Throughout the Plan period there is 891,569 As today capacity available corridors to the Limited access but can Core schemes (TfL Investment east and west. reach Central London, Isle Programme and beyond) of Dogs. Majority of the There are significant capacity area lies to the south, but DLR 3 Car constraints on the network to the again is limited to inner East London Line south after 2004, and to the north areas only Bus Connections after 2009 without improvements planned under the Core scenario. Lewisham station enhancements Transit Extensions Interchange Upgrades Aspiration for Tramlink extensions to Lewisham

Deptford Creek/Greenwich Riverside Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 33 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Greenwich Peninsula

Borough: Greenwich

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 104 104 -- 355* Indicative 15,000 15,000 -- 7,500* employment capacity Minimum homes 7,500 8,000 +500 15,000* *for wider area including Charlton Riverside (West)

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The London Plan anticipates that the Area “could contribute to the wider regeneration of the Thames Gateway and east London”. It “ can play two important strategic roles. First the development of the Dome as a leisure attraction of international significance. Secondly, as a major contributor to meeting London’s need for additional housing”

The framework should focus development on “the north of the peninsula around the Dome and the Jubilees line station“. It should seek “a dramatic new urban quarter... through high density development with minimal parking provision, using innovative architecture to reinforce a high quality environment”. It “should include plans for more than 7,500 new homes… In addition to leisure facilities focused on the Dome, some commercial development to provide a sustainable community and support London’s overall economic growth… This should be focused on the Jubilee Line station and should be phased to recognise existing public transport constraints. Substantial commercial development should not be promoted until new public transport capacity is available”.

Key Issues

• There is a need to consider wider linkages and development potential in association with Charlton Riverside and Woolwich town centre. Close integrated planning of these areas and partnership working will be important taking into account existing and future public transport accessibility. • Resulting need for local and strategic partnerships to draw up a joint long-term vision and physical development strategy for Charlton Riverside. • How to secure the full housing potential of the site and ensure that it contributes to strategic as well as local housing needs including those for affordable housing. • Support the development partners aspirations to continue to bring forward high quality buildings and public realm on the Peninsula by providing strong guidance and strategic support through partnership working. • How to ensure that proposals for strategically significant office provision do not compromise the housing and leisure potential of the site or wider objectives to secure the most sustainable and viable pattern of strategic office development focused on Stratford, the Royals and the Central London Office Market Area including the Isle of Dogs. • Viable use secured for the Dome which contributing to London’s world city role and attractions as well as providing local employment opportunities. Use of Greenwich Peninsula as venue for some 2012 Olympics events. Explore how to overcome the potential conflicts between a major visitor attraction and the establishment of a real local identity and use the economic growth potential of the area to benefit the local community. • Government decision awaited on suitability of the Peninsula for a pilot Regional Casino. • What other complementary leisure and visitor related facilities are required to support a viable and strategically attractive cluster of such activities which will support the broader mix of leisure, culture and heritage attractions which help define the offer and brand of the stretch of the

A 34 ANNEX 2 riverside to Deptford? • Explore the extent to which the Area can contribute to strategic objectives to disperse hotel demand beyond central London. • Ensure that development proposals do not impact on existing transport provision and that s106 funding is used efficiently to mitigate and improve accessibility. Examples of measures being developed and provided include higher capacity junctions on the A102, capacity enhancements at North Greenwich LU station, new bus services, new GWT infrastructure a river pier and revised bus station. • Consider relationship with Greenwich, Maze Hill and Westcombe Park stations and the residential hinterland. • Ensure retail and local services meet the needs of, and provide a central focus for, the new community in the most sustainable way and minimise car based use of out of centre provision elsewhere on the Peninsula and along Bugsby’s Way. • Provide design guidance to ensure that the leisure, local service and any commercial elements of the development complement each other and respect the needs of the new community. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of high quality, multifunctional open space and help to link the East London Green Chain to the river. • Manage wharfs, aggregates, waste handling and industrial provision to meet broader strategic objectives as well as those for the Area and also meet local requirements. • Provide clarity on the management and promotion of SELs on the Peninsula.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for this area up to 2016 ranges from 21.5MW to 65MW of new demand. With this level of demand, it is proposed that EDF establish a new primary substation on the peninsula to accommodate 2x 60MVA transformers and switchboard. The substation should be built with some flexibility such that a third / fourth transformer could be connected at a later date. This new substation would be a 132/11kV substation with the 132kV cables fed from Brunswick Wharf 132kV substation. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage –Local and trunk sewer network discharge to Crossness STW. Due to existing capacity/operational issues with sewers in this area, developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impact of proposals on existing waste water infrastructure. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. The Flood Risk Assessment should examine the future of flood management and consider mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining clean surface water should discharge to River Thames. • Blue Ribbon Network - Extensive River Thames frontage and within the Thames Policy Area, development needs to respect river front setting and nearby safeguarded wharves and boatyard facilities. Utilising the river for passenger transport should be a key issue. River terraced flood defences associated with the Dome have already demonstrated good environmental practice. Future development provides an opportunity to extend and enhance this treatment.

Status at April 2006

Applicant led Masterplan has been consented by borough. Over 1,300 new homes have been built or are under construction in the award winning Millennium Village. Planning permission for future use of the Dome and the development of Greenwich Peninsula by Meridian Delta Limited was given the go-ahead on 16 April 2003.

GLA involved in elements of application and in particular sustainability issues and the implementation of the Mayor’s energy policies – ongoing.

Many elements of the signed s106 affect transport. Steering Group set up with MDL, AEG, LB

A 35 ANNEX 2 Greenwich and EP to track progress. MDL and AEG meeting regularly with TfL to develop transport strategy for the Peninsula to be funded through the s106. GLA have provided comments on MDL Design Code. A+UU have agreed to be involved by the developer in a design review capacity as part of progressing further phases. Greenwich Millennium Village next phase (the village square) design is underway. GLA A+UU have reviewed the design of buildings and external spaces. Stage 1 letter for GMV next phases has been issued. A detailed application is due to be submitted shortly. LDS indicates borough will address the Area through SPD.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Underground PPP Bus Capacity increases Jubilee Line Upgrade Greenwich Waterfront Transit phase 1 Crossrail 1-linkages to Silvertown Link

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity With implications Population in 45 minutes: PPP & Other Funded Schemes Today there are significant capacity 2,179,851 constraints to the south. This will Good access to the north and As today be eased by the delivery of the west. Within 45 minutes GWT after 2010 and by bus service central London, outer Core schemes (TfL Investment improvements. Further London in the north can be Programme and beyond) enhancements would be delivered reached but restricted access DLR 3 Car post 2014 if GWT were upgraded to to the south. East London Line a tram. Bus Connections Planning permission for the Lewisham station enhancements Greenwich Peninsula has phased Transit Extensions employment growth to match Interchange Upgrades introduction of capacity. Aspiration for Tramlink extensions to Lewisham

A 36 ANNEX 2 Greenwich Peninsula Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 37 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Belvedere and Erith

Borough: Bexley

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 242 242 -- 1,386 Indicative 5,000 5,000 -- 4,900 employment capacity Minimum homes 1,400 155* -1,245* 4,000

* Note: original area was mostly based upon SEL. Wider Opportunity Area including could however deliver +4,000 homes.

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The Framework should build on the strengths of the Area as “a self contained area of specialised industrial uses including waste related operations and manufacture of building products … recent development has achieved high standards of design …large sites and location away from sensitive uses enable industrial uses to operate with maximum flexibility …substantial potential for employment generating development through several large, vacant sites”.

The Framework should also encourage “ improved infrastructure and landscaping... [to] make the area more attractive… and … The area should be protected as an industrial location” taking into account “improvements in accessibility through Crossrail1 and the Thames gateway bridge [to] support regeneration and intensification. Guiding implementation of London Plan policy, the Draft Industrial SPG underscores the importance of making specialist provision for logistics in appropriate locations. Its supporting research and the SRDF indicate that the eastern end of London Thames Gateway north and south of the river are particularly appropriate locations because of their good motorway access and European links. This Opportunity Area will have an important role in contributing to provision in this general area.

Key Issues

• In light of PPS 3, justification of retention of land in industrial use is required through authoritative, complementary local and strategic demand assessments. • Need for realism in local ambitions for strategically significant office development. Strategic evidence does not support these ambitions and policy to retain land for this use would be likely to sterilise it for other business activities. Guidance on strategic office locations is set out in the London Plan and this SRDF. • Need to respond to strategic requirements for logistics provision within the Opportunity Area, linking this to the trunk road network and proposals for similar provision in this quadrant of outer London and adjacent areas, including inter-modal freight transfer proposals. See forthcoming TfL Freight Strategy currently in draft. • Need for Intermodal freight transfer under consideration. Potential for close integration with rail, ensuring adequate track capacity, close integration with road network, minimising impact on residential amenity and actively contributing to ecological objectives as well as broader sensitivities with regard to rural landscape and adjacent Green Belt. • This does not preclude making provision for existing manufacturing activities but does require realism in the face of long-term structural trends and a sensitive approach to industrial land management as a whole. • While recognising cost constraints on the industrial sector, seek to develop this Area as an

A 38 ANNEX 2 exemplary, sustainable industrial zone with an emphasis on high quality design and infrastructure and good public transport access (See draft SPG Industrial Capacity) • Maintain and maximise use of safeguarded wharves. • Careful designation of SELs, Locally Significant Industrial Sites and other retained industrial areas so that their industrial integrity and robustness is not compromised by conflicting land uses, while taking into account the scope for consolidation, intensification and mixed use development in appropriate accessible locations (see Section 1G and draft SPG). • Consider opportunities to introduce higher density mixed use development at Erith town centre and potential for leisure and recreation on the riverside where scope to do so. Help with delivering high quality developments namely on Erith Western Gateway and other identified sites. • Need to maintain involvement in progressing Mayor’s 100 Public Space Project in the town centre. • Strong resistance to pressures for out of centre retailing in terms of London Plan, PPS6 and PPG3 and more local concerns for Erith town centre. • Traffic congestion on A206, a strategic road. • Need to improve public transport access into the Belvedere area through land reservations and new road infrastructure to achieve new linkages. • Better pedestrian connections required from North Kent line stations to the industrial area and town centre and consideration of need for station improvements. • Close coordination between this Framework and local proposals for Erith town centre and nearby residential areas to minimise industrial externalities. • Realise potential of public transport accessibility to exceed minimum housing provision guideline and contribute to strategic as well as local housing needs including affordable housing. • Minimise potential for east–west road traffic through area and to capitalise on Public Transport improvements in Dartford and Kent Thameside. • Consider future potential extension of Greenwich Waterfront Transit and Kent Fast Track to Erith town centre and beyond. • Support Bexley to lobby for an extension of Crossrail 1 proposals to Ebbsfleet. • Need to continue and support Bexley Regeneration Agency. • Maximise links between East London Green Chain, industrial area and residential hinterland as well as Erith Riverside Town. • Support and reinforce Erith’s strategic importance of being one of only two riverside towns in the London Thames Gateway. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. Develop additional Green Grid linkages between East London Green Chain and Bexley Riverfront between Erith Marsh, Erith town centre and Crayford Marsh. • Ecological and recreation opportunities of the Crayford Marshes to be explored. • Consider linkages with wider development potential at Crayford/Slade Green.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for Belvedere / Erith up to 2016 ranges from 4MW to 12MW of demand. These areas are located in an area with little existing EHV infrastructure penetration. The local primary grid is Erith, which does not have sufficient spare capacity to feed the forecast load. EDF proposal therefore ties in with the replanting of Sewell Road, which introduces a 132kV network in the area as one aspect (see the proposal for Thamesmead for more information). The other aspect is the establishment of a primary grid site at Belvedere. This substation at Belvedere will be supplied by 2 X 33kV cables from Eltham grid 33kV. Belvedere 33/11 substation will be equipped with 2 X 30MVA transformers. As part of the reinforcement proposal, load transfers from Eltham High St and Eltham grid will be carried out, thus releasing some capacity on Eltham High Street, which could be used to feed Kidbrooke. The newly established Belvedere substation, together with Erith 22/11kV substation will provide sufficient capacity to meet the load at Belvedere / Erith. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. • Sewage – Area is served by several pumping stations so study needed to assess impacts on their capacity and the local sewer network, area is expected to discharge to Long Reach STW. Due to existing capacity/operational issues with sewers in this area, developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impact of proposals on existing waste water infrastructure. Part of the

A 39 ANNEX 2 area is immediately down wind of Crossness STW. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. The Flood Risk Assessment should examine the future of flood management and consider mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining clean surface water should discharge to River Thames. Development should contribute to Managing the Marshes project vision objective to use existing green spaces to contribute to active flood management. • Blue Ribbon Network - Significant Thames frontage and tributaries/drainage channels in land. Development needs to respect the water front and the operational and safeguarded wharves along the Thames. Crossness Sewage Treatment works will continue to be a major feature of the area and may need to expand in the medium term. • Police/Emergency Services - Safer Neighbourhood team base required.

Status at April 2006

Belvedere Development Framework has been completed. Erith Framework close to completion (expected May 2006). The Erith Framework is timetabled in the Local Development Scheme to be translated into an Area Action Plan. Bexley Council have commenced scoping for the Sustainability Appraisal and intend to produce the Issues and Options paper in late 2006. The consultation for the Preferred Options paper is timetabled for early 2007.

Bexley Council intend for the Belvedere Framework to inform the Site Allocations Development Plan Document. Scoping for the Sustainability Appraisal is due in the Summer 2006 with the Issues and Options paper early in 2007. The consultation for the preferred options is Autumn 2007. The Belvedere Framework will help inform the Bexley Investment Strategy and Local Implementation Plan. Bexley Regeneration Strategy has been issued as draft to ODPM with GLA input. The priority area identified includes Abbey Wood, Belvedere, Erith, Slade Green and Crayford. GLA is represented on the Regeneration Agencies Partnership Board.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Bus Capacity increases Crossrail 1 Thames Gateway Bridge

Capacity Accessibility Planned Improvements Capacity With implications Population in 45 minutes: PPP & Other Funded Schemes There are significant capacity 320,049 As today constraints on the network to the Limited access to south, Core schemes (TfL Investment west of the area and these will be east and west. Very Programme and beyond) exacerbated without the planned limited to the Royal Docks. Greenwich Waterfront Transit to infrastructure under the Core Abbey Wood scenario. GWT will relieve this if DLR to Woolwich Arsenal upgraded to a tram post 2014. Crossrail Line 1 to Abbey Wood Bus Connections Interchange upgrades Thames Road Dualling Thames Gateway Bridge Potential Transit extension to be considered. Potential Transit Upgrade to Tram.

A 40 ANNEX 2 Belvedere/Erith Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 41 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Thamesmead Boroughs: Greenwich, Bexley

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 121 121 -- 1,457* Indicative 1,500 1,500 -- 9,000* employment capacity Minimum homes 3,000 3,000 -- 15,000* *Includes Woolwich town centre and Charlton Riverside East

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The London Plan anticipates that the Framework for this Area will realise “a strategic housing opportunity that should provide new community and recreation facilities together with improved open space and Metropolitan Open Land. Development should be phased to accommodate the Thames Gateway river crossing approach road, which will open up employment opportunities north of the river. The proposed Greenwich Waterfront Transit will link the area effectively into the public transport system providing fast, direct links between Thamesmead, Woolwich and Greenwich”.

Key Issues

• A strategic partnership approach needs to be taken to bring forward a physical development strategy for Thamesmead between all public sector stakeholders. • Consider wider linkages with Royal Arsenal, Woolwich town centre/Charlton Riverside/Thamesmead town centre and Bexley. • Need to realise the full housing potential of the site to meet strategic as well as local needs including affordable housing. • Plan on the basis of delivery of Transit scheme and Thames Gateway Bridge and consequent uplifts in development capacity. Coupled with SRQ based density guidelines this could, for example, potentially increase capacity at Tripcock Point alone by 2,000 units. The transit alignment needs to provide a direct service of the proposed development. • Create a significant uplift in environmental quality, changing the perceived offer and attractiveness of Thamesmead as a whole. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. Link Thamesmead green infrastructure to the East London Green Chain and improve the Thames Path. • Ensure no net loss of Metropolitan Open Land and enhance the District Park function performed by Tripcock Park. • Ensure that development enhances the sense of local identity and community focus for Thamesmead as a whole, taking particular account of the need for permeability and convenient and attractive access to the centre and the need for high quality buildings and public realm. • Early and constructive dialogue with TFL to ensure effective bus services to support these local linkages as well as broader access issues. • The need to secure land for transport, particularly a segregated GWT alignment and bus standing facilities in Thamesmead town centre. • Develop the potential of the riverside location to define a distinct and attractive environment for Thamesmead. • Resolve issues relating to flooding • Close integration of urban design and ecological objectives needed to sustain water and woodland habitats and complement the residential environment.

A 42 ANNEX 2 • Enhance pedestrian and public transport linkages created by Thames Gateway Bridge to connect existing and new communities with high quality public realm and parkland. Using the opportunities of linkages across Thames Gateway Bridge (subject to Public Inquiry) to link East London Green Chain with River Roding Green Grid sub area. Ensure opportunity is used to study if existing designated green spaces of Thamesmead can become part of a wider park network including public open space on the north side of the river serving existing and new communities in the local and wider area.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for Thamesmead up to 2016 ranges from 5MW to 19MW. As Thamesmead and Woolwich / Arsenal are geographically close, it is technically and economically effective to provide a single solution for both sites. The combined demands for the two sites, up to 2016, range from 7MW to 26MW. The local primary grid substation is Sewell Road, which is already at its firm capacity. The following is our proposal for meeting this demand and future growth in the area. Reinforce and replant Sewell Road (current fed by 4 x 15MVA 33/11kV transformers from Barking West 275/33kV supergrid substation) at 132kV via Barking “C” 275/132kV. This new Sewell Road substation will be equipped with 3 X 60MVA transformers, fed via 132kV cables from Barking “C”. All of the load currently at Sewell Road (~56MVA) will be picked up at the new Sewell Road substation, as well as the new load being proposed. New Sewell Road substation, with a notional firm capacity of 140MVA, will be more than adequate to meet the new load forecast in the area, as well as absorb the natural load growth in the area. With Sewell Road relocated and upgraded from 33kV to 132kV, this frees up capacity on the 33kV system to the tune of 56MVA, which could be used to feed the load at Barking/London Riverside. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage – Is near Crossness STW which will continue to be a major feature of the area and will expand in the medium term. Due to existing capacity/operational issues with sewers in this area, developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impact of proposals on existing waste water infrastructure. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. The Flood Risk Assessment should examine the future of flood management and consider mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event, particularly reflecting the fact that much of the area is below mean high tide levels.. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining clean surface water should discharge to River Thames. Investigate potential to use open space to contribute positively to flood risk management. • Blue Ribbon Network - Significant Thames frontage and tributaries/drainage channels in land and within the Thames Policy Area. Development needs to relate well to these assets including examination of the feasibility of river transport into Isle of Dogs/City. • Police/Emergency Services - Custody provision of up to 20 cells, patrol base for borough provision of up to 5,000 m2, Pan-London patrol base and Safer Neighbourhood team base and contact point required.

Status at April 2006

Agreement sought between GLA group and LB Greenwich, LB Bexley and other stakeholders on need for a joint strategic partnership and the production of a development framework. Area group needs to be convened and resources found. Certain development and urban design principles have been established with major development proposals within Thamesmead. Tavy Bridge has received planning consent for 650 additional units and demolition works are underway.

Some 2,000 homes have been built in Gallions Reach Urban Village and additional new homes have been built at Royal Artillery Quays. Other elements of the Thamesmead development include a new school, retail park and improved public transport.

A 43 ANNEX 2 Planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of Tripcock Point, a major site in Thamesmead. The development will include 2,600 new homes, live work units, offices, shops, hotel, community facilities and a new school. £2.7million has been secured from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for remediation to facilitate this mixed use development.

Tilfen is progressing a review of the town centre. Gallion’s Housing Association is also keen to progress the next phase of estate regeneration following on from Tavy Bridge. AUU has suggested extending current Opportunity Area boundary to capture more development sites and to explore linkages with Royal Arsenal and with Bexley. Thames Gateway Bridge public inquiry is expected to conclude May 2006 and a decision is expected end of 2006.

AUU is leading steering group with TfL, LDA, Newham and Greenwich to discuss a Metropolitan Park opportunity spanning across the bridge and linking into the Green Grid (early stages). Briefing paper on vision has been agreed and is due to be taken to planning authorities to get support. A brief for the next steps will be agreed thereafter.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Bus Capacity increases Greenwich Waterfront Transit, Phase 1 Crossrail 1-linkages to Abbey Wood Thames Gateway Bridge

Thamesmead Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 44 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch (also Central London)

Boroughs: Tower Hamlets/City/Hackney/Islington

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 35 35 -- 489* Indicative 16,000 16,000 -- 80,000* employment capacity Target Homes 800 1,600 +800 5,000* * based upon the wider City Fringe area

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The Framework must recognise that, “because of its proximity to the City, the area provides particular scope to support London’s critical mass of financial and business services in ways that can contribute to the Mayor’s sustainability objectives and underpin clustering of economic activity, such as creative industries” The area lies in the Eastern City Fringe (which) contains some of London’s most deprived inner city communities as well as affluent new quarters and London’s largest Bangladeshi neighbourhood. Interspersed with these are affordable business premises, some serving the local communities, others meeting the needs of national and international business and others which have developed into strategically important commercial and cultural quarters in their own right such as Spitalfields, Shoreditch and brick Lane. While some parts are environmentally degraded, others are good quality Conservation Areas or heritage neighbourhoods.

Key Issues

• The eastern City Fringe area spans four local authorities with varied planning frameworks. It is essential that these are effectively coordinated across this strategically important area. A broad Framework is already emerging for the whole of the wider Eastern City Fringe to coordinate and put in context more specific proposals for Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch and Aldgate/Whitechapel. • There is a need to make selective provision for long-term eastward expansion of contiguous CAZ business cluster towards and including Bishopsgate, maximising opportunities provided by increasing public transport accessibility and potential development capacity uplifts and avoiding developments which might compromise this contiguous expansion. • Ensure that development benefits local communities as well as meeting strategic needs and changing social requirements, drawing on the wider Eastern City Fringe Framework. Training agreements likely to be especially important, probably extending beyond the City Fringe area. • Review and make realistic provision for established and changing economic specialisation for example in designer wholesale and retail fashion and leisure, including hospitality, catering, hotels, bars, restaurants and cultural tourism. • Explore potential need for synergy between leisure and cultural areas centred on Brick Lane, Spitalfields and Shoreditich areas. • Consider whether Brick Lane requires an EMZ concept. Explore links to South Shoreditch Action Plan and proposed EMZ. • Bishopsgate goods yard re-development likely to include significant office provision and housing including affordable housing. Interpretation of London Plan SRQ matrix must take into account need for affordable family accommodation as well as capacity and density uplift through good

A 45 ANNEX 2 public transport access. • Make appropriate responses to varied environmental quality: some heritage, some degraded, much mediocre. • Take account of strategic high buildings and views policy within wider London context. • The operation of mixed use policy in the City Fringe. • The area is highly accessible being served by a wide range of means of transport, its proximity to the Liverpool Street interchange is vital. Transport demands in this area continue to grow and it is important that new development is matched to transport capacity. • Boroughs (in association with TfL) will enter into planning obligations aided by a clear framework for negotiation. Boroughs will seek the maximum reasonable contribution from developers for transport improvements to ensure that development is matched with transport capacity. • Contributions (via s106) will ensure that current service levels are supported, remain in a state of good repair and meet demand growth. • Land within Opportunity Areas which has been secured for transport functions will be safeguarded for this purpose unless an agreement is reached through the GLA between transport providers and potential developers (land earmarked for such uses should be identified in the plans and policies). • Ensure neighbourhood/local pedestrian permeability and provision of open space. Particular emphasis should be placed on strategic north south links from Liverpool Street station to Shoreditch High Street and Bishopsgate Goodsyard, the City to Aldgate/Whitechapel and other links identified in the draft OAPF. • Provision should be made for area based pooling and project banking, which includes bus and station improvements specific projects are included in the South Shoreditch AAP, Hackney Council. • Measures to promote the safe and sociable implementation of the night-time economy. • Test strategic road network and vehicular movement against new land use and community objectives. • Transport access and capacity. Integration of Shoreditch High Street station on East London Line Project with Liverpool Street and Bishopsgate. • Integration with Whitechapel and Aldgate OAPF. • Resolution of outstanding planning issues following judicial review case. • Need to incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. • Removal of the Aldgate gyratory system and its replacement with public open space.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for these areas up to 2016 ranges from 12MW to 26MW. The primary substations feeding this area are Hearn Street and Osborn Street with insufficient capacity available to meet this load forecast. The proposal for meeting this load is the reinforcement of Osborn Street at 132kV from City Road. Replanting Osborn Street at 132kV with 60MVA transformers (initially with two, with the facility for a third transformer put in place) will provide the necessary capacity for load connection in this area. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water –Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage – Served by large sewers discharging to Beckton STW. Due to existing capacity/operational issues with sewers in this area, developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impact of proposals on existing waste water infrastructure. • Flood Plain/Drainage – Area does not include identified floodplain. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining surface water should discharge to combined sewer. • Blue Ribbon Network – None present

A 46 ANNEX 2 Status at April 2006 Wider Opportunity Area Framework for eastern City Fringe currently in preparation and is likely to demonstrate that London Plan capacity figures will be significantly exceeded. GLA, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and City are currently working in partnership with Network Rail and TfL to produce a masterplan for the redevelopment of the goodsyard. Hackney South Shoreditch SPD adopted January 2006. Tower Hamlets City Fringe AAP preferred options consulted on November 2005. Bishopsgate and South Shoreditch lie in the City Fringe which is an LDA priority area for investment. London Borough of Tower Hamlets currently consulting on its draft Area Action Plan preferred options for the City Fringe. General principles set out in AAP supported by the Mayor and largely in line with draft OAPF. City Fringe Partnership – after having two successful Single Regeneration Budget schemes is piloting its ‘City Growth’ regeneration initiative in the area immediately north and east of the square mile.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Underground PPP Bus Capacity increases East London Line Project – Phase 1 Crossrail 1

Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch and Whitechapel/Aldgate Opportunity Areas: Indicative Working Boundaries (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 47 ANNEX 2 OPPORTUNITY AREA Whitechapel/Aldgate (also Central London)

Boroughs: Tower Hamlets/City of London

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 31 31 -- 489* Indicative 14,000 14,000 -- 80,000* employment capacity Minimum homes 700 1,400 +700 5,000* * based upon the wider City Fringe area

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The Framework must recognise that, “because of its proximity to the City, the area provides particular scope to support London’s critical mass of financial and business services in ways that can contribute to the Mayor’s sustainability objectives and underpin clustering of economic activity, such as creative industries” The area lies in the “Eastern City Fringe (which) contains some of London’s most deprived inner city communities as well as affluent new quarters and London’s largest Bangladeshi neighbourhood. Interspersed with these are affordable business premises, some serving the local communities, others meeting the needs of national and international business and others which have developed into strategically important commercial and cultural quarters in their own right such as Spitalfields, Shoreditch and Brick Lane. While some parts are environmentally degraded, others are good quality Conservation Areas or heritage neighbourhoods”.

Key Issues

• The eastern City Fringe area spans four local authorities with varied planning frameworks. It is essential that these are effectively coordinated across this strategically important area. A broad Framework is already emerging for the whole of the Eastern City Fringe to coordinate more specific proposals for Bishopsgate/South Shoreditch and Aldwych/Whitechapel. • There is a need to make selective provision for long-term eastward expansion of contiguous CAZ business cluster in a corridor towards Aldgate/Whitechapel, maximising opportunities provided by improved public transport accessibility and potential development capacity uplifts and avoiding developments which might compromise this contiguous expansion. • Ensure that development benefits local communities as well as meeting strategic needs and changing social requirements, drawing on the wider Eastern City Fringe Framework. Training agreements are likely to be especially important, probably extending beyond the City Fringe area. • Consider wider functional linkages with Opportunity Areas in Central London including Kings Cross to provide a comprehensive approach to City Fringe issues. • Review and make realistic provision for established and changing economic specialisation for example textiles and leisure. • Explore potential need for synergy between leisure and cultural areas centred on Brick Lane, Spitalfields and Shoreditich areas. • Aldgate/Whitechapel and associated corridor likely to have significant office provision in the long- term plus major medical related uses. Interim development along the corridor must not compromise this. Housing opportunities likely north and south of the corridor and may include selective redevelopment of redundant business use sites. Must be integrated with community facilities. Interpretation of London Plan SRQ matrix must take into account need for affordable family accommodation as well as capacity and density uplift through good public transport access. Framework must take account of need for re-location of viable industrial activities further east.

A 48 ANNEX 2 • Make appropriate responses to varied environmental quality: some heritage, some degraded, much mediocre. • Take account of strategic high buildings and views policy. • Ensure neighbourhood/local pedestrian permeability. • Test strategic road network and vehicular movement against new land use and community objectives. • Transport access and capacity. Integration of East London Line Project with rest of network including future interchange with Crossrail at Whitechapel station. • S106 contributions from developers to ensure development is matched by public transport capacity. • Prioritise the replacement of the Aldgate gyratory and St.Botolph’s gyratory. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for this area up to 2016 ranges from 10.5MW to 23MW of demand. This area is covered by Osborn Street substation, which does not have sufficient capacity to feed load of this magnitude. See the proposal for replanting Osborn Street under Bishopsgate/Shoreditch for meeting this load. As this is extra load on the substation, the third 132/11kV 60MVA transformer may be required. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water –Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage – Served by large sewers discharging to Beckton STW. Due to existing capacity/operational issues with sewers in this area, developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impact of proposals on existing waste water infrastructure. • Flood Plain/Drainage – Area does not include identified floodplain. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining surface water should discharge to combined sewer. • Blue Ribbon Network - None present.

Status at April 2006 Opportunity Area Framework in progress (City Fringe). Likely to show an increase in housing figure. Whitechapel/Aldgate lies in City Fringe which is an LDA priority area for investment. A number of drafts of the OAPF have been produced, following consultation with boroughs and in response to their emerging development plan and masterplan proposals. The aim is to consult boroughs in the latest draft in July 2006. The 3D electronic mapping of the City Fringe is completed and the model is currently being updated with consented but not yet constructed schemes. GLA/TfL are engaged with Tower Hamlets on the Aldgate and Whitechapel masterplan work.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Underground PPP Bus Capacity increases East London Line Project – Phase 1 Crossrail 1

Whitechapel/Aldgate Opportunity Area: Indicative Working Boundary (see map – page A47)

A 49 ANNEX 2 AREA FOR INTENSIFICATION Beckton

Borough: Newham

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 80 80 -- See London Riverside Indicative 1,500 1,500 -- See London employment Riverside capacity Minimum homes 500 500 -- See London Riverside

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The framework “should guide the realisation of long-term opportunities for higher density development, taking advantage of riverside locations. This should be coordinated in line with greater public transport accessibility for example from the East London transit scheme. Regeneration should be oriented towards the west to create synergy with the Royal Docks development, with opportunities for enhancing public open space around the River Roding”.

Key Issues • Maximise potential uplifts in accessibility and development capacity associated with the river crossings and minimise their environmental impact. Maximise the areas ecological value and avoid further loss of habitat. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. The East Beckton Framework is proposing additional open space to be designated and the existing and new open spaces to be linked as part of the Green Grid extension along the Roding Valley to the Thames. • The Thames Gateway Bridge will (subject to Public Inquiry) open up the opportunity to create a park network spanning both sides of the river and the aim is to include the entire East Beckton area as part of a new metropolitan park. Links to and from public transport routes provided on the bridge will be of significant importance to increase the connectivity of the area. • To open up access, provide linked public open space from the River Roding to the Thames as part of improving the open space network between Ilford and the Thames. • Consider pedestrian/ cyclist links along river frontage and across the River Roding to link area with Barking Riverside and Barking Town Centre and links to the Northern Outfall Sewer Greenway. • Draw on emerging East London industrial study to inform more local management of industrial land in light of sub regional industrial land release benchmark (see Section 1G) and the role of the Area in industrial re-location. This will bear on many of the options for the different parts of the Area outlined below. • Seek to strengthen the vitality and viability of East Beckton District town centre in light of recent assessment of retail need and capacity. • Consider potential to improve sustainability and accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling of existing out-of-centre retail development in the Opportunity Area, such as Gallions’s Reach, in line with London Plan policy and PPS6. • Support utilisation of the areas development opportunities linked to public transport provision (ELT and DLR) and odour issues with the Sewage Works • S106 contributions to increase accessibility and address issues of transport capacity. • Integration of mix of uses with surrounding area and consider relationship with potential DLR

A 50 ANNEX 2 station. • Explore potential for generating renewable energy in the area (wind turbines have been suggested through GLA study)

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The demand forecast for this area up to 2016 ranges from 1.5MW to 4MW. This load can be met via 11kV connection from Axe Street substation. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water –Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage –Area to the south of the Northern Outfall Sewer should drain to a new strategic foul water pumping station to pump up to the Northern Outfall Sewer. Adjacent to Beckton STW which will continue to be a major feature of the area and may need to expand in the medium term although there are some concerns for odour transmission. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Wholly within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment. The Flood Risk Assessment should examine the future of flood management and consider mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event, options to set back flood defences should be examined. Consideration should also be given to the Environment Agency’s Flood Risk Management Strategy for the Roding catchment (due spring 2006). Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining surface water should discharge to River Thames. • Blue Ribbon Network - Significant Thames frontage and within the Thames Policy Area. Development needs to respect the ecological value of the waterfront along the Thames while allowing increased access.

Status at April 2006 Various pre application discussions with developer National Grid to consider a mixed use scheme with housing around the proposed DLR station and onto the river.

Stage 1 letter issued on Gallion’s Reach Retail Park British Land retail development. Further work to be undertaken on additional linkages of the site with National Grid industrial development to the east and proposed DLR station to the south.

Reserved matters application submitted by National Grid for Industrial development fronting onto Thames for LDA industrial relocation.

GLA is contributing to production of East Beckton SPG progressed by Newham and LTGDC. Currently undertaking options appraisal with a view to complete in autumn 2006.

A+UU is leading steering group with TfL, LDA, Newham and Greenwich to discuss a metropolitan park opportunity spanning across Thames Gateway Bridge and linking into the Green Grid (early stages). Briefing paper on vision has been agreed and is due to be taken to planning authorities to get support. A brief for the next steps will be agreed thereafter.

Ambition to expand the Opportunity Area to include entire East Beckton area up to River Roding and Albert Dock Basin area.

TfL, LDA, GLA and LB Newham taking forward transport strategy work for East Beckton in parallel.

A 51 ANNEX 2 Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure Bus Capacity increases East London Transit (Phase 2) Crossrail 1 Thames Gateway Bridge DLR Extension to Dagenham Dock

Beckton Intensification Area: Indicative Working Boundary

(see London Riverside)

A 52 ANNEX 2 AREA FOR INTENSIFICATION Woolwich Town Centre and Royal Arsenal

Borough: Greenwich

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 40 40 -- 1,457* Indicative 1,000 1,000 -- 9,000* employment capacity Minimum homes 1,000 2,000 +1,000 15,000* *Includes Thamesmead and East Charlton Riverside

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The framework should realise the riverside potential of this area and seek to “raise the profile of Woolwich and encourage wider regeneration of the town centre … a mixture of uses should be accommodated on the (remaining parts of the Arsenal site) including a cluster of creative industries ... Attractive links between (the Arsenal and town centre) are required to ensure that the town centre benefits from visitors to the Arsenal and further investment is encouraged. The extension of the DLR to Woolwich will improve the accessibility of the area and the Greenwich Waterfront Transit will improve links with Greenwich town centre and Thamesmead”.

Key Issues • There is a need to consider wider linkages and development potential in association with Thamesmead and Charlton Riverside and Woolwich Town Centre. Close integrated planning of these areas will be important taking into account public transport accessibility. • Maximising integration of the Arsenal site and the town centre to mutual benefit of each. Effective design solution to intervening road crossing is critical to this. • Within Arsenal site explore scope for complementary mix of uses to the museum/heritage environment to define more strongly the distinct cultural and leisure offer of the Area and extend function as a strategic attraction. • Provision for creative industry cluster likely to be part of this mix, plus ancillary uses. • In light of local and strategic retail floorspace need assessments, a realistic reappraisal of future town centre retail floorspace requirement may be necessary, especially towards the west of the centre. • How to reduce the severance effect of Beresford Street whilst minimising traffic and public transport impacts on this strategic road. Bring forward high quality public space facing out onto Plumstead Road and improving the areas permeability by improving crossing opportunities. • Now that a suitable alignment for GWT through the Arsenal site and Woolwich town centre has been established and the DLR works are underway, progress Woolwich as a significant interchange project and link transport and public realm improvements Work jointly on bringing forward an uplift of the existing network of public spaces in the Town Centre. • How to maximise opportunities created by new public transport infrastructure. Address opportunities liked to DLR development through partnership approach. • Consider need for improvements to Woolwich Arsenal station. • How to reduce traffic and public transport delay at the Woolwich Ferry roundabout. • Explore scope for extending/reinventing town centre offer, especially if current buildings to be retained (eg leisure and night time economy uses) and how this might be integrated with significant uplift in housing capacity.

A 53 ANNEX 2 • Consider whether new directions in town centre management strategy are required to complement and better define changing town centre offer. • Explore options for enhancing overall development capacity in light of uplifts in transport provision including review of car parking provision and implications for viability of retail and leisure offer. Ensure high quality buildings and public realm is delivered as part of new developments coming forward. Ensure that development proposals complement each other. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space that leads from the River through Woolwich Town Centre with Woolwich Common (part of East London Green Chain) and links along the riverpath and Plumstead with Thamesmead, the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge and beyond. Assist Greenwich Council to lobby for a Crossrail Station at Woolwich Arsenal. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity - The load forecast for this area up to 2016 ranges from 2MW to 7MW. The primary grid located in this area is Sewell Road. See the proposal for meeting the load at Thamesmead for more information. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water – Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage – Served by trunk sewer to the south but study needed to assess impact on local sewer network. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Majority of the area is within the Tidal Thames flood plain – development will need a Flood Risk Assessment but implications are likely to be limited owing to the presence of flood defences giving a high level of protection. The Flood Risk Assessment should examine the future of flood management and consider mitigation measures that may be necessary in the event of a large scale flooding event, options to set back flood defences should be examined. Following on site retention/Sustainable Drainage Systems remaining surface water should discharge to River Thames • Blue Ribbon Network - Significant Thames frontage and within the Thames Policy Area. Development needs to respect the historic water front and help to connect the town centre to the River. • Police/Emergency Services - 2 police shops required in town centre and at Royal Arsenal Safer Neighbourhood team bases are required.

Status at April 2006

AUU is talking to LB Greenwich about a Mayor’s 100 Public Space project linking Beresford Square and the Arsenal spaces across Plumstead Road with the river. Other major development projects are underway in the town centre including DLR extension (due to be open 2009), GWT (2009) and the town hall redevelopment. Local Delivery Vehicle funded by the ODPM and LDA to be established to cover Greater Woolwich area. LB Greenwich working with GLA group to develop strategic framework for the area. LBG intends to produce draft SPD for town centre in 2005. Possibility that Plan may be extended to cover all of town centre as defined in draft UDP.

A total of 1,248 new homes have been built or are under construction. The Council received a revised application which proposed a new masterplan for the undeveloped parts of the Royal Arsenal and Warren Lane sites. The proposals include 2,517 new homes, a cinema, retail units, a theatre, hotel, restaurants and bars. Consultation took place during October 2005 on the revised masterplan document. It has been presented to Greenwich Council’s Planning board, which approved the masterplan in December 2005. This is subject to a s106 agreement that has not yet been finalised. Ongoing discussions about the re-development of the Town Hall site.

A 54 ANNEX 2 Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure Bus Capacity increases Greenwich Waterfront Transit phase 1 DLR Extension to Woolwich Crossrail 1 connections to

Woolwich Town Centre/Royal Arsenal Intensification Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 55 ANNEX 2 AREA FOR INTENSIFICATION Kidbrooke

Borough: Greenwich

London Plan Emerging Net Change Potential future estimated capacity based direction capacity on LP area (to inform LP review) 2001-2016 2001-2016 2001-2026 Site Area (ha) 103 103 -- 103 Indicative -- 400 +400 400 employment capacity Minimum homes 2,200 2,500 +300 2,400

Strategic Objectives (from the London Plan, Feb 2004)

The masterplan/framework should create “a sustainable mixed-use neighbourhood incorporating over 2,000 additional homes. The development should focus on integrating the station, which will have improved links to north Greenwich, with the surrounding area and improving links within the area across existing roads and rail lines”.

Key Issues

• Resolve tensions between development proposals and existing net open space provision. • How to achieve a broad range of high quality housing types and tenures to create a vibrant and sustainable community. • How to provide quality services and quality homes while also maximising choice and affordability for residents. • How to develop a mixed use neighbourhood centre that is a vibrant centre which complements the vitality and viability of other town centres in the network. • To incorporate the principles of the Green Grid by providing an interlinked network of good quality, multifunctional open space. • Ensure no net loss of Metropolitan Open Land. • Enhance the District Park function which Sutcliffe Park (20ha) performs. • Work in partnership to secure innovative design solutions to achieve flood alleviation, ecology, open space and development objectives. • Ensure that uplift in quality of urban environment as a result of intensification significantly outweighs current generous incidental open space. • Effective and attractive design solutions linking both parts of the area and the station likely to be crucial to enhancing definition and offer of the Area as a whole. • Explore scope for enhancement of improvements in north-south access. • Exploring options to improve public transport access to the Greenwich Peninsula. • Consider need for improvements to Kidbrooke station. • Consider how to resolve traffic congestion on the adjacent TLRN. • Need for uplift in quality and quantity of ancillary provision: retail, services, school and existing significant leisure. • How to reconcile parking provision in a relatively isolated location with design objectives and nominal good public transport access.

Infrastructure Issues

• Electricity – The load forecast for Kidbrooke up to 2016 ranges from 3.5MW to 13MW of demand. Kidbrooke area is located between Dermody Road, Eltham High Street and Farjeon Road substations from which the load could be supplied. Depending on the load requirement and

A 56 ANNEX 2 natural demand growth within the area, the combined spare capacity at these grids site is unlikely to be adequate to accommodate the load forecast for this area. To provide more capacity in the area, please see the proposal for Belvedere/Erith for more information on how the load would be met. • Gas – Capacity is generally available but will need to be assessed in detail at the time of definite development proposals. • Water –Local supply infrastructure may need reinforcement subject to nature of proposals. Developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impacts on existing water supply infrastructure. All reasonable measures should be taken to reduce demand should be implemented. • Sewage –. Discharges to Crossness STW. Due to existing capacity/operational issues with sewers in this area, developers may be required to fund studies to ascertain the impact of proposals on existing waste water infrastructure. • Flood Plain/Drainage - Some localised floodplain of the Quaggy River, development in those areas will need a Flood Risk Assessment. EA involved in Sutcliffe Park Flood Alleviation Scheme and initial Flood Risk Assessment. Study needed to investigate most sustainable options for surface water. Sustainable Drainage Systems/on site retention should be prioritised. • Blue Ribbon Network - Quaggy River runs through area, opportunities to restore and improve the river should be incorporated into proposals. • Police/Emergency Services - Safer Neighbourhood team base required.

Status at April 2006

Borough led Vision Masterplan and Development Brief in conjunction with English Partnerships was published in 2004. A number of issues including net loss of MOL were examined at UDP Public Inquiry where the Inspector supported the borough’s target of 4,400 new dwellings (including the replacement of 1,900 existing dwellings and the loss of some MOL).

A draft Supplementary Planning Document was published in 2005. Greenwich Council has appointed Berkeley Homes and Southern Housing to take forward the vision of the area. The first phase of the rehousing programme for existing residents is nearly completed. The next phase has commenced, in line with the original timescale. On this basis, the first stage of demolition and redevelopment work should begin in 2006/07.

Indicative Phasing

2002-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Post 2016 Key transport infrastructure National Rail Improvements Bus Capacity increases Greenwich Waterfront Transit phase 1

A 57 ANNEX 2 Kidbrooke Intensification Area: Indicative Working Boundary (to be refined through ongoing SRDF process for definition in LDFs)

A 58 ANNEX 2 Strategic Employment Locations

(Indicative boundaries to be refined through ongoing SRDF process and East London Industrial Land Study for definition in LDFs – see Section 2E)

1. Inner East London (part)

A 59 ANNEX 2 2. Outer East London

A 60 3. Miscellaneous Strategic Employment Locations: Redbridge

A 61 4. Miscellaneous Strategic Employment Locations: Havering and Bexley

A 62 Annex 3 - Indicative phasing of East London transport schemes

Indicative Phasing 1

Lead 2002- 2007- 2012- Post Scheme Cost delivery Status (as of Spring 2006) 2006 2011 2016 2016 agency

National Rail - TOC Improvements 2 H DfT3 Ongoing throughout the London Plan period Underground PPP H TfL Ongoing throughout the London Plan period Bus capacity increases H TfL Ongoing throughout the London Plan period DLR London City Airport Extension M TfL Opened December 2005 CTRL H DfT Under construction East London Transit phase 1A L TfL Scheme in detailed design and delivery phase East London Transit further phases 4 L TfL Schemes under development DLR Bank Lewisham capacity enhancement M TfL TWA Order approved October 2005. DLR Woolwich extension M TfL Construction started 2005 Greenwich Waterfront Transit phase 1 L TfL Route agreed with Boroughs, moving into delivery phase Greenwich Waterfront Transit further phases 4 L TfL Schemes under development East London Line phase 1 M TfL Procurement for construction currently underway East London Line phase 2 M TfL Scheme under development DLR Stratford International M TfL TWA Order application submitted August 2005 DLR Dagenham Dock M TfL Subject to ongoing feasibility & planning studies Crossrail 1 H DfT3/TfL Applying for powers. Hybrid Bill submitted to Parliament February 2005 Thameslink 2000 H DfT Applying for powers. Public Inquiry completed November 2005 Thames Gateway Bridge (TGB) M TfL Applying for powers. Public Inquiry completed Spring 2006 Silvertown Link M TfL Some initial planning work completed. Follows TGB Crossrail 2 H DfT3/TfL Implementation will be determined on outcome of Crossrail 1 Source: Transport for London April 2006

A63 ANNEX 3

Key to costs: L - up to £100m; M - between £100 million and £1 billion; H - over

£1 billion. Note 1 The information shows the scheduled phases for when new capacity is added to the network - based on information from TfL 2 Including South

London Metro. 3 - Planned but not committed. Implementation depends on funding approval. 4 - Includes provision of transit link over TGB to form an integrated Thames

Gateway Transit network.

A64 ANNEX 3 Annex 4 – Detailed Tables, Maps and Figures

Table 1A.1 Minimum Borough targets and monitoring targets

Borough Total 1997-2016 Annual Monitoring Target Barking 10,110 510 Bexley 5,520 280 City 2,100 110 Greenwich 16,090 800 Hackney 14,310 720 Havering 6,900 350 Lewisham 17,350 870 Newham 17,770 890 Redbridge 10,860 540 Tower Hamlets 41,280 2,070 East London 142,290 7,140 Source: GLA London’s Housing Capacity 2000

Table 1A.2 Proposed London Plan Alterations

Borough Total 2007/8 to Annual Monitoring 2016/7 Target Barking 11,900 1,190 Bexley 3,450 345 City 900 90 Greenwich 20,100 2,010 Hackney 10,850 1,085 Havering 5,350 535 Lewisham 9,750 975 Newham 35,100 3,510 Redbridge 10,550 1,055 Tower Hamlets 31,500 3.150 East London 139,450 13,945 Source: GLA

Table 1A.3 Net completions compared to London plan targets: 2003/4 and 2004/5

Borough 2 year Target 2003/4 Net 2004/5 Net 2 year % target Completions Completions completions Barking 1,020 345 501 846 83% Bexley – 560 887 263 1,150 205% City 220 186 256 442 201% Greenwich 1,600 2,427 2,118 4,545 284% Hackney 1,440 857 1,297 2,154 150% Havering 700 632 455 1,087 155% Lewisham 1,740 399 559 958 55% Newham 1,780 1,632 1,097 2,729 153% Redbridge 1,080 353 706 1,059 98% Tower Hamlets 4,140 2,263 3,911 6,174 149% East London 14,280 9,981 11,163 21,144 148% Source: GLA Housing Provision Survey. 2004/5

A65 ANNEX 4 Table 1A.4 Development pipeline by borough, March 2005

Planning Permission Planning Permission Planning Permission Not Started Under Construction All Borough Existing Proposed Net Existing Proposed Net Existing Proposed Net Barking and 163 1,160 997 39 1,099 1,060 202 2,259 2,057 Dagenham Bexley 29 559 530 11 251 240 40 810 770 City of London 41 315 274 1 58 57 42 373 331 Greenwich 248 11,956 11,708 250 3,535 3,285 498 15,491 14,993 Hackney 403 4,271 3,868 460 1,007 547 863 5,278 4,415 Havering 141 1,520 1,379 35 634 599 176 2,154 1,978 Lewisham 312 1,547 1,235 543 1,565 1,022 855 3,112 2,257 Newham 59 6,147 6,088 235 1,359 1,124 294 7,506 7,212 Redbridge 128 2,149 2,021 46 1,799 1,753 174 3,948 3,774 Tower Hamlets 313 5,444 5,131 379 3,919 3,540 692 9,363 8,671 East London 1,837 35,068 33,231 1,999 15,226 13,227 3,836 50,294 46,458 Source: London Development Database. Pipeline at March 2005

Table 1A.5 Affordable housing completions 2004/5

HC HC HC HC LA LA LA Planning Total Total Net AH as Rent Sale S/Life Total Rent Sale Total Obligations AH net AH % net completions Barking 60 48 14 122 89 20 109 0 231 217 47% Bexley 19 34 0 53 19 0 19 0 72 72 36% City 24 0 0 24 24 35 59 0 83 83 52% Greenwich 117 237 25 379 0 0 0 0 379 354 17% Hackney 232 37 18 287 0 0 0 N/K 287 269 33% Havering 81 15 0 96 0 0 0 27 123 123 27% Lewisham 341 42 53 436 5 0 5 0 441 388 77% Newham 271 76 62 409 0 0 0 0 409 347 59% Redbridge 173 57 6 236 0 0 0 0 236 230 33% Tower Hamlets 56 40 3 99 34 0 34 184 317 314 13% SUB-REGION 1,374 586 181 2,141 166 55 221 211 2,578 2,397 28% Source: HC outturn report for 2004/5 LA HSSA 2005 returns for planning obligations (independent of grant). Net completions excludes short-life provision and replacement units.

A66 ANNEX 4 -40.0% -40.0% -20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 0.0% 0.0% by sector2001-2016 LondonPlanprojectedemploymentinEastSub-Region, Figure 1B.1 Source: Roger Tym & Partners/GLA East Sub-RegionandLondon,2001-2016(%) Projectedgrowthinemploymentbysector Figure 1B.2 Source: Roger Tym &Partners/GLA Employment 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 50,000

Business Services 0

Other Services Primary & Utilities

Hotels & restaurants Manufacturing

Financial Services Construction Wholesale Wholesale Health and Education Retail

A67 Retail

Transport & comm. Hotels & restaurants

Manufacturing Transport & comm.

Public Admin Financial Services

Construction Business Services

Primary & Utilities Public Admin Total Health & Education London London East Sub-Region

ANNEX 4 Other Services 2016 2001 Table 1B.3. 2006 Interim London Sub-Regions Employment Projections, Employment Levels ('000)

Actual Projections Change Change Sub-Region 2001 2002 2003 2006 2011 2016 2001-16 2003-16 Central 1,628 1,596 1,591 1,651 1,791 1,868 240 277 East 1,120 1,096 1,119 1,164 1,229 1,321 201 201 North 402 392 396 400 398 410 9 14 South 604 589 595 592 590 593 -10 -2 West 793 776 780 796 808 846 53 66

Total 4,547 4,449 4,481 4,603 4,816 5,039 492 557 Source: GLA Economics

Figure 1B.4 Origin (residence) of sub-regional workforce

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000 Live outside London 600,000 Live in other sub-regions 400,000 Live within sub-region

200,000

0 Central East West North South Workplace

Source: 2001 Census

A68 ANNEX 4 Table 1C.1 Comparison goods floorspace requirements 2001-2016, sq m

Comparison Goods Floorspace Need (timeline)1 Productivity Growth Productivity Growth Borough/Sub-Region 2.0% 2.5% Barking & Dagenham 17,000 11,000 Bexley 19,000 13,000 City of London 14,000 5,000 Greenwich 29,000 18,000 Hackney 5,000 3,000 Havering 37,000 24,000 Lewisham 19,000 12,000 Newham 24,000 10,000 Redbridge 23,000 13,000 Tower Hamlets 17,000 11,000 East Sub-Region 204,000 120,000

Central Sub-Region(2) 398,000 262,000 West Sub-Region 185,000 119,000 North Sub-Region 160,000 104,000 South Sub-Region 281,000 187,000 London Total 1,228,000 792,000 Source: Experian Business Strategies, GLA. Figures are indicative and based upon £4,000 per sqm comparison goods sales density. (1) Includes allowance for schemes in the pipeline (2) Sensitivity test applied to Central London floorspace need – See Central London SRDF

Table 1C.2 Convenience goods floorspace requirements 2001-2016 sq m

Convenience Goods Floorspace Need (Baseline)1 Productivity Growth Productivity Growth Borough/Sub-Region 0.5% 1.0% Barking & Dagenham 6,000 2,000 Bexley 5,000 -1,000 City of London 4,000 2,000 Greenwich 9,000 4,000 Hackney 5,000 2,000 Havering 6,000 1,000 Lewisham 10,000 4,000 Newham 15,000 8,000 Redbridge 8,000 2,000 Tower Hamlets 9,000 4,000 East Sub-Region 77,000 28,000

Central Sub-Region 116,000 64,000 West Sub-Region 46,000 12,000 North Sub-Region 34,000 7,000 South Sub-Region 42,000 10,000 London Total 315,000 121,000 Footnotes for Table 1C.2 – see overleaf.

A69 ANNEX 4 Footnotes for Table 1C.2: Source: Experian Business Strategies/GLA, 2005 Figures are indicative and based upon £5,500 per sqm convenience goods sales density (1) Excludes allowance for schemes in the pipeline

Table 1C.3 List of strategically significant comparison and convenience goods retail developments in pipeline to 2016(*)

Sub-Region/Scheme Additional comparison Additional Estimated floorspace (m2) convenience commencement of floorspace (m2) initial phase East London Isle of Dogs 8,361 5,740 2003 Greenwich Peninsula 30,995 2010 Lewisham 14,500 2010 Stratford 143,000 7,526 2012 Havering – Dolphin site 9,300 2004 Havering – Roneo Corner 3,100 2004 Lewisham – London Rd 4,756 2005 Silvertown Quays 2,500 2005 Barking Reach 6,000 2005 Tower Hamlets – World Trade 3,300 2005 Barking Town Centre 5,000 2007 Greenwich – Ferrier Estate 3,000 2010 Woolwich Town Centre 2,500 2010 Other Sub-Regions Croydon 52,108 2004 White City 83,575 2008 Brent Cross Extension 55,000 2007 Wembley 26,000 2007 Battersea Power Station 41,805 2007 Edmonton (IKEA) 28,000 2006 Kingston 46,500 2010 King’s Cross 25,000 2010 Elephant & Castle 74,320 2010 Surrey Quays 60,385 2010

* Note: These schemes do not necessarily have planning permission and inclusion within this table should not be taken to indicate policy support.

Source: EMAP Glenigans, GLA, Boroughs

A70 ANNEX 4 Table 1D.1 Projected spend per Capita on Leisure Services in East London and London, 2001-2016

Recreational and sporting Cultural Games of Restaurants, cafes Total Sector services services chance etc COICOPS Code 9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3 11.1.1 ---­ Year 2001 2016 2001 2016 2001 2016 2001 2016 2001 2016 B’king & Dagenham 148.46 191.46 270.00 306.69 144.99 201.76 956.48 1,069.53 1,520 1,769 Bexley 174.13 222.55 273.31 308.84 134.60 187.22 968.06 1,075.30 1,550 1,794 City of London 6.49 0.00 9.49 0.00 3.86 0.00 37.45 0.00 57.29 0.00 Greenwich 195.19 249.94 308.93 350.40 132.25 183.37 1,146.46 1,280.75 1,783 2,064 Hackney 181.42 234.56 297.96 338.86 111.87 156.66 1,190.42 1,330.74 1,782 2,061 Havering 191.99 246.73 297.72 337.02 151.83 211.47 1,056.05 1,175.32 1,698 1,971 Lewisham 203.77 263.27 317.76 361.70 127.03 177.72 1,221.84 1,368.74 1,870 2,171 Newham 132.82 172.76 266.74 303.68 109.08 152.58 993.88 1,114.42 1,503 1,743 Redbridge 175.23 224.35 264.96 301.44 115.12 161.63 953.30 1,065.45 1,509 1,753 Tower Hamlets 167.00 213.10 281.36 317.90 103.87 144.69 1,112.49 1,234.61 1,665 1,910 East London Ave. 158 202 259 293 113 158 964 1,071 1,494 1,724

Central London Ave. 273 350 357 404 116 162 1,445 1,611 2,191 2,528 North London Ave. 218 277 310 351 121 170 1,172 1,305 1,820 2,102 South London Ave. 245 316 320 363 124 174 1,189 1,329 1,878 2,181 West London Ave. 219 280 312 353 122 171 1,173 1,303 1,827 2,107

London Average 223 285 311 353 119 167 1,189 1,324 1,842 2,128 Source: Experian

Table 1D.2 Provision of Leisure Services related to the Night-Time Economy in East London’s Town Centres

SqM Sports SqM SqM and SqM Bars Cafés & Centre Borough Classification Cinema Leisure & Pubs Rest’rnts Total Isle of Dogs/C. Wharf Tower Hamlets District 1,900 11,260 12,320 6,730 32,210 Romford Havering Metropolitan 8,360 3,230 9,530 5,510 26,630 Farringdon City of London Other 0 0 14,030 7,570 21,600 Ilford Redbridge Metropolitan 1,860 610 8,350 5,900 16,720 Leadenhall Market City of London District 0 400 10,560 4,700 15,660 Bexleyheath Bexley Major 1,470 3,100 6,090 2,800 13,460 Fenchurch Street City of London Other 30 0 8,270 4,800 13,100 Stratford Newham Major 5,010 0 4,480 3,100 12,590 Greenwich West Greenwich District 600 4,330 4,280 3,160 12,370 Lewisham Lewisham Major 0 5,210 3,790 3,080 12,080 Cheapside City of London District 0 0 8,290 3,670 11,960 Liverpool Street City of London District 0 750 6,070 3,200 10,020 Source: Experian/GOAD

A71 ANNEX 4 Table 1D.3 Primary and secondary locations for hotel development

Primary Locations and likely products for future Visitor Accommodation development: Stratford City Channel Tunnel Rail Link transport accessibility and Mainly budget likely, Stratford City redevelopment, benefits from limited mid/upscale international exposure through Olympics City and Corporate and leisure demand, particularly in Likely: aparthotels, City Fringe riverside locations lifestyle, upper-tier budget Isle of Dogs Corporate demand increasing Possible residential conference centre Secondary Locations for future Visitor Accommodation development: Royal Docks Excel-related accommodation likely to ensure demand/supply equilibrium, further potential with DLR extension, leisure attraction and Excel-related development. Greenwich/ DLR extension to Woolwich and Thames Gateway bridge will improve potential Woolwich for development. Source: Price Waterhouse Coopers, Encouraging the supply of visitor accommodation across London, 2004 and updated by SRDF consultation

Table 1E.1 Major hospital and other health related proposals

Major Hospital Proposals: ƒBarts and the London. In March 2006, the health secretary gave the go-ahead to the St Bartholomew's and Royal London hospitals £1.2bn PFI project. It will create Britain's biggest hospital with Europe's largest accident and emergency department. Construction of new hospital facilities spread over two sites in Bethnal Green and Smithfield are expected to be completed by 2016. ƒMile End Hospital (East London and the City Mental Health Trust) - £30m publicly funded development due for completion in December 2005. Some issues with the patient environment have been identified and completion is now due for early 2006. ƒNewham General Hospital - £23m publicly funded Gateway Treatment Centre completed in early October and is now operational. ƒWhipps Cross University Hospital - new Outline Business Case is likely to be submitted in Spring 2006. ƒNew Oldchurch Hospital in Havering opening in January 2007

A72 ANNEX 4 Table 1E.2 Children aged under 5: Households with no adult in paid employment, 2001 and expected increase in age group 2004-2016 (%)

Households with no adult Expected increase in age in paid employment, group 2004- 2016 (%) 2001 (%) Barking and Dagenham 32.6 10.9 Bexley 16.3 19.4 City of London 21.7 22.2 Greenwich 32.1 6.4 Hackney 33.7 13.8 Havering 16.3 27.9 Lewisham 28.4 18.8 Newham 37.5 23.3 Redbridge 19.0 18.8 Tower Hamlets 41.8 23.8 East London 29.3 18.2 Greater London 25.3 15.8 Source: Census 2001 and GLA Population Projections

Table 1E.3 Current day care provision for children aged under 5 – places per 100

Day Childminders Total nurseries Barking and Dagenham 6.7 8.3 15.0 Bexley 7.0 16.3 23.3 City of London 133.3 10.0 143.3 Greenwich 12.8 12.8 25.6 Hackney 17.2 4.7 21.9 Havering 9.8 10.7 20.5 Lewisham 16.1 10.1 26.2 Newham 11.1 6.3 17.4 Redbridge 18.6 10.3 28.8 Tower Hamlets 12.1 2.5 14.6 East London 13.0 8.8 21.8 Greater London 16.0 8.7 24.7 England 19.4 11.3 30.7 Source: GLA calculations based on Ofsted figures for December 2005 and GLA population projections

A73 ANNEX 4 Table 1F.1 Forecast municipal, commercial & industrial, and construction & demolition waste arisings (thousand tonnes per annum) by sub-region

sub-region/ 2010 2013 2015 2020 type of waste East municipal 1,508 1,586 1,641 1,788 commercial & industrial 1,955 2,104 2,210 2,474 construction & demolition 1,651 1,686 1,710 1,557 total 5,114 5,376 5,561 5,819

West municipal 949 1,002 1,039 1,139 commercial & industrial 1,403 1,510 1,586 1,775 construction & demolition 1,185 1,210 1,227 1,117 total 3,537 3,722 3,852 4,031

North municipal 650 686 711 778 commercial & industrial 694 747 785 879 construction & demolition 586 599 607 553 total 1,930 2,032 2,103 2,210

South municipal 931 978 1,010 1,097 commercial & industrial 1,056 1,136 1,194 1,336 construction & demolition 891 911 924 841 total 2,878 3,025 3,128 3,274

Central municipal 1,087 1,133 1,165 1,250 commercial & industrial 2,957 3,182 3,343 3,742 construction & demolition 2,497 2,551 2,587 2,355 total 6,541 6,866 7,095 7,347

London totals municipal 5,126 5,385 5,566 6,052 commercial & industrial 8,065 8,678 9,117 10,206 construction & demolition 6,810 6,957 7,055 6,423 total 20,001 21,020 21,738 22,681 Sources: Annex 10: Municipal and commercial/industrial waste projections at borough level grouped by London Plan sub-region at key milestones through to 2020, Draft Alterations to London Plan Housing Provision Targets, Waste and Minerals for public consultation, Mayor of London October 2005 and Appendix 1: Waste Summaries, Alterations to the London Plan Policies on Waste, Technical Report, Mayor of London October 2005 http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/lon_plan_changes/docs/alterations_draft.pdf http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/lon_plan_changes/docs/waste_tech_rpt.pdf

A74 ANNEX 4 Table 1F.2 Additional land required to recycle and treat 85% of London’s municipal and commercial & industrial waste by 2020, by sub-region (hectares)

London East West North South Central total A: additional land requirement the amount of additional land not currently in waste use required if 85.5 73.0 34.7 56.3 106.8 356.3 each sub-region were to manage its own waste arisings and contribute to 85% self-sufficiency for London B: from reuse of transfer capacity the amount of land currently 40.5 45.4 23.3 3.5 0.0 112.7 occupied by waste transfer stations that could be used for recycling and waste treatment purposes C: sub-regional requirement (A-B) 45.0 27.6 11.4 52.8 106.8 243.6 additional land requirement minus land from reuse of transfer stations D: sub-regional reallocation apportionment to other sub-regions of additional land required to meet + 46 + 26 + 20 - 92 85% of the waste needs of Central London E: sub-regional provision (C+D) after sub-regional apportionment, amount of additional land for new 91.0 53.6 31.4 52.8 14.8 243.6 waste sites required for London to achieve 85% self-sufficiency F: additional land requirement per annum (E ÷ 15) annual average delivery rate to 6.1 3.6 2.1 3.5 1.0 16.2 2020 of new waste sites required for London to achieve 85% self- sufficiency Source: Table 4A.4: Indicative sub-regional provision of additional land requirement for strategic recycling and waste treatment facilities 2005-2020, Draft Alterations to London Plan Housing Provision Targets, Waste and Minerals for public consultation, Mayor of London October 2005 http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/lon_plan_changes/docs/alterations_draft.pdf

A75 ANNEX 4 Table 1F.3 Throughput, land take and numbers of facilities required to recycle and treat 85% of London’s municipal and commercial & industrial waste by 2020

throughput per total landtake per number of facility type facility (tonnes landtake facility (ha) facilities per year) (ha) materials reclamation 41,000 0.9 187 209 facility (MRF) – recycling composting 19,000 1.25 77 62 mechanical biological 128,000 1.75 35 20 treatment (MBT) anaerobic digestion 15,000 1 27 28 gasification/pyrolysis 115,000 2.25 31 14 totals 356 333 Source: Table 4A.5: Throughput and land take of different types of facilities, Draft Alterations to London Plan Housing Provision Targets, Waste and Minerals for public consultation, Mayor of London October 2005 http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/lon_plan_changes/docs/alterations_draft.pdf

Table 1F.4 Numbers of facilities required to recycle and treat 85% of London’s municipal and commercial & industrial waste by 2020, by sub-region

London East West North South Central total materials reclamation 83 54 33 28 11 209 facility (MRF) – recycling composting 23 16 10 11 2 62 mechanical biological 7 6 2 4 1 20 treatment (MBT) anaerobic digestion 9 9 4 5 1 28 gasification/pyrolysis 5 4 2 3 0 14 total 127 89 51 51 15 333 Source: Table 4A.6: Sub-regional distribution of facilities required by 2020, Draft Alterations to London Plan Housing Provision Targets, Waste and Minerals for public consultation, Mayor of London October 2005 http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/sds/lon_plan_changes/docs/alterations_draft.pdf

A76 ANNEX 4 Table 1G.1 Changes in “factory” and “warehousing” space

Percentage change in Industrial/Warehousing Floorspace in the East Sub-Region and London, 2000­ 2003

15.0% 10.0% 5.0% East Sub-Region 0.0% London -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% Factories Warehouses Total

Source: ODPM/Roger Tym & Partners, 2004

Diagram 2A.1 Strategic Cultural Areas: Indicative Locations

A77 ANNEX 4 Table 2A.2 Additional Possible Office Monitoring Indicators for the CAZ Office Market Area (for ongoing discussion with stakeholders)

1 When monitoring the CAZ office availability, if the rate appears likely to go below 8% the market is becoming relatively ‘tight’. When the rate seems likely to go above 10% the market is likely to have surplus capacity.

2 When monitoring the balance between speculative and pre-let provision, up to 50% of annual starts being comprised of pre-lets and owner-occupier schemes can generally be regarded as a normal and healthy market, provided the overall volume of starts is consistent with strategic policies to maintain London’s World City role, as defined in the London Plan’s existing office monitoring target.

3 When monitoring adequacy of choice for a range of office occupiers in a range of established office locations which have good public transport, new office space should generally be available in non-prime locations at no more than 50% of top rents in central London.

4 When monitoring adequacy of the pipeline across CAZ as a whole, there should generally be at least 3.25 years’ supply of new office space in the development and planning pipeline. This strategic benchmark should not be applied to sub-markets, especially where capacity constraints effectively prevent significant gains to the office stock.

Figure 2A.3 Central Activities Zone – Emerging Draft Revised Boundary

A78 ANNEX 4 Table 2B.1: East London Office Locations - Policy Typology for Areas Outside Opportunity/Intensification Areas and CAZ

Office Location Type (see below) Broad office policy action (see below) Barking & Dagenham Barking Local (Major town centre) ii Dagenham Local (District town centre) iii

Bexley Bexleyheath Local (Major town centre) ii Thamesmead Local (District town centre) iii but poss B1c in industrial locations Sidcup Local (District town centre) ii Erith Local (District town centre) Iii but poss B1c in industrial locations

Greenwich Woolwich Local. (Major town centre) ii Eltham Local. (Major town centre) ii Greenwich town centre Local. (District town centre) ii Charlton Local. (District town centre) ii

Hackney Dalston Local. (Major town centre) ii Hoxton Local. (District town centre) ii Mare Street Local. (District town centre) ii Stoke Newington Local. (Opportunity Area) ii

Havering Romford Local. (Metropolitan town centre) ii Harold Hill Local. (District town centre) ii Hornchurch Local. (District town centre) iii Upminster Local. (District town centre) iii

Lewisham Lewisham Local (Major town centre) ii Catford Local (District town centre) ii Deptford Local (District town centre) ii New Cross Local (District town centre) iii

Newham Stratford See Annex 2 (Major town centre) Canning Town Local (District town centre) ii Silvertown (Riverside) Local (Neighbourhood centre) ii Plaistow Local (Neighbourhood centre) iii

Redbridge Ilford Local (Metropolitan town centre) ii Wanstead Local (District town centre) iii Woodford Local (District town centre) iii Newbury Park Local (Neighbourhood town centre) iii

Tower Hamlets Wapping (inland) Local (Neighbourhood centre) iii Bethnal Green Local (District town centre) iii Notes: The analysis in Chapters 1 and 2 shows that East London needs to develop a distinct sub regional approach to managing office provision. Research suggests that beyond CAZ, its fringe and East London’s Opportunity Areas the approach should broadly follow that suggested for other Outer sub regions. This distinguishes between centres where:

A79 ANNEX 4 i speculative office development could be promoted on the most efficient and accessible sites in the context of wider schemes to enhance the environment and offer of the centre as a commercial location. This might entail some long-term net loss of overall office stock through change of use of provision on less attractive sites. ii some office provision could be promoted as part of wider residential or residential and retail/leisure mixed use development. This would be likely to entail long- term net loss of overall office stock, partial renewal on the more commercially attractive sites and managed change of use of provision on less attractive sites. iii there is “no purpose in promoting offices” and static or declining demand should be managed in the context of sensitive policies to sustain changes in employment type, to facilitate land use change, especially to housing and other town centre related uses and to enhance the attractiveness and wider offer of the centres.

Borough designation of individual centres to reflect this general policy typology should take into account local capacity, transport, environmental and market appraisals.

The typology resonates with London Plan proposals (Policy 3B.3, para 3.123) to consolidate the strengths of the outer London office market on particular types of location. These locational types are:

x Strategic Office Centres (none currently justified by demand in West London) x Mid Urban Business Parks x Town Centre Based Office Quarters x Conventional Business Parks (beyond the urban area) x Science Parks x Linear Office Development x Local, usually town centre based provision

Table 2C.1: East London Office Locations in London Plan Opportunity and Intensification Areas - Factors for consideration in review of balances in the mix of use.

Name Factors for Consideration Possible Refinements to LP Indicative Proposals Employment change compared with London Plan Bishopsgate Key strategic reserve for CAZ office Maintain as a viable short/ No change / South market area, extends strategic medium term reservoir for CAZ Shoreditch business cluster, potential good public office market activities. transport access, good potential office Maintain or increase housing viability, supports local regeneration. and ancillary uses components.

Whitechapel Key strategic reserve for CAZ office Maintain as a viable medium No change /Aldgate market area, extends strategic term reservoir for CAZ office business cluster, potential good public market activities. Introduce transport access, good potential office new health component. viability, supports local regeneration. Maintain or increase housing Scope to extend non-office activities and ancillary uses components including health related. Maintain housing offer.

Isle of Dogs Key component of CAZ office market Maintain as a viable current No change area, extends strategic business reservoir for CAZ office market cluster, potential enhanced public activities. Develop retail offer transport access, good potential office to wider community. Review viability, supports local regeneration. proposals for office

A80 ANNEX 4 Name Factors for Consideration Possible Refinements to LP Indicative Proposals Employment change compared with London Plan development in Millennium Quarter as part of mixed use/change of use policy for Canary Wharf as a whole, enhancing housing and ancillary activities offer there. Stratford National regeneration priority, axial Maintain established Explore sub regional node for regeneration of momentum as one of London’s implications of Lee Valley and Gateway; potential two strategic office locations broader leisure local complementarity to Canary beyond CAZ market area. mix Wharf. Note Europe/access. Highest Develop office brand and capitalising on order public transport and developer post Olympic international links. commitment/phasing to heritage. address short term viability concerns. Ensure that does not become retail/car dominated. Explore scope for post Olympic leisure offer.

Lower Lea National special case: Olympic/non Support changes from office to Explore Valley Olympic regeneration scenarios. other uses including housing. implications of Currently major reservoir of low cost Maintain CAZ related services lower office business space close to CAZ. Note as far as possible including provision. logistics/transport/waste roles. essential logistics, waste, Degraded environment but potential transport. Establish effective for enhancement including housing. relocation arrangements for Office provision here would not serve London viable industries. wider sub regional objectives. Royal Docks Locally significant regeneration, Support the development out Explore nominal synergy with university of Royals Business Park and implications of supports science park concept, review again in light of lower office relatively limited public transport, demand/access. provision. strong car dependence, marginal office viability compared with residential. Barking Largely residential with local ancillary No strategically significant Check Reach uses. office provision employment assumptions London Largely industrial. Potential receiving Strategic industrial growth area Check Riverside area for industrial relocation to the including centre for innovation employment west. and high tech manufacturing. assumptions Provision for warehousing/logistics either here or on suitable nearby sites in outer East London.

Deptford Cultural quarter/mixed use dev of Support changes from Check Creek/ strategic significance including leisure, proposed office uses to mixed employment Greenwich tourism. Strategic waste on nearby residential/work space. Explore assumptions Riverside Convoys Wharf potential for further cultural flagship. Greenwich Outstanding office pp but consultants For consultation, consider Closely Peninsula suggest may be marginal location for whether different mixes of use monitor strategically significant office might more effectively address potential/ development. Must not compromise strategic objectives. Support realism in Stratford as prime marginal office Casino proposal in context of achieving LP

A81 ANNEX 4 Name Factors for Consideration Possible Refinements to LP Indicative Proposals Employment change compared with London Plan location serving wider objectives. govt policy and other related objectives. Significant office development leisure. unlikely in short term. Key factors likely to be public transport improvements, overall office demand and success in marketing new office location. Belvedere/ Largely industrial. Potential receiving Strategic industrial growth Check Erith area for industrial relocation to the area. Significant provision for employment west. warehousing/logistics and on assumptions. suitable nearby sites, possibly including inter-modal transfer Thames­ Not viable for strategically significant Clarify not for strategically Check mead offices. significant offices. employment assumptions Beckton Not viable for strategically significant Clarify not for strategically Check offices. significant offices. employment assumptions Woolwich Not viable for strategically significant Clarify not for strategically Test TC & Royal offices. significant offices. employment Arsenal assumptions Kidbrooke No employment proposals No change No change

Table 2E.1 Area within Strategic Employment Locations in East London, by borough, 2000 – 2006 (Hectares)

2006 2006 2006 2006 2000 Absolute % Total Total Total Total Total Change Change PIL PIL/IBP IBP SEL SEL 2000­ 2000 Borough (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) (Ha) 2006 -2006 Barking and Dagenham 411 411 451.8 -40.8 -9.0% Bexley 359.3* 113.9 473.2* 365 108.2 29.6% City of London 0 0 0 Greenwich 207.2 207.2 219.8 -12.6 -5.7% Hackney 11.8 11.8 25.6 -13.8 -53.9% Havering 327.8 327.8 444.9 -117.1 -26.3% Lewisham 51.1 51.1 43.4 7.7 17.7% Newham 140.2 151.5* 44.7 336.4* 223.8 112.6 50.3% Redbridge 32.4 32.4 32.1 0.3 0.9% Tower Hamlets 31.1 8.4 39.5 75.8 -36.3 -47.9% East London 1571.9* 151.5* 167 1890.4* 1882.2 8.2 0.4% London Total 3195.9 597.8 463.3 4257 4617.2 -360.2 -7.8% Sources: GLA and LPAC PIL – Preferred Industrial Location; IBP – Industrial Business Park Note: Total SEL in 2006 land includes some land in waste, utilities and transport functions.

* Figures include new SEL areas including large utility sites at Belvedere, Bexley (64.5ha) and at Beckton (82.1ha) in Newham which were not previously designated as SEL in 2000.

A82 ANNEX 4 Table 3.1: Sub Regional Distribution of Groups with Distinct Needs, 2001

Central East West South North London Women 797,273 1,014,219 711,805 682,311 434,111 3,739,840 Older people 18,717 27,827 20,067 17,051 24,424 108,086 85+ Children & 263,199 431,372 272,784 263,896 213,114 1,444,365 younger people Under 16 Black & 685,375 736,445 686,002 328,854 447,554 2,884,230 minority ethnic groups1

Totals 1,485,437 1,958,465 1,391,815 1,313,403 1,022,971 7,172,091 Source: Census, 2001

Table 3.2: Further breakdown of ethnicity for the sub regions, 2001

Central East West South North London White British 800,062 1,222,020 705,813 984,549 575,417 4,287,861 White Irish 55,477 39,991 62,747 28,916 33,357 220,488 White Other 202,812 95,079 107,478 71,557 117,928 594,854 Black 86,258 97,260 61,832 41,147 57,070 343,567 Caribbean Black African 115,184 121,431 55,393 28,881 58,044 378,933 Black Other 17,386 17,854 9,911 5,812 9,386 60,349 Indian 32,699 98,554 206,447 47,434 51,859 436,993 Pakistani 14,394 46,044 40,868 16,420 25,023 142,749 Bangladeshi 29,856 101,210 6,809 5,919 10,099 153,893 Other Asian 17,089 26,571 46,994 22,599 19,805 133,058 Mixed 59,376 52,121 44,857 34,560 35,197 226,111 Chinese 23,294 19,595 14,003 11,032 12,277 80,201 Other 31,550 20,735 28,663 14,577 17,509 113,034 Source: Census, 2001

Table 3.3: 2001 Census households containing people with a limiting long term illness, health problem or disability

Central East West South North London People with 184,296 266,816 167,286 149,144 126,806 894,348 disabilities2 Source: Census, 2001

1 2001 Census population in following ethnic groups: This is the total BME population - the census the groups are broken down into: White British, White Irish, White Other, Black Caribbean, Black African, Black Other, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Other Asian, Mixed, Chinese, Other. 2 2001 Census households containing people with a limiting long term illness, health problem or disability

A83 ANNEX 4 100 110 120 130 140 150 80 90

CENTRAL 120

Camden toEnglandaverage comparison (under75,allcauses), Figure 3.4MortalityRates 134 134 Islington 82 Kensington & Chelsea 134 Lambeth 132 132 Southwark 115 Wandsworth 103 103 Westminster City EAST 123 123 Barking & Dagenham 94 Bexley 83 Corporation of London 120 120 Greenwich 130 Hackney 3 93 93 Havering 125 Lewisham 140

A84 Newham Redbridge 138 Tower Hamlets WEST 101 Brent 105 Ealing 112 112 112 112 Hammersmith & Fulham 83 Harrow 100 Hillingdon Hounslow NORTH 83 Barnet 94 Enfield 112 Haringey 117 117 Waltham Forest

ANNEX 4 SOUTH 85 Bromley England Average = 100 100 Croydon 92 Kingston upon Thames 94 Merton 87 Richmond upon Thames 97 Sutton Map 4D.1 Regional and Metropolitan Parks

Map 4D.2 District Park Indicative Deficiency Areas

A85 ANNEX 4 Map 4D.3 Green Arc Initiative Area

A86 ANNEX 4 Map 4D.4 Green Grid Strategic Framework

Map 4D.5 Green Grid Sub-Areas

A87 ANNEX 4 Map 4D.6 Main ecological and landscape zones in the sub-region

Notes: Chalk soils in the sub-region are confined to small areas in Lewisham, Woolwich, Crayford and Abbey Wood. Habitat management and restoration here should use the chalk sites of the South region for their inspiration. Sands and gravels occur extensively on the hill slopes south of the Thames and in small areas in the north. The acid grasslands and heathlands of Epping Forest SSSI, Hainault Country Park, Bedfords Park and Lesnes Abbey Wood are the models for priorities here. New woodland is not generally advised, but the existing values in places such as Hainault Forest, Lesnes Abbey and Bostall Woods should be conserved. Clay hills occur mainly on the northern and southern borders of the sub-region. Here new woodland is appropriate where it is not displacing habitat of greater value, and should take its theme from existing ancient woodlands. The best of these are the western part of Hainault Forest and all of the Oxleas Woodlands SSSIs. In the north east there is extensive agricultural land as at Fairlop plain, here tree planting is inappropriate away from the hedgerows. Most grasslands here are damp and the West and North sub-regions have better existing examples of these to use as models. A scattering of loam soils is found over the low level gravels largely north of the Thames. These are fertile and in history were the focus of productive agriculture and horticulture for London’s beadbasket. As a result, there are no outstanding habitats left to act as a model for habitat restoration here, and

A88 ANNEX 4 notably few good woodlands. Extensive low level gravels occur between the clays and floodplains in the north and to a lesser extent south of the Thames. Acid grassland and heathland are the target habitats here, with Wanstead Flats the best local model. Better models are listed in the three other non-central frameworks. New woodlands here should take their theme from the existing valuable woodlands, such as those at the southern end of Epping Forest, and should not be developed at the expense of valuable open habitats. Extensive floodplain soils occur around the Thames and extend up the valleys of tributaries, particularly the Lea. Once managed as grazing marsh, most have been displaced by development, but this sub-region has the best London remnants of saline grazing marsh at Rainham SSSI, Dartford and Bexley Marshes and the best fresh water one at the Ingrebourne Marshes SSSI. These should inform the priority actions here. Woodland is naturally scarce in the floodplains, the largest areas being valuable wet woodlands in the Ingrebourne valley. Extensive woodland planting is inappropriate in open places, but small areas of wet woodland would be appropriate. In places previous use has left rubble, sand, etc., on top of the natural floodplain surface. Some of these have recovered value similar to the low level gravels and should not be regarded as ‘brownfield’. Rivers in the sub-region include the Thames and its tributaries. Here the main priorities are for preventing further incursions into the channels, restoration of the floodplain wherever possible and improvements to the quality of the water.

Table 4D.7 Areas of deficiency in access to nature, March 2006

A89 ANNEX 4 Table 5A.1 Residential development density

1995-98 2001-2004 change

Dwellings per hectare

Borough Barking 47 70 + 23 Bexley 34 32 - 2 City 80 960 + 880 Greenwich 41 48 + 7 Hackney 66 103 + 37 Havering 35 46 + 11 Lewisham 66 81 + 15 Newham 51 97 + 46 Redbridge 45 60 + 15 Tower Hamlets 83 138 + 55 Source: ODPM Land Use Change Statistics to 2004

Table 5B.1 Housing Corporation general needs new-build rented programme by unit bedroom size ( 2004/6 allocations)

Borough 1B 2B 3B 4B 5B+ Total %3B+ Barking 91 112 44 61 7 315 36% Bexley 11 53 41 0 0 105 39% City 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Greenwich 118 273 64 13 0 468 12% Hackney 142 128 113 51 24 458 41% Havering 42 71 50 13 0 176 36% Lewisham 85 136 57 8 7 293 25% Newham 138 196 64 66 6 470 29% Redbridge 21 84 28 13 0 146 28% Tower Hamlets 215 484 139 30 35 903 23% East London 863 1537 600 255 79 3334 28% LONDON 2073 4761 1729 638 100 9301 27% Source HC allocations statement

A90 ANNEX 4 Annex 5 Implications for Local Development Frameworks and further Alterations to the London Plan

This SRDF is prepared within the context of the London Plan. It highlights some of the areas that may need to be addressed by the first London Plan review and by LDFs, especially post 2016 issues. The London Plan review will probably extend to the year 2026. Chapter 6C of the London Plan lists a set of potential issues, some of which could impact on East London. In December 2005 the Mayor published his report ‘Reviewing the London Plan – Statement of Intent’, which sets out the review process and identifies the key policy areas the Mayor intends to review.

Potential review issues of relevance to the sub region and identified in the London Plan or already suggested include:

1. Housing. Draft Alterations to the London Plan published in October 2005 identify a new housing provision target for London and for individual boroughs taking into account the results of the 2004 Housing Capacity Study. This examined where growth in addition to the East London housing figures in the London Plan might be accommodated. Beyond 2016, there is very likely to be continuing significant population and economic growth so that the review will need to consider how this is accommodated beyond 2016.

2. Waste planning. Draft Alterations to the Plan published in October 2005 identified the scale of waste provision to be accommodated in East London that will need to be reflected in detailed planning in LDFs; this will require close working with other sub-regions to manage those elements of Central London’s waste that cannot be dealt with within that sub-region.

3. Runway capacity in the south east. Possible expansion in any of the locations under review would have profound implications for employment and transport in the sub-region, especially in connection with Stansted airport. The impacts of Terminal 5 will need to be considered.

4. A sustainable coherent town centre network is needed for the sub-region as a whole in order to meet changes in retail demand and in the role of centres over the longer term. It has been suggested that the town centre network might usefully be refined to reflect not just the role of centres based on their size and general offer but also specialist functions which are of more than local significance, for example, small centres with a distinct retail or ‘dining-out’ offer.

5. Climate change will continue to be a major issue for all sub-regions and fuller strategic guidance will be needed in the further Alterations to the London Plan.

6. In order to ensure sustainable development it is important that boroughs, in preparing LDFs, carry out a strategic flood risk assessment to inform their flood risk sequential test. In East London this is particularly important for the Tidal Thames and in the River Lee and Roding Valleys.

7. There will be continuing pressure to improve public transport and to manage traffic demand. A number of proposals have been made by sub-regional

A91 ANNEX 5 stakeholders and others and these need to be assessed and prioritised. These include the DLR 2020 design study and a suggestion for a City tramlink.

8. Sectors with growth potential may generate new, distinct strategic policy requirements for the outer parts of the sub-region, in terms of land use or other measures, to accommodate and encourage sectors with growth potential.

9. Together, the various elements of the public sector are often the most important employers in Outer London. These may generate distinct strategic policy requirements in the sub-region in terms of their implications for local labour markets, business linkages, skills enhancement, employment practices, land requirements/disposal strategies or other matters.

10. This SRDF brings together for the first time the potential land and spatial requirements of a series of essential services in housing, health, education, transport utilities and other areas. Demands to improve and expand all these areas will continue to grow and there is a long-term need to continue to consider how this can be done and where there are opportunities for collaborative actions.

11. Working with other stakeholders, boroughs are asked to look for opportunities to contribute towards new health infrastructure provision alongside other community infrastructure particularly in town centres, Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification and help the NHS bring forward its programme of new health schemes wherever possible.

12. The successful 2012 Olympic bid will have important repercussions for transport, tourism, sports development and the economy, together with a substantial legacy in the Lower Lea Valley.

13. The East of England and the South East England Regional Assemblies have published their draft Regional Spatial Strategies. The implications of their policies (which extend to 2021 or 2026) on the sub-region need to be assessed and appropriate representations made. There are particular issues that need co­ ordination, especially relating to housing, employment, Green Belt, transport, parking and the management of commuting.

14. Additional Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification should be considered in the review. These need to be assessed for their suitability.

15. The London Plan is at an early stage of implementation. All the partners in the sub-region are encouraged to share their monitoring results and review the effectiveness of policy.

Though outside the formal remit of this SRDF as described in the Introduction, a number of possible additional issues have arisen which may need to be considered for inclusion in the review of the London Plan. The list should not be read as definitive and other issues may arise during the review process.

Potential issues in the East London sub-region include:

x The need to review the boundary of the sub-region.

A92 ANNEX 5 x Possible adjustments to the boundary of the CAZ and the policies relating to uses and special areas within it. x Possible distinct strategic housing issues facing CAZ in terms of dwelling mix as well as amount and nature of provision and how this relates to other CAZ functions and the definitional issues raised in Section 2A of this SRDF. x Possible changes to the sub-regional town centre network. x Possible changes to the extent of the Opportunity Areas and their relationships to their hinterlands. x Possible further intensification of development and the alteration of phasing and other actions in the Opportunity Areas and/or Areas for Intensification. x Possible new Intensification/Opportunity Areas eg around New Cross, Lewisham/Catford (possibly as an extension to Creekside), Bell Green/Bellingham, Dalston/Hackney Central, East End, Plaistow/East Ham, Romford, Crayford, Eltham/Kidbrooke x The location and indicative boundaries of Strategic Employment Locations. x The possible locations of Locally Significant Industrial Sites. x The need to provide more of the substance of draft SPG on Industrial Capacity, especially protection of SELs taking into account different sub-regional circumstances. x Changes to reflect the content of the integrated sub-regional transport network plan. x Changes to reflect the content of the Sub-Regional Economic Development Implementation Plan. x Possible additional Areas for Regeneration. x Possible strengthening of policies to deliver greater environmental sustainability, particularly with reference to the reduction of CO2 emissions and support for the hydrogen economy. x Possible additional policies for the suburbs and greater attention to neighbourhoods. x Consideration in the light of needs assessments to identify, protect and enhance street market provision to meet different communities' requirements in light of the Mayor's Food Strategy and maintain and develop the broader offer of strategic street markets at Petticoat Lane and Colombia Road. x The potential consolidation of London’s wholesale market functions at three locations across London. x Possible areas that may in principle be suitable for the location of tall buildings. x Explore Thames Gateway London Partnership’s proposals for public transport investment including those for a sub regional transit network, a Crossrail station at Woolwich, the implications for the 2020 Horizons Study and the establishment of a freight quality partnership.

A93 ANNEX 5

Other formats and languages For a large print, Braille, disc, sign language video or audio-tape version of this document, please contact us at the address below:

Public Liaison Unit Greater London Authority Telephone 020 7983 4100 City Hall Minicom 020 7983 4458 The Queen’s Walk www.london.gov.uk More London London SE1 2AA

You will need to supply your name, your postal address and state the format and title of the publication you require.

If you would like a summary of this document in your language, please phone the number or contact us at the address above. Chinese Bengali

Vietnamese Hindi

Greek Urdu

Turkish Arabic

Punjabi Gujarati

City Hall www.london.gov.uk The Queen’s Walk Enquiries 020 7983 4100 London SE1 2AA Minicom 020 7983 4458 MoL/May 06/SD/SRDF