Local Plan: Zoom Session Summary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Plan: Zoom Session Summary DATE & TIME: Tuesday 2nd March, 17.30 - 19.00 TOPIC: North Area (first session) PANELISTS: Lily Day, Filigree Sam Holgate, Filigree Emma Talbot, Director of Planning Julia Robins, Development Contributions Managers (s106/CIL) Erik Nilsen, Principal Planning Officer Michael Forrester, Major and Strategic Projects Manager ATTENDEES: 33 attendees QUESTIONS / COMMENTS ON Q&A Note: The 2nd column in the table indicates whether a question was answered during the seminar. ‘Y’ indicates YES - the answer was provided at the seminar. ‘N’ indicates NO - the answer could not be provided at the seminar, and the answer is set out in the table. Presentation slides and a recording of the session will be made available to access at our Commonplace webpage here. Questions Answered Follow up required (Y/N) Can you define ‘regeneration’ and Y ‘growth’ in terms of your outlook? A lot of recent developments (such as Y the high-rise buildings near Lewisham station, and the properties along the A200 to Greenwich) had large retail spaces on the ground floor which remained unlet for lengthy periods - if several thousand m2 of retail space is one of the commitments, do we know that much space is actually in demand? Given that the local plan has been in Y development for so many years, how will it respond to more recent changes that could come about due to Covid - demand for housing, green space and local work space for example? There will be quite a few people here N The character areas included the draft from Telegraph Hill who technically live Local Plan were informed by work on the outside the "North Area" but are much latest Characterisation Study, which the more affected by the strategic for New Council prepared working with community Cross Gate than they are with the groups and was subject to public "West Area" in which they have been consultation. The character areas broadly pushed. share similarities, for example, in terms of urban form and morphology, landscape features and historical development. It is intended that the area boundaries are not interpreted too definitively; rather they provide a useful starting point for considering growth and development at a more granular, neighbourhood level. Some of that engagement - North Y Deptford for example was over a decade ago and a lot has changed since then How will you balance sustainability and Y climate commitments with these plans for development? Hi! Could you explain how new London Y Plan provision will shape the quantum of development on proposed site allocations re aspects such as outdoor space of 10 sqm per child and urban greening factor? Many thanks. How are developers made to keep their Y promises. The development of Deptford market yard was originally going to provide artists workshops. They became retail/food outlets. How does the timescale for the Y development of the "Former Hatcham Works" site tie in with the recent announcement that this site has been secured by TfL for the BLE which would not start until 2024 at the earliest (assuming funding). Is there any recognition of Deptford’s Y historical past The most housing need is for families Y and tall buildings are not suitable. Child Friendly SPD needed to ensure that homes that are child-friendly are built. Hello, in consideration of the fact that Y the neighbouring LPAs (Southwark & Greenwich) have also intensified and developed densely in the immediate vicinity (Canada Water, Cannon Wharf, Marine Wharf, Deptford Creek Area) of this area have you engaged with them and GLA to set a cumulative and comprehensive plan for the infrastructure needs of the area (transport, social, green, comms, etc)? A lot of the existing tall buildings in the Y area are of questionable quality (eg Pepys Estate) how can you ensure more tall buildings will not have the same terrible impact visually and be considered eyesores in 10-15 years considering architectural aesthetics can change dramatically? How will the recent move toward Y permitted development for change of use from retail to residential within conservation areas be addressed by LBL The data presented on transport for this N Public Transport Accessibility Levels area indicated not a high proportion of (PTAL) vary across the North Area. private car travel in comparison with Localities within and around New Cross southern areas of the borough, this are in general better served by public area has also a of lot very poor PTAL transport than those in Deptford and North accessibility site allocated for dense Deptford. There are several key strategic development (riverfront). This is site allocations in areas where PTALs are happening whilst some wards in this currently lower, such as Convoys Wharf area are among the most deprived in and Surrey Canal Triangle. These sites England, with the highest have planning consent for comprehensive unemployment in the borough do you redevelopment, and new development will think this is related to very poor access deliver significant improvements to the to transport and jobs? How will the poor transport network, both through direct PTAL and densification be addressed? delivery of infrastructure and public realm enhancements, along with funding the Council has secured through s106 agreements and CIL. This includes a new Overground station near Surrey Canal Road, river-based passenger facilities at Convoys Road, as well as new and improved bus services to accommodate new developments committed within the area. The delivery of the Bakerloo line extension will also improve transport across throughout the area. Public realm enhancements will continue to be delivered within the area to support its growing population, building on the Lewisham Links project, and significantly improve access to key public transport nodes, services and community facilities and open spaces, including the riverfront. People within the area will also benefit from planned improvements to the transport network delivered in neighbouring boroughs, such as at Canada Water and Old Kent Road in Southwark. A few key questions related to my Y support of DNA on their draft Neighbourhood Plan. Will you change your Validation List to comply with the new London Plan polices (3 types of Health Impact Assessments, Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Statement, Healthy Streets assessment/Approach etc.) Could you consider making the Lewisham’s Residents’ Charter a policy to secure many important policy outcomes. And indeed could you require Design Briefs with meaningful engagement in their development for all site allocations? Play spaces aren’t necessarily nature N We agree. The draft Local Plan section on spaces though so not just for children - community infrastructure, Policy CI3 (Play so I am wondering if play space is too and informal recreation) addresses this narrowly defined i.e. we need a point directly, and seeks to ensure high combination of play and nature spaces quality provision of playable space not only for all to enjoy in parks and nature sites, but in other parts of the public realm. This includes formal play space and opportunities for informal play and recreation. How will you be securing the Bakerloo Y line extension in order to support the increased population and work opportunities in the area? How will you support other transport options like increased buses, car transport and cycling lanes? To ensure a design quality for new Y major developments would you consider setting up a Design Review Panel including local stakeholders and third party professionals (architects, NLA, etc)? There is a development (not tall) of Y 100+ flats still empty and scaffolded undergoing remedial work ever since being built about 4 years ago on the junction of New Cross Rd/Watsons Street. How is this allowed to happen. Given that a 1/3 of the children endure N Creating an inclusive borough, tackling poverty at home would you consider deprivation, ensuring equality of writing policy that specifically support a opportunity and giving children the best more child-friendly borough and start in life are at the heart of the new Deptford? Here is a link to Hackney’s Local Plan and reflected in the plan’s SPD on Child-friendly Places, 2020 as strategic objectives. It is our expectation a fantastic start and indicating the that taken together, the local plan policies benefits for all to be enjoyed when you will deliver on these strategic objectives. get it right for children? For child-friendly places, we are proposing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OEoPrE to refresh our policies on inclusive and N7JHwVGbemIaO-SzFw7qFJtpui/view safe design and public realm; we consider provide clearer expectations around how development should meet the needs of Lewisham’s diverse communities, including children and young people. We are also proposing new policies on play and informal recreation, as set out in the Community Infrastructure section of the plan. Officers are aware of the Hackney SPD and agree it is good practice. We will continue to seek opportunities to prepare guidance documents to support the implementation of the Local Plan, taking into account resources available. The site allocations from Lewisham’s Y local plan from 2013 recommended 200 houses for Hatcham Works, but the latest plan says over 900 units is appropriate. Why the huge increase? If it hinges on the Bakerloo line coming to New Cross Gate, have there been studies undertaken by Lewisham Councils that homes very close to transport hubs make liveable and long term communities? There are currently 400 flats to rent by Lewisham station in the new towers, unknown how many still up for sale. How will the recent move toward Y permitted development for change of use from retail to residential within conservation areas be addressed by LBL? We have not seen any mention in the Y local plan (either in this section or in the 'heritage' section) about the fact that the Deptford High Street conservation area is on the 'at risk' register.