1 Role of this document
This Statement of Participation details the engagement and consultation process that has been undertaken during the preparation of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy. It has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. The Statement sets out:
1) The approach the Council took to engagement and consultation throughout the preparation of the plan 2) The process undertaken for the two formal rounds of consultation on the emerging options and alternatives for the Core Strategy.
Specifically, this paper details for the two consultation periods: The people, groups and organisations invited for consultations; How they were invited to be involved; A summary of the main issues raised by the consultees; and How the issues raised have been addressed in the Core Strategy.
Background
PPS12 – Local Spatial Planning requires that the production of core strategies should follow the Government’s principles for community engagement in planning. Involvement should be: appropriate to the level of planning; from the outset – leading to a sense of ownership of local policy decisions; continuous – part of ongoing programme, not a one-off event, with clearly articulated opportunities for continuing involvement; transparent and accessible – using methods appropriate to the communities concerned; and planned – as an integral part of the process for making plans.
It also requires that ‘(T)he council must produce a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which should follow these principles. The involvement of the public in preparing the core strategy must follow the approach set out in the SCI.’
Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) was adopted in February 2008. The Council’s SCI is based on a series of promises from the Council including:
consultation and involvement will be well planned and co-ordinated clear information will be provided; appropriate consultation will be undertaken; consultation and involvement will be flexible; the purpose of each consultation and involvement process will be set out; a variety of methods will be used; accurate records of responses will be kept and summaries of the findings will be made public; where appropriate, local voluntary groups will be encouraged to participate; all exercises will be reviewed and monitored; and training and guidance will be provided. The SCI also includes a promise to be reviewed regularly to ensure it remains up-to- date and robust.
2 Following the introduction of the new PPS12 and the amendment of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations, some amendments were required to the SCI. These amendments did not affect the Council’s promises but rather, the more flexible approach to plan making set out in the new Regulation 25. In addition there were also minor changes to the consultation process for planning applications which were required.
Whilst the review of the SCI was underway, officers preparing the Core Strategy planned its programme of engagement and consultation based on the government’s principles for community engagement in planning as well as the promises within the Council’s SCI. A notification was also included on the Council’s website (SCI page) to inform people of this approach.
Engagement in the development of the Core Strategy
Engagement as part of the development of the Core Strategy has been key from the outset. Engagement with local people, community groups, businesses and key stakeholders from the private, public and community sectors has been an integral component during the development of the Core Strategy. It has been undertaken through a range of methods over the entire preparation period. This process has enabled commentary to effectively shape and inform the Core Strategy.
Ongoing engagement and participation
Throughout the preparation of the Core Strategy there were was actions which were followed throughout this process to ensure effective and efficient engagement and consultation.
Effective use of other consultation findings: Analysed consultation messages from other Council consultation events and process (including the previous consultation on the 2005-2006 LDF preparation, all master plans’ and the Community Plan consultation) to identify key issues affecting the borough.
Working with the Local Strategic Partnership in the preparation and implementation of the Community Plan: The Strategic Planning Team was involved in the preparation and consultation of the refresh of the Tower Hamlets Partnership (LSP) Community Plan. Strategic Planning officers assisted in consultation events and as well as undertaking a series of ‘visioning’ exercises with senior Council officer, the LSP executive and members to understand some of the spatial implication of the refreshed Community Plan. The Strategic Planning manager’s involvement in the Community Plan Delivery Groups has ensured on-going engagement with the LSP through the Core Strategy preparation process.
Established an External Stakeholders Working Group. This group has overseen the preparation of the Core Strategy. It comprises representatives from Government Office for London, Greater London Authority, Environment Agency, English Heritage, Olympic Development Authority, London Development Agency, London Thames Gateway Development Corporation and Transport for London. This group meet roughly every 6 weeks, starting in January 2008, through to the submission of Core Strategy.
Joint evidence base and joint working. Officers undertook with other Council departments and the LSP partners the development of key evidence base documents. Specifically joint evidence was commissioned for waste evidence, the Population Change and Growth Model and the Town Centre Spatial 3 Strategy. Furthermore officers worked closely with other partners on developing evidence such as the Places Plan (in the Options and Alternatives for Places consultation documents). Strategic Planning also worked with NHS Tower Hamlets and the Health Urban Development Unit to complete HUDU’s Health Checklist for Core Strategies.
Combining with other consultation events Officers used the opportunities of other consultation events to engage with local residents. For example, officers attended the Tower Hamlets Youth Partnership events which looked at ensuring young people feed into Council and Tower Hamlets Partnership policy and activities.
Consultation throughout the preparation of supporting evidence base. In addition to direct consultation on the Core Strategy, evidence base document also had separate consultation events, including targeted workshops, formal consultation events and bilateral discussions with key stakeholders.
Further bilateral discussions with stakeholders Outside of the consultation process, officers meet with a range of consultees throughout the preparation process to discuss emerging issues about the Core Strategy, as they issues arose.
Formal Consultation on options and alternatives for the Core Strategy
As part of the continuous engagement process, two periods of public consultation were undertaken for the two consultation documents. These were:
Options and Alternatives (summer 2008) – set out high-level options for strategic development in the borough (6-weeks); and Options and Alternatives for Place (winter 2009) – set out preferred options in a place shaping context (6-weeks).
The commentary from both these documents were used to inform the Proposed Submission Version of the Core Strategy.
Who did we invite to take part in consultations?
To ensure the views of local people, community groups and stakeholders were acknowledged, those detailed as Specific Consultees and General Consultees were directly invited to take part in two formal rounds of public consultation on the Core Strategy and associated documents.
In addition to direct invitations, the council also asked the general public to comment.
Appendix 1 & 2 lists the Specific Consultees and General Consultees that were invited to take part in the consultation for the two formal rounds of consultation.
4 How were they invited?
A number of methods were used to invite consultees to provide commentary of the Core Strategy and associated comments. These methods were all in accordance with the Council Statement of Committee Involvement requirements. The tables below set out the methods of invitation and engagement:
Method Consultation document. Stage O&A and O&A Places Consultation documents were produced for both rounds of consultation. Whilst the first document set out the options and alternatives available to the borough, the second document set out the preferred options and how these would impact and shape the places of the borough. Both documents contained pre-prepared questions for consultees to consider, and were encouraged to add any additional comments. Both consultation documents were sent to the Specific Consultees, with the General Consultees notified of the opportunity to comment on each document. Both documents were made available online on the Council’s website, at the borough’s libraries, Idea Stores and the Town Hall.
Method Letter and emails Stage O&A and O&A Places Letters and emails were sent to Specific and General Consultees informing them of the upcoming formal consultation dates, location and availability of the consultation documents and inviting them to make representations on the consultation documents.
Method Newspaper adverts Stage O&A and O&A Places Adverts were placed in two local newspapers, East End Life, a free paper produced and distributed to local residents, businesses and organisation by the Council and East London Advertiser an independent newspaper. Advertisments were placed prior to the beginning of consultation and midway through the consultation period informing readers of the beginning and ending dates for consultation, where and how the consultation document can be viewed and inviting them to make comments on the options and alternatives set out.
Method Press release and articles Stage O&A and O&A Places Articles outlining the Core Strategy preparation process along with details of the upcoming consultations and associated events they can attend, and inviting readers to submit comments were printed in East End Life prior to the start of and midway through the formal consultation period. Similar articles were also placed in the Council’s internal staff Magazine Pulling Together, Tower Hamlets 2020 a free newsletter available online produced by the Strategic Planning team and in the members bulletin a weekly email bulleting updating members on key issues. Press releases were also sent to local newspapers.
Method Online updates Stage O&A and O&A Places Updates were made to the Council website with details of upcoming consultation, location of where the consultation documents can be viewed, links to download the consultation document and how to submit comments as well as the public events that can be attended.
5 Method Local Area Partnership (LAP) Steering Group Stage O&A and O&A Places During the Options and Alternatives consultation spatial ‘visioning; exercises were undertaken with the LAP Steering Groups. These to enable local people to articulate what the community plan priorities, and the high level options and alternatives in the Core Strategy meant ‘on the ground’. Officers reported back to the Steering Groups to report on the consultation findings, following the LAP events for the O&A Places consultation.
Method Local Area Partnership (LAP) Events Stage O&A Places These events consisted of residents from paired LAPs selected from the Residents Panel, business owners and stakeholders being invited to consultation sessions. In total four of these events where held throughout the borough with over 300 hundred residents, local business owners and other stakeholders participating. The sessions consisted of presentation on the Core Strategy preparation process, role of the documents and with in-depth interactive activities and discussion based on the consultation documents and a question and answer session.
Method Readers Panel Stage O&A Places This consisted of a small group of resident selected from the Residents Panel who were invited to comment on the design, layout and structure of the Options and Alternative consultation document prior to the publication of the document for consultation.
Method Idea Store Drop In Sessions Stage O&A and O&A Places Consisting of two hour session at each of the borough’s Idea Stores, these session provided anyone with the opportunity to view the consultation documents, meet and question Officers, clarify any issues and submit comments directly to the Officers presents. Drop in sessions where also advertise in the local papers and the website.
Method Online Questionnaire Stage O&A and O&A Places Produced internally, the online questionnaire provided the opportunity for anyone to submit their views through a list of pre-prepared questions.
Method Open Offer of Presentation Stage O&A and O&A Places This provided the opportunity for Officers to attend and provide presentations on the consultation documents to existing forums, public sector organisation and local residents and business groups. Sessions consisted of a presentation followed by a question and answer session. Attendees to the presentation were also provided with details on how to submit any additional comments.
Reporting on consultation
Following the consultation for each of the stages, consultation reports detailing the comments received were prepared and were published on the Council website. These report have been included as Appendix 4 and 5 to this report.
6 Summary of main issues raised
The table below aims to summarise the main issues raised in the two formal rounds of consultation and how they have been addressed in the Proposed Submission Version of the Core Strategy. Further information can be found within the two Consultation Summary reports.
Options and Alternatives Options and Alternatives How / Where these issues for Places have been addressed in the Proposed Submission Version Big Spatial Idea Big Spatial Idea Big Spatial Vision
No issues – general support. High levels of support. High levels of support and Better references to consensus were shown from evidence base required. the outset. The concept has not changed, but has been strengthened with the addition of Vision Principles and the Programme of Delivery. In addition, stronger referencing and evidence base linkages have been included.
Overarching Strategy Preferred Strategy Refocusing on our town Options A or B centres
Options A – Support High levels of support The spatial theme of indicated, but concerns were provided for the town centre refocusing on our town raised regarding the hierarchy and the concept of centres delivers Option A but possibility of the option strengthening town centres. with a portion of Option B, preventing regeneration of However, concerns were specifically in the two areas brownfield sites outside of expressed for this option not of the City Fringe Activity town centres. to hinder delivering Area and Canary Wharf regeneration, with the need Activity Area. Options B – Concerns were for the better definition of raised regarding the potential town centres and links to the A town centre hierarchy is for this option to lead to the evidence base. defined within the Town further decline of the Centre Spatial Strategy (refer borough’s town centres. Concerns were expressed to evidence base) from which regarding specific town the Core Strategy took its Combining the two options centres such as Columbia lead. were suggested. Road and Hackney Road and the impacts / outcomes Through the Delivering that may entail. Placemaking section, specific priorities for each Support still shown for the Place / town centre area previous Option B as part of addressed to ensure a locally a centre-based approach – distinctive approach, while better explanation of the role ensuring a strategic outlook. of the Tower Hamlets Activity Areas.
7 Strengthening Strengthening Strengthening Neighbourhood Well-being Neighbourhood Well-being Neighbourhood Well-being Urban Living for everyone: Urban Living for everyone: Urban Living for everyone: General support for the General support for the Deliverable and reasonable strategy, but with concerns strategy but with concerns housing targets have been relating to the amount of regarding deliverability, developed in partnership with housing indicated for the levels of housing and the GLA. Specific borough, provision of affordable housing. importance has been placed affordable housing and upon the affordable housing deliverability. target that has been subject to a viability assessment.
Supporting Growth with Supporting Growth with Infrastructure Delivery Infrastructure Infrastructure Plan A standard charging Support for the approach The chapter has been mechanism for planning was provided. However, removed following advice obligations was generally more detail needed as to from external stakeholders supported with suggestions infrastructure items, their and the Sustainability relating to the impact of the deliverability and their Appraisal. The information Community Infrastructure location. Preferences were has been embedded Levy. shown to have infrastructure throughout the Core in accessible locations such Strategy. This culminates in as town centres. the detailed Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
Creating Liveable and Creating Liveable and Creating Liveable and Healthy Neighbourhoods Healthy Neighbourhoods Healthy Neighbourhoods General support was High levels of support with This strategy addresses the indicated with specific particular comments relating wider issues provided by support for environmental to the need to improve air relating to supporting and improvements. quality and noise pollution, promoting health lifestyles, alongside access to healthy including tackling food. environmental, health, and lifestyle issues.
Creating a Green Grid Creating a Green Grid Creating a Green and Blue General support was shown High levels of support for the Grid but with suggestions to concept with the need for The Green and Blue Grid combine the Green / Bio / new open space and have been combined to seek Blue Grids. safeguarding existing open to Protect, Create, Enhance space expressed. and Connect the borough’s Creating a Bio Grid Suggestions included open spaces, including green General support was shown improving quality as well as and water spaces. It also but with suggestions to delivering quantity and seeks to reduce the risk and combine the Green / Bio / connecting green spaces. impact of flooding. Blue Grids.
Creating a Blue Grid Creating a Blue Grid General support was shown, Issues indicated included with concerns relating to improving connectivity to and flood risk, connectivity to and along waterspaces. Support along waterspaces and water was given for the prevention quality. of flooding.
8 Dealing with Waste Dealing with Waste Dealing with Waste Support was shown for the General support was shown Areas of search have been strategy with issues relating for strategy with specific provided for the location of to the location of waste support indicated for a waste new waste management facilities and the provision of management facility at Fish facilities to meet the further information regarding Island. Comments also borough’s waste waste apportionment targets. included that the Core apportionment targets. The Strategy should detail the Core Strategy does not GLA waste apportionment provide these targets, as the targets. London Plan and associated documents already do so.
Enabling Prosperous Enabling Prosperous Enabling Prosperous Communities Communities Communities Delivering successful Delivering successful Delivering successful employment hubs employment hubs employment hubs General support was shown, The release of industrial land The strategy sets a clear with concerns regarding the was supported in Fish Island. approach to industrial land potential restrictive impacts The location of employment release across the borough on mixed-use developments. land in town centres and including the release of Support was also shown for edge of town centres were industrial land to facilitate the local employment and supported alongside wider regeneration of Fish training. supporting Small Medium Island. The strategy also Enterprises. sets out an approach for Making space for industry facilitating the delivery of General support was shown, business space within and at with support for the release the edge of town centres. of industrial land with an employment let mixed use The strategy seeks to locate approach. hotels in the most accessible locations in the borough. Growing Creativity and Culture Support was shown, with some concerns regarding deliverability.
Encouraging tourism Encouraging tourism Support was given the Support was given to focussing of hotels in the City encouraging tourism, with Fringe and Canary Wharf particular comments on ensuring hotels are placed in the appropriate location.
Facilitating employment Improving education and and improving education skills General support was shown, This section further expands with universities as on the related section in the employment hubs indicated. Options and Alternatives for Places document by providing a spatial framework to support educational facilities and employment linkages.
9 Designing and High- Designing and High- Designing and High- Quality City Quality City Quality City Making connected places Making connected places Making connected places General support was shown Strong support was shown The strategy sets out a for the concept with concerns for improving accessibility hierarchy of transport relating to the links between across the borough, interchanges and seeks to transport and development particularly to the Olympic work with partners to deliver location. Other issues Park. The need to ensure strategic transport related to the support for the capacity of public infrastructure. public transport transport is able to support improvements and growth. An overarching sustainable transport. transport policy was suggested.
Creating attractive and Creating attractive and Creating attractive and safe streets and places safe streets and places safe streets and places High levels of support were High levels of support were The strategy defines a street indicated, specifically for indicated, including support hierarchy to ensure both the improved streetscapes and for improving public realm place and link function of the cycle hire scheme. and addressing barriers to streets are considered from movement, such as the A12, the outset. A13 and the River Lea.
Creating distinct and Creating distinct and Creating distinct and durable places durable places durable places Concepts were strongly High levels of support, The strategies have been support but concerns were however further clarification combined to ensure a pro- expressed to ensure these on the location of tall active and joined-up were not overly-prescriptive. buildings were requested. approach between heritage The desire for the strategy to conservation and wider not be too overly prescriptive character building. A was expressed. strategic approach has been taken regarding the location Protecting and celebrating of tall buildings. out history Approach was supported, particularly around protecting and preserving our heritage assets, however, concerns were expressed for it to not be too prescriptive given it is addressed in over legislation.
Tackling Climate Change Living and working within environmental limits Creating a renewable Working towards zero Working towards zero energy grid carbon built form carbon built form Support was indicated but The approach was This section has been further clarity sought for supported, however included within the designing zero- and low-carbon concerns were raised a high quality city due to its development. regarding the deliverability strong linkages with the built and flexibility of a target environment. based approach. Wider resource use details
10 Working towards zero have been included within carbon built form the Strategic Objective 3 – Support was shown, but Achieving Wider concerns were raised Sustainability. regarding the deliverability of the stated.
A strategy for the Places The Places of today Delivering Placemaking in Tower Hamlets Further definition was General support for the The information has been requested for a place based places’ visions and approach refined to provide a strategic approach with linkages to the was given, however the level level of detail to be used London Plan Opportunity of detail was suggested to be alongside with other Areas too high. strategies.
11 Appendix 1: Specific Consultees
Contact Name Organisation Contact Name Organisation Sir or Madam BBC Ms Carolyn Wilson Mobile Operators Association Sir or Madam British Gas Sir or Madam N Power Planning Department BT plc Mr Brian Green National Grid Sir or Madam Channel 4 Sir or Madam National Grid plc Planning Department City of London Mr Paul Lee Natural England Planning Department Ebico Ltd Mr Chris Price Network Rail Mr Adrian Woods EDF Energy Planning Department NHS London Mr Graham Saunders English Heritage Planning Department O² (UK) Limited Mr Andrew Hargraves English Heritage Mr Alex Savine Olympic Delivery Authority Ms Candice Beard Environment Agency Planning Department Orange Personal Communications Ltd Mr Chris Baker Government Office for London Mr Chris Pritchard Planning Inspectorate Sir or Madam Greater London Authority Sir or Madam Powergen Plc. Sir or Madam Highways Agency Sir or Madam Sainsbury's Energy Sir or Madam Hutchinson 3G UK Sir or Madam Scottish Power Plc Sir or Madam ITV plc. Sir or Madam Southern Electric Planning Department London Borough of Greenwich Mr Neil Smith Thames Water Property Services Planning Department London Borough of Hackney Ms Carmelle Bell Thames Water Utilities Planning Department London Borough of Lewisham Ms Rachael A Bust The Coal Authority Forward Planning & Transportation London Borough of Newham Planning Department Tiscali UK Limited Planning Department London Borough of Southwark Planning Department T-Mobile (UK) Limited Planning Department London Borough of Waltham Forest Mr Ian Basnett Tower Hamlets PCT Mr Dean Williams London Development Agency Mr Tim Madelin Tower Hamlets PCT Mr John Allen London Thames Gateway Development Corporation Ms Richard Carr Transport for London Mr Boris Johnson Mayor of London Sir or Madam Virgin Media Planning Department Vodafone Limited
12 Appendix 2: General Consultees (Groups and Organisations)
Forename Surname Organisation The Chairperson 5th Tower Hamlets Scout Group Mark Kass A4E Mr Mike Adams Adams Henry Hardeep S Ryatt BA (Hons) Dip TP Adams Holmes Associates C Donegan Adjaye Associates Annie Pang Adrian Salt & Pang Ltd Chair Person Afasic The Chairperson African Women's Welfare Assn The Chairperson African Youthliners David Alabi Alabi Associates Town Planning Bharat Vora Alami International Ltd Patrick Hanshaw Albert Gardens Tennants Assn Rev'd Canon David Driscoll All Hallows by the Tower Joyce Wong Alliance Planning Malcolm Alsop Alsop Verrill Town Planning David Jones Alun Design Consultancy Andrew Bell Andrew Bell Associates Caroline Legg Andrew Martin Associates Jeanne Wiseman Antill Area Residents Association Rowshanara Chowdhury APASENTH Shirley Brooks Arup Transport Planning Sir or Madam ASDA Strore Wendy Ledwith Association of Island Communities
13 The Chairperson Association of Women at Work Bruce Cova Assura Property Peter Hadley Assura Property Vivienne Goddard Atis Real Weatheralls Lisa Vanderberg Atis Real Weatheralls on behalf of British Waterways Paul Hardy Atkins Sir Madam Atlantic Electric & Gas David Harris ATP Group The Chairperson Attlee Foundation Richard Haynes Avebury Mohammed Azhar Azhar Architecture Angela Polatajko Balfour Beatty John Turner Ballymore Properties Emma Foster Ballymore Properties The Chairperson Bangladeshi Drugs Project Shaheed Bhavan Bangladeshi Welfare Assn The Chairperson Bangladeshi Youth Movement Mr Abdul Shubhan Banglatown Restaurant Assn The Chairperson Barika Project Richard Roberts Barleymow Tennants Assn Nicola Edwards Barrat Eastern Counties Jade Khilli Barton Willmore Julie Tyson Barton Willmore Catherine Jenkins Barton Willmore Planning Mr James Finn Barton Wilmore Julie Prentice Barton Wilmore on behalf of Berkeley Group Mr P W Davies Barts & The London Queen Mary's School of Medicine Julian Nuttel Barts & The Royal London NHS Trust Alison Hayward BBP Regeneration
14 Ian Jeffries Bellway Homes Alexis Perry Bellway Homes Thames Gateway North The Chairperson Bengali Education Society The Chairperson Berner Estate Tenant Association Nick Burchett Bersche-Rolt Ltd The Chairperson BESIDE Ms Sibylle Janert Bethany Project The Chairperson Bethnal Green Community Parnership Mark Simmons Bethnal Green Police Station Peter Howarth Bethnal Green Police Station Mukhtiar Tanda Bevan Britton Vivienne Whittingham Big Lottery Fund David Potter Big Yellow Self Storage The Chairperson Bijoy Youth Group Roy Bard Bill Investments Ltd Stuart Thomson Bircham Dyson Bell Naomi Green Bircham Dyson Bell Mr. Dan Kelly Birchfield Tennants Assn John Thompson Biscoe Craig Hall The Chairperson Black Women's Health & Family Support Jenny Fisher Blackwall & Cubitt Town Labour Party Danny Patey Boreham Consultants R Boudreaux Boudreaux Lodge The Chairperson Bow North Youth Club Mr Asif Arif Bowden House School Phillippa Curran Braodway Malyan Richard Anderson Braodway Malyan Sir Madam BRB (Residuary) Ltd Mahmoud Rouf Brick Lane Business Assn
15 Sir Madam British Gas Planning Dept. British Geological Survey, London Office Sir Madam British Telecommunications Plc David Dickason British Transport Police Florence Salberter British Waterways Anna Chapman British Waterways Mr Ian Runeckles British Waterways Sir or Madam Brooksplace Ltd Richard Hatter Brooksplace Ltd Mike Armitage Bropar Ltd Peter Docherty Browse Dr Joe Walsh BT Plc Angela Built on the Rock International Ministeries Jolande Bowater c/o Barton Willmore Jeremy King c/o Debevoise & Plimpton Directorate of Airspace Policy CAA House Sarah Burgess CABE Chair Person Café Reconnect Kate Temple Cambell Hooper Solicitors Jonathan Mail Campaign for Real Ale Ltd Mr Nigel Kersey Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Howard Sheppard Canary Wharf Group Bob Hodges Capital Works Group Amanda Gilboy Carr-Gomm Society Ltd The Chairperson Catholic Childrens Society Chris Jones CB Richard Ellis Rose Lewis CB Richard Ellis Teri Porter CB Richard Ellis
16 Sharon French CB Richard Ellis Planning Dept. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Matthew Roe CGMS Katie Ng CGMS Consulting Manuhar Ali Chair - COF Mr Robert Henry Charles Gould Charles Scott & Partners The Chairperson Children's Society - East London Project The Chairperson Chinese Association of Tower Hamlets Rachel Hipkiss Chisenhale Dance Space Sir Madam Church Commissioners for England Circle 33 Housing Trust Hilary Potter City Fringe Partnership Planning Dept. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Sir Madam Civilians Remembered Campaign Elspeth Clements Clements & Porter Architects Patrick Brightman Cluttons Sam Graham Cluttons Andrew Lanarus Cluttons LLP Jeff Field Cluttons LLP Tim Gaskell CMA Planning P. Williams Coldpark Ltd A. Brockley Coldpark Ltd Adam Pyrke Colliers CRE Mike Roberts Colliers CRE Guy Beckingham Comar Nick Brown Commercial Concerns Sara Walbank Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment (CABE) Planning Dept. Commission for Racial Equality
17 Bill Ferguson Community Health Council Rita Chadha Community Involvement Jez Reeve Community Organisations Forum (COF) Paul Evans Contactum Ltd Sir Madam Council of Mosques R.A. Fell Countryways John Webb Countrywide Surveyors PC Mark Jones Crime Prevention Design Advisor David Anderson Cross London Rail Links Ltd Mhora Sammuel Cultural Industrial Development Agency (CIDA) Paul Manning Cushman & Wakefield Healey & Baker Lee Walker CWU East London Mr D Lewis Cygnet Health Care Ltd Edward Buckenham Dalton Warner Davis Rachel Allwood Dandara Ltd Roz Gee David Lock Associates Peter Smith Davy Smith Architects Chair Person Deaf Children Society Chair Person DeafPlus Chair Person Deafworks The Chairperson Deesha Women's Support Service Paul A Cooper Defence Estates Operations South Chair Person Dekhtay Chai Mr David Denham Denham & Co. Georgina Eldon Denning Point Action Committee Sir Madam Department for Constitutional Affairs Sir Madam Department for Culture, Media & Sport Sir Madam Department for Education & Skills Sir Madam Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
18 Sir Madam Department for Trade & Industry (DTI) Sir Madam Department for Transport Dallian Roye Department of Work and Pensions Jenny Somerville Deputy Director of the London Office Ms Rachel Patterson DevPlanUK Sebastian Hanley Dialogue Communicating Planning Chairperson Dinmont Residents Assn Mr Sakhawat Hussain Disability Advocacy Network (DAN) Mr Stephen Hodgkins Disability Information Training Opportunity (DITO) Planning Dept. Disability Rights Commission Planning Dept. Docklands Business Club Sir Madam Docklands Forum Richard de Cani Docklands Light Rail Robyn Wade Docklands Settlement Faye Tavenor DP9 Diane Bowyer DPDS Consulting Group Andrew Heasley DPP Amy Jones DPP Agnes Peters Drivers Jonas Robert Kingham Drivers Jonas Guillaume Gilbert Drivers Jonas Helen Saunders Drivers Jonas Peter Bovill Drivers Jonas Richard Charles Drivers Jonas Sarah Stevens Drivers Jonas Thierry Marteau Drivers Jonas Anita Young Drivers Jonas on behalf of DoHSC Sara Eustace DTZ Clare Lucey DTZ
19 Mr Peter Smithen Dyer Brown Associates Richard Cox Eaga Plc Paul Bloss East End Homes HA Anne Farthing East London & City Mental Health NHS Trust Graham Mills East London & City Mental Health NHS Trust Shelia Foley East London & City Mental Health Trust Headquarters Sally Roberts East London Business Alliance Planning Dept. East London Chamber of Commerce & Industry The Chairperson East London Chinese Community Centre Barry Robinson East London NHS Foundation Trust Colin Mitchell East London, Thames Gateway & Olympics Team June Barnes East Thames Housing Group Sir Madam Ebico Ltd Adrian Woods EDF Energy Sir Madam EDF Energy Steve White EDF Energy Networks Osmond Morris Elevated Living Alberta Matin Ellis Miller Architects Chris Gallop EMEA Susan Heinrich Empty Homes Agency Brendan Phelan EPR Architects Ltd Stuart Lowther EPR Architects Ltd Lori Frater EPR Group Sir Madam Equal Opportunities Commission London Office Mr G Ansell ESP&D, L.B Waltham Forest Dave Pearse Essex & Suffolk Pipeline Solutions Michael Brundle F.H. Brundle Douglas Thackway Faculty of Excellence R Dunn Fairview New Homes
20 Gilbert Anderson Family Housing Assn Ben Pilgrim FD Tametis Mr John Robinson First Base John Stirrat First Plus Planning Gavin Ridding Fish Island Business Club Sir Madam Forestry Commission (England) Shilpa Shah Friends of the Earth Beverley Bulter Fusion On Line Ltd. Adrian Greenwood Gateway Housing Association Tyrone Walker Genesis Cinema Hayley Fitchett Gensler Andrew Wells George Wimpey William G Luck Dip. Arch, RIBA George Wimpey P Garber George Wimpey UK Ltd J Todhunter George Wimpey, East London Ltd. Stephanie Thourgood Gerald Eve Sam G. Palmer Gerald Eve Mr Gibson Gibson Transport Roland Bohn GL Hearn Cynthia Jenkins GLA David Ellis GLA, Planning Decisions Unit Mr Gary Wilkinson Glacial Properties John Carney Glamis T/A Mr Rushton/Compton/Evans GLE Property Developments Mrs Marion Smith Glenny LLP Ana Cavilla Government Office for London Mr C L Baker Government Office for London Wais Islam Graduate Forum John Biggs Greater London Assembley
21 Malcolm Tucker Greater London Industrial Archaelogy Society Graham Willmington Groundwork East London Ian Manson Groveworld Ltd Bert Newbrook Groveworld Ltd Lou Rokach Groveworld Ltd C. Posier Groveworld Ltd Martin Lippitt Guiness Trust RSL Diana Thomson GVA Grimley Lorraine Hughes GVA Grimley Sheery Sassoon GVA Grimley Neil Lawrence GVA Grimley Mr James Bailey GVA Grimley Ms Anna Townsend GVA Grimley Oliver Du Sautoy GVA Grimley Ruth Linscott GVA Grimley on behalf of Ballymore Properties Ltd Lance Forman H Forman & Sons Chris Trafford Hammond & Associates Surveyors Martin S Lee MA MRTPI Harlequin Hollyman BA (Hons) MA James MRTPI Harris Lamb Chartered Surveyors Neil Franklin HBG Philip Rowley HBG Steve Gaskell HBG Sir Madam Health & Safety Executive, London Division Jenna Heaton Heaton Planning Ltd Graham Harrington Hepher Dixon Charlotte Baggins Hermitage Environment Group Mr. J.R. Leedham Higgins Homes Ltd Mr Paul Robinson Highways Agency
22 Madge Darby History of Wapping Trust M Dillon HKR Architects The Secretariat HM Prison Service Deputy Governor HM Tower of London James Stevens Home Builders Federation Ltd Sir Madam Home Office, Research, Development & Statistics Directorate Jonathan Sheldon House Builders Federation Sir Madam Housing Corporation, London Offices Sir Madam Howard Sharp & Partners Timothy Bryson Indigo Planning Colin Edwards Inland Waterways Assn Michele Antoniewicz J B Riney & Company Ltd Janet Lee Jackson Civil Engineering Group Kent Brainerd Jamestown Estates Ltd Sally Fletcher Januarys Lucinder Rogers Jesus Hospital Estate Residents Association Mrs A St. Croix Jewish Care Leo Epstein Jewish Traders Assn Graham Holmes JMP Consultancy Maggie Lynch John Grooms Housing Assn Mr John Sharkey John Sharkey & Co. Alan Cook Jones Lang La Salle Alexandra Jezeph Jones Lang LaSalle Gareth Fairweather Jones Lang LaSalle Ms Hannah Murray Jones Lang LaSalle Chair Person Kith & Kids J Talbot Knight Frank LLP Matthew Claxton MRTPI Knight Frank LLP C Hart Knight Frank LLP
23 Kevin Flanagan Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates Sir Madam Kyriakides & Braier Solicitors Planning Department L.B Barking & Dagenham Planning Department L.B Barnet Planning Department L.B Bexley Ms Alice Ng L.B Brent Planning Department L.B Bromley Planning Department L.B Camden Lewis Claridge L.B Corporation of London Planning Department L.B Croydon Planning Department L.B Ealing Planning Department L.B Enfield Steve Tyler L.B Greenwich Bob Dolata L.B Hackney Planning Department Planning Department L.B Hammersmith & Fulham Planning Department L.B Haringey Planning Department L.B Harrow Planning Department L.B Havering Planning Department L.B Hillingdon Planning Department L.B Hounslow Planning Department L.B Islington Planning Department L.B Kensington & Chelsea Planning Department L.B Kingston upon Thames Planning Department L.B Lambeth Brian Regan L.B Lewisham Planning Department L.B Merton David Whittaker L.B Newham Marc Dorfman L.B Redbridge Planning Department L.B Richmond upon Thames
24 Alison Squires L.B Southwark Planning Department L.B Sutton Planning Department L.B Waltham Forest Planning Department L.B Wandsworth Planning Department L.B Westminster John Brewster LABO RSL Daniel Land View Properties Adam Wilding-Webb Landmark Information Group Ian Henderson Landsbury Holdings Ltd Rob Gardiner Lankelma Mark Fisher Lawn Tennis Association Farah Al-Saffar LDA (Olympic Legacy Development Team) Emma Harrington Lea Rivers Trust Vilash Patel Learning & Skills Council Yvonne Folkes Learning & Skills Council Matthew Fletcher Learning Skills Council David Black Leaside Regeneration Phil Smith Leaside Regeneration Juliet Heap Leaside Regeneration Mr Owen Henry Leaside Regeneration Ltd Gary Tidmarsh Levitt Bernstein Liz Weaver BSc (Hons) Levvel Consulting Ltd Chintu Shah Lidl UK Matthew Topp Linklaters Sir Madam Local Agenda 21 Sir Madam London & Continental Stations & Property Sir Madam London Ambulance Service Planning Dept. London Chamber of Commerce & Industry Janet Goulton London City Airport Ltd
25 Ruth Bradshaw London Councils Ms Sarah Ebanja London Development Agency Chief Executive London Development Agency Mr John Fosbraey London Development Agency Charlotte Knell London Development Agency (LDA) Sir Madam London Energy Ross Hudson London Energy Partnership Sue Ellemby London Federation of Housing Assn's Sir Madam London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) David Brown London Fire Brigade Phillip J Green London Green Developments Ltd Mr Ian Kennaway London Historic Parks & Gardens Trust Dominique Graff London Rivers Association Rose Jaijee London Rivers Association Ben Keeping London Thames Gateway Development Corporation Dru Vesty London Thames Gateway Development Corporation John Allen London Thames Gateway Development Corporation Eamon Mythen London Thames Gateway Forum Richard Smith London Transport Giles Dolphin LPAC Andrew Taylor LSM Partners Michael Chambers M C Consulting Gavin Finnan MacCreanor Lavington Architects Ltd Mr C M Naris Magic Drinks Charlotte Williams Magri Developments Ltd. Sir Madam Manhatten Loft Corporation Ltd Martineau Martineau David McGrath McGrath Group Pat McGrath McGrath Group
26 Victoria Poland MEOTRA Sir Madam Merrir Design Partnership Rev. Peter Powers Methodist Church Daniel Miller Metropolis Business Publishing Greg Cooper Metropolis PD Matt Bailey Metropolis PD Helen Anderson Metropolis PD Director of Asset Management Metropolitan Police Property Services Emmet O'Sullivan Metropolitan Workshop Sir Madam Michael Ginn Associates Joan Griffiths Mile End Old Town Residents John Cray Millwall Labour Party The Chairperson MIND in Tower Hamlets Nazir Hafezjee Mitali HA Peter Kent MJP Architects Ms Carolyn Wilson Mobile Operators Association Ms Wendy Miller Money Maketing/Mortgage Strategy Mr Stephen Goldwater Montague Evans Chair Person Mudchute Park & Farm Sir Madam N Power Karl Hayer Nabarro Nathanson Ms Ruth Diggle Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Chris Creighton Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners on behalf of Pollard,Thomas & Edwards Nicola Kingston Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners on behalf of Roger Lewis Docklands (RLD Malcolm Hockaday Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners on behlf Cathedral Ms Alison McCrone Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners Peter Baird Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners Will Edmunds Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners on behalf of Lattice Property Holdings Steve Collett National Air Traffic Services
27 Sir Madam National Builders Federation Mr Brian Green National Grid Sir Madam National Playing Fields Assn Paul Lee Natural England Elaine Parker Network Housing Group Jakki Moxham Network Housing Group Chris Price Network Rail Katy Andrews New Lammas Lands Defence Committee William Du Plooy Newco Products Bill Henderson Newlon Housing Assn Mr Neil Blackshaw NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) Colin Mungie Noel Isherwood Associates Gillian Higginson North British Housing Assn Sir Madam North East Thames Arcitectural Society Alison Callard North London Ldz Ms Catherine Harrington Notting Hill Housing Chair Person NSPCC Meredydd Wynne-Edwards NTL Group Ltd The Chairperson Ocean New Deal for Communities Sir Madam Ofcom Sir Madam Office for Government Commerce David Williams Old Ford Housing Association Ms Angela Brenke Omega Works Scott Hammond Oracle Group Ltd James Farrar Oracle Residential Ltd Mr Hardeep Ryatt Orange PCF Ltd Andy Wilson Ordinance Survey Chris Purnell Orpington C.L.P. Mark Eisenecker PA Consulting
28 George Kalopedis Papa Architects Ltd Claire Martin Park Development Orla Gallagher PCHA Housing Assn Jon Milburn Peabody Housing Trust Mr Malcolm Walker Peacock & Smith Richard Gardner BSc, (Hons) Persimmon Homes (Essex) Ltd Mr D Rilley Phoenix Community Housing Russell Sykes Pinsent Masons Joan Fox Planning AID Philip Allard Planning Perspectives Holly Needham Planning Perspectives Robyn Blackburn Planning Potential Rosalyn Price Planning Potential Martha Covell Pool of London Parnership Chris Johnson Poplar HARCA Neal Hunt Poplar HARCA Rob Hannabuss Poplar HARCA Steven Sivell Poplar HARCA Steve Stride Poplar HARCA James Trimmer Port of London Authority Sir Madam Powergen Plc. Jay Jayasundara PricewaterHouse Cooper John Bell Project Architects Jon Mumford Providence Row Housing Assn Mr Tony Crisp Pupil Referral Unit Paul Edwards Quadropoint Ltd Nick Davie Queen Mary University of London TJ Simco MBE Queen Victoria Seaman's Rest Sir Madam Railtrack
29 Chris Price Railtrack Properties Anna Gillings Rapleys David Garston Renaissance Southend Mike New Rep. Royco RoyPark Mr George Galloway MP Respect The Unity Coalition Keith Revill Revill Consultancy Peter Fordham RIBA RIBA Mohammed Shahid Ali Robin Hood & Bazley St Tennants Assn. Ms Lucy Entecott Rolfe Judd Planning John Rosher Rolfe Judd Planning Tineke Kolfs Rolfe Judd Planning Jan Allen Royal Docks Partnership Mrs J Aspden Royal Mail Group Property Charles Rose RPS John Sidgwick RPS Karen Ellesley RPS Kie Farrell RPS Richard Walters RPS Sean Bashford RPS Sarah Adams RPS Faye Wilders RPS Planning Planning Dept. RSPB SE England Region Sir Madam Sainsbury's Energy Rob Hughes Sanctuary Housing Association Adam Wilkinson Save Britains Heritage Gordon Southgate Savills Ms Jennifer Kitson Savills Neil Rowley MRTPI Savills
30 Padraig Rynne BA (Hons) MA Savills Ms Tina Khakee Savills F. Macleod Savills (L&P) Ltd Abigal Downer Scapespace Stuart Schwartz Schwartz Holdings Ltd Michael Asten Scott Tanllon Walker Architects Charlotte Brooks Scott Wilson Sir Madam Scottish Power Jo Cutler Secondsite Property Sir Madam Seeboard Energy M.A. Matlib Senior Citizens Society David Patey Shaftbury Housing Assn Nick Spall Sheppard Robson Jacqui Roberts Shoreditch Trust Yemi Raiwe Shoreditch Trust Adrian Lee Shoreditch Trust Carolyn Clark Shoreditch Trust Myra Garrett Sidney Estates Tenants & Residents Assn Ms Paula Carney Signet Planning Mick O'Rorke Sir Thomas More Court Residents Association Yomi Adeuye Solon CHS Nicholas Jacobs SOM Jonathan Garston Southend Borough Council Sir Madam Southern Electric Martina Kennedy Southern Housing Group RSL M Litvin Spirit Quay Area Residents Association Jackie Remfry Spitalfields Community Assn Jill Cove Spitalfields Community Association Graeme Seely Spitalfields HA
31 Sir Madam Spitalfields Joint Planning Group Aziz Choudhury Spitalfields Small Business Association Edith Okoth-Awuor Spitalfields Small Business Association The Hon Secretary Spitalfields Society Sir Madam Spitalfields Trust Christine Frost SPLASH Peter Durrans Sport England Mrs. Elizabeth Lee St Vincents Tennants Assn Head Doctor St. Clement's Hospital Sir Madam Stephen & Maltilda Tenants Co-Op Sham Rujudawa Stephen Davy Peter Smith Architects A Malik Stepney & Wapping Local Service Centre Coral Manton Stern Thom Fehler Ms Laura Ross Stewart Ross Associates Sir Madam Stock Wolstencroft John Wollstencroft Stock Wolstencroft Eilish Mackay Stock Wolstencroft Chair Person Surjamuki Geoff Pearce Swan HA Gerard Phoenix Telow King Planning Martin Miller Terrence O'Rourke Plc Louise Ford Tesco Joe McDonald Tetlow King Planning Tina Hanks TH Business Forum Phil Waring Thames Digital Reprographics Carmelle Bell Thames Water Property Neil Smith Thames Water Property Ms J Vince Thanks Darling Mr Stewart Bush The Ansell House Residents Association
32 Rosy Awwal The BDC Mr Thomas Gere The Blackwall Way Residents Assn. Katie Adderley The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) Chair Person The Bubble Club Sir Madam The Crown Estate Ms Rebecca Grundy The Development Planning Partnership Dilowar Khan The East London Mosque Trust Ltd Lorraine Hart The Environment Trust Jon Aldenton The Environment Trust Mr Edwin Van Ek The Environment Trust The Library The JTS Partnership Rachel Nussey The London Diocesan Fund Paul Drury The Paul Drury Partnership Mr A M Allen The Planning Bureau Alexander J Bateman The Planning Bureau Ltd Jane Crass The Planning Bureau Ltd Mr Chris Pritchard The Planning Inspectorate Mr Christopher Snarr The Planning Inspectorate Sir Madam The Rail Freight Group Mr Simon Roach The Spark Centre (Banardos) Mr Gareth Harris The Spitalfields Trust Ms Rose Freeman The Theatres Trust Mr Errol Thom The Third Dimension Ministeries Emma Midgley The Wharf Sir Madam The Zeloof Partnership Peter Wall Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation Olawale O Duyile Tod Consult Chair Person Tower Environs Scheme Gary Jones Tower Hamlets Age Concern
33 Chair Person Tower Hamlets Coalition of Disabled People Mr Peter Exton Tower Hamlets Community Housing Ltd Mike Tyler Tower Hamlets Education Business Partnership Debashish Dey Tower Hamlets Law Centre Ron Osborne Tower Hamlets Leaseholders Assn Ms Lorraine Dooley Tower Hamlets Opportunity Group Chris Lovitt Tower Hamlets PCT Vivian Thomas Tower Hamlets Playgroups and Under 5's John Eastham Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust Martin Cussack Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust Heidi Jobling Tower Hamlets Victim Support Scheme Chair Person Tower Project Liz Pearce Toynbee Housing Assn Julie Breden Transport for London Felicity Wye Tribal MJP Jason Hobbs Tribal MJP Adam Smith Tribal MJP Sangita Unadkat Trowers & Hamlin Mr Stephen O'Brien Trust Offices, Block 1 Mr Mike Smoughton Turley Associates Bill Preston Turner FM Ltd David Cobb UCL Business Daniel Gilbert UCL Business Sir Madam University of East London Sir Madam University of East London Sir Madam University of East London Sir Madam University of East London Sir Madam Utilita Services Ltd. Sir Madam Utility Warehouse
34 Don Baker Valuation Agency Company Ms Hannah Philp Vincent & Gorbing Sybil Yates Wapping Pensioners Group Sir Madam Wapping Pier Head Conservation Area Assn Sir Madam Weavers Community Trust Carolyn Merion Weavers Fields Co-Operative Society & Tower Hamlet Matthew Duce West & Partners Mr David Moore West Ferry Printers Ltd Mr J W Wenman West Ferry Printers Ltd White Young Green Planning Joe Chambers William Sutton Trust HA Mark Willingale Willingale Associates Ms Alice Yates Wiltons Music Hall Sir Madam WM Morrison Supermarkets Sir Madam Womens National Commission Jason Larkin Wood Wharf Limited Tony Collins Wood Wharf Limited Guy Carpenter Woodseer & Hanbury Residents Assn Anthony Kingston Workspace Group Plc Richard Snowdon Workspace Group Plc Mr Ian Abram WSP Development Sir Madam Yeates Design & Architecture Mr Aliur Rahman Youth Parliament Dan Layton Zed Homes
35 Appendix 3 (Residents)
Forename Surname Forename Surname Forename Surname A Dougan Annie Watts Dino Patel A Lynott Atis Weatheralls Dion C Smythe A Khatun B Drew Donald Davies A Tremain B Leach Dr L Restrick A O'Brien B W Rawlings Dr Nick Fox A Dowse Belle Harris Dr Rory Linden-Kelly A C Kingsnorth Blythe Dunk Dr. Marijke Korteweg A D Cook Brendan Waterfield E Vorley A J Howell MBE Brian Lester E Radcliffe A. Johannson C Smith E S Onslow Abul Khair C Dowsing Eddie Stride Adam Cooke Charline Edwards Elaine McKenzie Adbul Haque Christine Frost Etilia Ebi-Eroro Ayaoge Agnes McMullen Christopher Rawlins F Shorts Alan Tobias OBE Christopher Blamey F. Xavier Roig Alan Piggott Christopher Vincenzi Fahima Khatun Alastair Hanby Clare Murphy Farhathafza Khan Alexandre Arino Furt D Howard Fazlur Rahman Ali Adan D Savage Fiona Thorn Alison Forbes D Hart Fiona McKeith Allan Cousens D G W Ballard B.A. (Hons) G Davies Allan Lyons Daniel Dineen G Main Amanda Handley Darren Olley G J Collins Amanda Richardson Dave Guppy G. Jacques Sasson Andrew Kilman David Galea Gary Waddup Andrew Wyatt David Chesterton Gavin Scott
36 Andrew Conway David Seex George John Bearman Annamaria Mignano Derek England Giles Downes Gina & Tim Wills John Armsby Marianne Lumholdt H Thurling John Hebert Marie Waterfield H W Ferguson John Winrey Mark Edward Taylor Ian Tilsley John Winney Martin Young Iqbal Hossain Julie Zielstra Martin Finigan Irene Lu Julie Godefroy Maureen Davies J Mcclory K Baldock Maureen O'Connell J Montgomery K Moreton Max Hickman J Mangan Kathryn Temple MD Shabbir Ahmed J Russell Katy Andrews Michael Dover J Parkin Kenneth Chi Michael Morris J Birch Kerrin Stuart Michelle Rowe J Grayson Khalid Mahmod Chishty Miss Dorothy Hannan J A Onslow KJ Tyrrell Miss G Davies J C Wiltshire L Cole Miss I Husbands J F Masseet Lamarche Mr Mayes J P Squibb Laurnet Marsan Mr Clarke Jacqueline Bradshaw-Price Leigh Bura Mr & Mrs Westwood James Steel Liz Swift Mr & Mrs Coleman James A Greenwood Louise Cotton Mr & Mrs Greenwood Jan Bros Luis M. Caicedo Mr & Mrs Harding Janice Cartwright Lynne Evans Mr & Mrs J Victory Jean Griffin M Osamel Mr Albert George Streat Jeanette Spinks M Beckett Mr Albert J Reed Jeffery Smith M F M Wright Mr Alex Dourish Jenni Boswell-Jones M J Walsh Mr Andrew Hubbard Jill Carrick M. Thompson Mr Brian Scott
37 Jim Fitzpatrick Marcos Zotes Lopez Mr C Edwards Joanne Emery Margaret Ferry Mr C J Wood John Alexander Maria Davies Mr D Marks Mrs B Lawrence P J Evans Mr D T Leonard Mrs Barbara Goodbody Patty Singleton Mr David Bayat Mrs E Stephens Paul Mancrief Mr David Lawrence Mrs E. Rice paul Wilks Mr Frank Phillips Mrs F Richards Paul Hicks Mr Gareth Harris Mrs J R Howlett Paula Arkell Mr Gianmarc Ciavarro Mrs Justine Cawley Pauline Garred Hines-Tabner Mr Hugo Crombie Mrs Patricia Jordan Peter PFXW Mr I Marks Mrs Rachel McCann Peter Fellows Mr Ian McCann Mrs S Grima Philip Aspden Mr Ian Atkinson Mrs Sandra Peters Philip Vracas Mr J P Gillespie Mrs T Connolly Philip Whitehead Mr J.B & Mrs A. Riney Ms A Brooks Ray Welsh Mr M Hall Ms Aiesha Rosita Ray Gipson Mr Paul Mihajlouic Ms Alison Ticher Reginald J Clarkrod Mr Peter Williams Ms Avril Ludlow Rev. Alan Green Mr Peter Downie Ms Betty Fittock Revd R Thorpe Mr Roger Barcroft Ms C A Moss Rhoda Brawne Mr S Brown & Mr M Dover Ms Caroline Paget Richard Quelch Mr Shafique Khan Ms Joan Smith Richard Higgings Mr Steven Baker Ms Katherine Swift Richard King Mr T & Mrs C Townsend Ms P Khan Richard Wand Mr T. R. Moore Ms Theresa Shiyanbola Robert Burton Mr Tom Ridge Ms Wendy Miller Roger Mills Mr Tony Fulham Myra Garrett Roger Chastell
38 Mrd D Drew Nancy Harrison Rogimio Tolentino Mrs Winch Neel Mookherjee Rose Gowler Mrs Corne Neil Sinden Rubiya Begum Mrs A McIelland Nina Tolstrup Ruhela Begum Mrs A Christofi P Richards S E Lewington Viri Pereira S P Brown Vivienne Cencer Sam Dowling William Stevens Sam Stork Xanthe Pitt Sarah Wrightson Yvonne Caunter Sharon Powell Sheikh Aliur Rahman Shelia Jones Simon Cawdery Simon Kempson Simon Wickert Sister Christine Stephen Beckett Stephen Joseph Stephen Plesniak Steve Lowe Stuart Robertson Susan Low T Fletcher Tayla Marx Terrance Austin Terry McGrenera Thompson E Potter jnr Tom Shearn
39 Tony Portacco Valdis Belinis Vanessa Green & John Langton Victor Stratton
40 Appendix 4 – Options and Alternatives Consultation Summary Report LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT
TOWARDS A SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR TOWER HAMLETS OCTOBER 2008
42 Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 5 BREAKDOWN OF REPRESENTATION RESPONSES 6 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS 8 The Strategy 9 Guiding Principles 10 The Big Spatial Idea 11 Option A – “Refocus upon our centres” 12 Option B – “Organic growth across the Borough” 15 Option selection commentary 17 Specific Options – spatial themes 18 Urban living for everyone 19 Supporting growth with infrastructure 22 Creating liveable and healthy neighbourhoods 24 Creating a green grid 26 Creating a bio grid 28 Creating a blue grid 29 Dealing with waste 31 Delivering successful major employment hubs 33 Making space for industry 35 Encouraging tourism 37 Growing creativity and culture 38 Making connected places 40 Creating attractive and safe streets and public spaces 42 Creating distinct and durable places 44 Creating a renewable energy grid 46 Working towards zero carbon built form 47 Where to from here 49 Strategy for places 50 Implementation, delivery, monitoring 51 Other Comments 52 LAP SPATIAL PRIORITIES CONSULTATION SUMMARY 53 APPENDIX 1 - RESPONDENTS
43 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 21 July 2008 the London Borough of Tower Hamlets published its Core Strategy Options and Alternatives paper for public consultation. The six-week consultation period ended on 2 September 2008. 1252 identifiable comments were received (including late responses) from 88 public, private and community organisations and individuals. 51% of responses were given by the private sector, 37% from the public sector, 11% from the community sector and 1% from others (residents, LBTH employees, etc.).
1% 11%
Private Sector Public Sector 51% Community Sector Other 37%
THE STRATEGY - OVERARCHING OPTIONS The document provided two options for the overarching strategy. These were comprised of: Option A: Refocus upon our centres To refocus on and reinforce a hierarchy of successful, rejuvenated and well-connected centres across the borough. These centres will be hubs for shopping, commercial, housing and civic uses. They will be important places for all members of the local community to access services. The centres will be located on main routes that are highly accessible by all forms of transport and by walking. The role, function and size of each centre will differ, reflecting an integrated hierarchy of centres across the borough and the region. The development of derelict or underused sites will contribute towards creating this pattern of use. Option B: Organic growth across the borough Allow ‘organic’ development-led growth that will facilitate a mix of uses across the borough. New places will emerge from individual development sites, as opportunities allowed, rather than being concentrated in particular locations. The density and intensity of new development will aim to maximise the use of each site. Appropriate uses for a site will be determined by the need to provide services to support the growing community. There will be fewer restrictions on the location of specific uses and density. Consultees were requested to respond to a series of questions presented for Options A and B: Is this your preferred overarching option? What do you like about Option A/B? Are there any aspects of Option A/B that concern you? Do you think Option A/B will help achieve the Community Plan 2020 vision? Do you think there is another approach? If so, what is that alternative approach? How would this help to achieve the Community Plan 2020 vision? Results indicated Option A had greater support than Option B. However, there were many requests to combine elements from both options in taking the overarching strategy forward.
44 3% 9%
Combination of Options A&B 38% Option A 22% Option B Neither option No preference
28%
SPECIFIC OPTIONS - SPATIAL THEMES Consultees were also asked to respond to a set of questions for each spatial theme: Do you agree with the overall approach (of the spatial theme)? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Responses were varied as expected but showed some common themes. The private and public sectors provided the largest proportion of comments; unsurprisingly given their greater proportion of total comments. Common themes included: A flexible approach to policy / strategy implementation; Acknowledgement of viability of a development, specifically when considering planning obligations contributions; Delivering quality vs. quantity on planning obligation issues such as infrastructure, amenity space, family housing and affordable housing; and Ongoing inclusion in discussions with the Council regarding strategy / policy development.
45 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the consultation paper was to consult with the public and stakeholders on the options and alternatives for the strategies within the Core Strategy. This information will be used to help guide the development of the Core Strategy and associated documents. Consultees were asked to give their views on the document and to respond to a number of questions relating to the Guiding Principles, the Big Spatial Idea, options for the Overarching Strategy and the 16 Spatial Themes. The majority of representations followed the question format of the consultation paper and were accompanied by general remarks and suggestions within an unstructured context. This summary consultation report considers and highlights the key issues raised. Where respondents did not follow the question format, any views received have been recorded and analysed under the relevant question(s). HOW THIS DOCUMENT WORKS This document aims to provide a concise and informative summary of the comments provided within the received representations for the Options and Alternatives document. Breakdown of Representation Responses – provides a numerical breakdown of the responses, defining the overall number of respondents and number of comments. Summary of Comments – Each comment summary states the questions asked to be addressed by the consultation document; a numerical breakdown of the responses according to sectors; a linkages diagram depicting relationships between the key response groups; and summaries of the key response groups in relation to the proposed questions.
46 BREAKDOWN OF REPRESENTATION RESPONSES The following table breaks down identifiable responses according to sector and by document section. Responses were noted from statements and inferred from supplementary text.
Private Public Community Total Other Sector Sector Sector Guiding Principles 48 20 18 5 5 The Big Spatial Idea 33 14 15 3 1 Option A – Network of interconnected centres 38 16 18 3 0 Option B – Organic Growth 25 15 10 0 0 Spatial Themes: 14 2 8 4 0 Urban Living for everyone 199 124 56 19 0 Supporting growth with infrastructure 98 55 35 8 0 Creating liveable and healthy 57 26 21 10 0 neighbourhoods Creating a green grid 79 43 25 11 0 Creating a bio-grid 26 5 18 3 0 Creating a blue grid 74 34 36 4 0 Dealing with waste 42 6 29 7 0 Delivering successful major 77 50 15 10 2 employment hubs Making space for industry 62 32 21 7 2 Encouraging tourism 41 25 13 3 0 Growing creativity and culture 32 11 13 8 0 Making connected places 90 49 34 3 3 Creating attractive and safe streets and 33 11 16 6 0 public spaces Creating distinct and durable places 46 27 12 7 0 Creating a renewable energy grid 48 26 16 6 0 Working towards zero carbon built 82 54 21 7 0 form Strategy for Places 4 1 3 0 0 Implementation, delivery, monitoring 4 0 4 0 0 Total comments 1252 646 457 134 13 Total percentage of comments 100% 51% 37% 11% 1% 1% 11%
Private Sector Public Sector 51% Community Sector Other 37%
Graph showing percentage distribution of comments relating to sector. OVERARCHING STRATEGY OPTIONS The document provided two options for the overarching strategy. These were comprised of: Option A: Refocus upon our centres To refocus on and reinforce a hierarchy of successful, rejuvenated and well-connected centres across the borough. These centres will be hubs for shopping, commercial, housing and civic uses. They will be important places for all members of the local community to access services. The centres will be located on main routes that are highly accessible by all forms of transport and by walking. The role, function and size of each centre will differ, reflecting an integrated hierarchy
47 of centres across the borough and the region. The development of derelict or underused sites will contribute towards creating this pattern of use. Option B: Organic growth across the borough Allow ‘organic’ development-led growth that will facilitate a mix of uses across the borough. New places will emerge from individual development sites, as opportunities allowed, rather than being concentrated in particular locations. The density and intensity of new development will aim to maximise the use of each site. Appropriate uses for a site will be determined by the need to provide services to support the growing community. There will be fewer restrictions on the location of specific uses and density. 54 respondents gave 58 identifiable comments relating directly to their option preference and / or alternative for an overarching strategy for the Borough: Preference Number Percentage Option A 16 28% Option B 13 22% Combination of both 22 38% Options Neither Option 5 9% No preference 2 3%
Please note that the information above only refers to comments directly stating support. Other levels of support and/or criticism may be inferred from accompanying text within the representations.
3% 9%
Combination of Options A&B 38% Option A 22% Option B Neither option No preference
28%
Graph showing percentage distribution of comments relating to option preference. The number of responses according to sector relating to the options for the overarching strategy are as follows: Sector Private Public Community Percentage 60% (35) 33% (19) 7% (4) This information can then be expanded for each option / alternative selection according to sector as follows: Preference Private Public Community Option A 18.5% (3) 63% (10) 18.5% (3) Option B 77% (10) 23% (3) 0% (0) Combination of 86% (19) 9% (2) 5% (1) both Options
48 Neither Option 60% (3) 40% (2) 0% (0) No preference 0% (0) 100% (2) 0% (0)
49 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
The Strategy Guiding Principles The Big Spatial Idea Option A – “Refocus upon our centres” Option B – “Organic growth across the Borough” Option selection commentary Specific Options – spatial themes Urban living for everyone Supporting growth with infrastructure Creating liveable and healthy neighbourhoods Creating a green grid Creating a bio grid Creating a blue grid Dealing with waste Delivering successful major employment hubs Making space for industry Encouraging tourism Growing creativity and culture Making connected places Creating attractive and safe streets and public spaces Creating distinct and durable places Creating a renewable energy grid Working towards zero carbon built form Where to from here Strategy for places Implementation, delivery, monitoring Other Comments
50 THE STRATEGY
51 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
OVERVIEW The questions proposed by the guiding principles section were: Do you agree with the guiding principles? Are there others we should be considering? A total of 48 comments were received, the breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 42% (20) 38% (18) 10% (5) 10% (5) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the guiding principles? / Are there others we should be considering? The comments were generally supportive with requests for a flexible approach, updated evidence bases and a focus on development.
52 THE BIG SPATIAL IDEA
OVERVIEW The questions proposed by the Big Spatial Idea section were: Do you agree with the spatial vision or BIG IDEA for the borough? Will this help us achieve the Community Plan 2020 Vision? A total of 33 comments were received, the breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 42% (14) 45% (15) 9% (3) 4% (1) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the spatial vision or BIG IDEA for the borough? / Will this help us achieve the Community Plan 2020 Vision? The comments were very supportive with requests for a flexible approach.
53 Overarching Strategy - Option A
“REFOCUS UPON OUR CENTRES”
OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this overarching option were: Is this your preferred overarching option? What do you like about Option A? Are there any aspects of Option A that concern you? Do you think Option A will help achieve the Community Plan 2020 vision? Do you think there is another approach? If so, what is that alternative approach? How would this help to achieve the Community Plan 2020 vision? A total of 38 comments directly relating to Option A were received. The breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 42% (16) 50% (19) 8% (3) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Is this your preferred overarching option?
54 The following tables indicate the number of respondents that indicated Option A as their preferred option. Support Option A 16
Please note that the information above only refers to comments directly stating support for Option A. Other levels of support / criticism may be inferred from accompanying text within the representations. Combination of both options 22 Neither option 5 No preference 2
What do you like about Option A? Supporting comments for Option A comprised a variety of topics, such as: Implement with a flexible approach to encourage appropriate development within centres; It would help to increase a sense of connection with a distinct area; It will enable town centres to be mixed use with a busy and vibrant environment whilst allowing other areas to be more quiet and residential; It will reinforce the ‘clustering’ of interconnected facilities supporting centres where businesses will be able to thrive; It supports the focussing of scarce resources for transport and other infrastructure onto ‘hubs’; It complies with the London Plan policy to strengthen the wider role of town centres; and It would provide a stronger base for the development of a Green Grid. Are there any aspects of Option A that concern you? Concerns included: The potential for this option to restrict development of brownfield sites outside of current town centres; The good levels of public transport access in the Borough (specifically the CAZ) suggest that development does not need to be confined to current centres; and It is inconsistent with the LBTH’s mixed use policy. Do you think Option A will help achieve the Community Plan 2020 vision? Limited responses were provided on whether Option A would help achieve the Community Plan. Do you think there is another approach? If so, what is that alternative approach? As indicated in the table above, 22 respondents suggested a combination of Option A and B to achieve LBTH’s proposed strategic objectives and the Community Plan 2020 vision.
55 Overarching Strategy - Option B
“ORGANIC GROWTH ACROSS THE BOROUGH”
OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this overarching option were: Is this your preferred overarching option? What do you like about Option B? Are there any aspects of Option B that concern you? Do you think Option B will help achieve the Community Plan 2020 vision? Do you think there is another approach? If so, what is that alternative approach? How would this help to achieve the Community Plan 2020 vision? A total of 25 comments directly relating to Option B were received. The breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 60% (15) 40% (10) 0% (0) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Is this your preferred overarching option? The following tables indicate the number of respondents that directly commented on their preferred option. Support Option B 13
Please note that the information above only refers to comments directly stating support for Option B. Other levels of support / criticism may be inferred from accompanying text within the representations. Combination of both options 22
56 Rejection of both options 5 No preference 2
What do you like about Option B? Supporting comments for Option B comprised a variety of topics, namely from the private sector. A selection includes: It would encourage enterprise and regeneration of brownfield sites; It would like achieve many objectives of Option A through organic growth; It is more likely to enable the creation of new centres; and It may be more effective at delivering new affordable housing; Are there any aspects of Option B that concern you? Concerns included: This option could lead to a decline in the Borough’s centres; Organic growth would have a negative impact on pollution levels and carbon dioxide emissions; and It is inconsistent with the London Plan’s policies to strengthen the role of town centres within London. Do you think Option B will help achieve the Community Plan 2020 vision? Limited responses were provided on whether Option B would help achieve the Community Plan. Do you think there is another approach? If so, what is that alternative approach? As indicated in the table above, 22 respondents suggested a combination of Option A and B to achieve LBTH’s proposed strategic objectives and the Community Plan 2020 vision.
57 OPTION SELECTION COMMENTARY 54 respondents gave 58 identifiable comments directly related to their option preference for an overarching strategy for the Borough. These comments were identified from the following sectors: Preference Number Percentage Option A 16 28% Option B 13 22% Combination of both Options 22 38% Neither Option 5 9% No preference 2 3%
Please note that the information above only refers to comments directly stating support. Other levels of support / criticism may be inferred from accompanying text within the representations.
3% 9%
Combination of Options A&B 38% Option A 22% Option B Neither option No preference
28% Final results indicated that Option A had a greater amount of support than Option B. However, there were many requests for the combination of elements from both options to successfully take forward an overarching strategy.
58 SPECIFIC OPTIONS SPATIAL THEMES
59 Urban living for everyone OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Strengthening neighbourhood well-being’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? This question attracted the most comments out of all the spatial themes – 199. A breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 62% (124) 28% (56) 10% (19) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? There was general support for the whole element but with a strong wish for a flexible approach across the issues and an updated evidence base. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Affordable housing
60 A large proportion of the commentary from the private, public and community sectors focused on issues relating to affordable housing. A breakdown of these is given below: Flexible approach – A need for a general flexible approach was indicated for the provision of affordable housing in the Borough. This was requested predominantly from the private sector but also from public organisations that suggested the London Plan target of 50% should not be applied to individual boroughs or to individual mixed tenure sites. Housing mix / tenure – Representations indicated a strong call for assessing the viability for the amount of affordable housing on new developments to determine the level of mix with residential units placed on the open market. In addition to this, responses asked for the local contact and site specific constraints to be acknowledged when looking at affordable housing levels. Concerns were also voiced by the community and public sectors for the need to avoid the creation of single tenure areas. A proportion of the private sector stated that it would be inappropriate to include minimum requirements of 35% affordable housing on individual sites while others noted that the London Plan target of 31,500 should be stated as a minimum. Generally it was viewed targets should be applied flexibly. However, public sector bodies welcomed the 35% target. London Plan exemption – The issue of seeking an exemption from London Plan Policy to allow for a small loss of affordable housing in housing estates in order to facilitate regeneration was supported by some private sector organisations. However, the view from the public sector was that an exemption was not necessary and any small loss of affordable housing could be facilitated within the London Plan policy framework. Funding – Representations from the private sector supported the use of a variety of funding streams to secure affordable housing but stressed the need to assess the viability of the level of affordable housing included in developments. Amenity Space A flexible approach in the provision of private and communal amenity space was supported by the private and public sectors to ensure high quality open space suited to the local context. Evidence Base Comments requested an updated evidence base, in the form of a Housing Needs Survey with reference to the London wide Strategic Housing Market Assessment, Sub Regional Housing Market Assessment and Blyth Valley decision.
Conservation The need to apply the principles of good conservation when converting heritage assets for new uses was requested. Family housing Flexible approach – A flexible approach to the provision of family housing was supported by both private and public sectors with an emphasis on reviewing sites on a site-by-site basis. Targets – There was a general objection to the application of a 30% target for larger homes in all new developments due to the potential inappropriate location of the site in terms of amenity space and other infrastructure facilities. Off site provision – Off site provision was suggested to help ensure a greater amount and better quality of family housing.
61 Priority – Comments were received from the public sector and the community that family housing should be made a priority for development. Gypsies and travellers Specialist housing needs relating to gypsy and travellers sites were supported, however the definition of the term ‘traveller’ was questioned. Housing targets General support for the provision of targets was shown; the private sector advocated regular reviewing and promoting the meeting and exceeding of targets. London Plan housing target – The London Plan housing target of 31,500 was supported by private and public sector respondents but questioned by the community sector in terms of the impact on quality of life within the Borough. Internal space standards Internal space standards received a significant amount of criticism from the private sector and some public sector organisations. Criticisms centred on standards restricting flexibility in developing sites and impacting on development viability. Separate SPD - Several representations suggested setting out internal space standards in a separate SPD. Key worker housing The demand for key worker housing was indicated to be important. Residential moorings Moorings for residential purposes were supported, specifically inline with the Mayor’s Draft Housing strategy. Student accommodation Comments were split between representations supporting the limitation of student accommodation and those against it. However, a common statement was for the support of identifying suitable locations for student housing. Other comments included acknowledging the need for graduate housing (linked with business activities at Canary Wharf) and acknowledging that student housing should not generate affordable housing requirements.
62 SUPPORTING GROWTH WITH INFRASTRUCTURE OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Strengthening neighbourhood well-being’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? A total of 98 comments were received, the breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 56% (55) 36% (35) 8% (8) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? The responses gave a positive view of the proposed strategies but with reservations regarding the implementation and distribution of planning obligation monies for new infrastructure development.
Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? New infrastructure
63 Standard charging mechanism - A mix of supporting comments and objections were provided for the development of a standard charging mechanism. These consisted of the following key remarks: Support for the development of a standard charging mechanism; The charging mechanism should be offered as guidance only; A standard charging mechanism should not be developed in advance of detailed provision of the forthcoming Community Infrastructure Levy of PGS; The charging mechanism should be treated flexibly and be developed in accordance with Circular 05/05; and The mechanism proposed, the amount, and the level of funding should reflect the community benefit required. Infrastructure plans should be published and be subject to full consultation prior to informing any standard charging mechanism. Planning obligations - Representations asked that planning obligations be used in line with Circular 05/05 and London Plan policies 6A.4 and 6A.5 and the spending of s106 monies be: Be delivered in a reasonable timeframe; and Should not be used as a means of securing infrastructure which should be otherwise provided by the public sector. Programme for infrastructure investment - This was supported by the public sector with the private sector requesting further detail on delivery and implementation. Safeguarding infrastructure Comments requested that justification is given for the protection of infrastructure and land for potential infrastructure where required within policy text. Evidence base Requests were given for a robust evidence base to inform the forthcoming Planning Obligations SPD.
64 CREATING LIVEABLE AND HEALTHY NEIGHBOURHOODS OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Strengthening neighbourhood well-being’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? A total of 57 comments were received covering a diverse range of topics. The breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 46% (26) 37 % (21) 17% (10) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? This section received a collection of disparate comments with varying degrees of support and criticism with a weak focus on aspects relating to restriction of development. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Car Parking Private sector commentary supported reducing reliance on the motor car through encouraging higher density development and in the implementation of car parking standards in a flexible manner.
Environmental improvements The community and public sectors were keen to support environmental improvements, with emphasis on: Addressing light pollution;
65 Improving peoples’ health and lifestyles; Improving air quality and noise pollution; and Street greening. Securing open space Overdevelopment A significant number of responses from the private sector objected to the proposal to develop a policy to restrict over development of a site. Conversely, community groups supported the suggestion. Sustainable transport Support was given by all sectors for investing in streets and spaces for walking and cycling to encourage sustainable transport modes. Noise pollution Noise pollution was identified by the public sector and asked to be acknowledged by the Core Strategy.
66 CREATING A GREEN GRID OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Strengthening neighbourhood well-being’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? A total of 79 comments were received covering a diverse range of topics. The breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 54% (43) 32% (25) 14 % (11) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? The private, public and community sectors showed support for the creation of a Green Grid but asked for a flexible approach during implementation. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Combination of Green, Bio and Blue grids Combining the Green, Bio and Blue grids was suggested to help foster a joined up approach.
Open / amenity space Responses referred to the following issues relating to open / amenity space
67 Open space standards - Flexibility in implementing the 1.2 hectares of open space per 1000 population for each residential development was requested referring to the high densities within the Borough and the value of providing communal open space versus private open space. Connectivity - Support for improving connectivity of open spaces was given by all sectors with a reference to the Lea River Park. Funding - Private sector responses asked that in negotiating a contribution towards open space as part of a s106 agreement, the Council should consider the impact on the overall viability of the scheme. Monitoring – Public sector bodies requested that a strategy for the monitoring and management of open spaces be put into place to safeguard them from encroaching development.
68 CREATING A BIO-GRID OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Strengthening neighbourhood well-being’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? A total of 26 comments were received, the breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 19% (5) 69% (18) 12% (3) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? The private, public and community sectors showed support for creating a Bio-Grid but asked for a flexible approach during implementation. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Combination of Green, Bio and Blue grids Combining the Green, Bio and Blue grids was suggested to help foster a joined up approach. Flexible approach to policy implementation The private sector asked that the Bio-grid be implemented in a flexible manner.
69 CREATING A BLUE-GRID OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Strengthening neighbourhood well-being’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? A total of 74 comments were received, the breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 46% (34) 49% (36) 5% (4) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? Support was given for the creation of a Blue Grid with some reservations relating to potential restriction of development and connectivity along the waterways. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Connectivity The subject of connectivity was frequently commented on with a variety of supporting comments and issue specific remarks: Floating walkways – Contrasting views were given regarding floating walkways. Support was shown to help access alongside waterways (e.g. canal footpaths) but concerns were raised over hindering water-based transport routes.
70 Public transport – Use of waterways for public transport was supported from all sectors with specific references to the Blue Ribbon Network. Thames path – Support was shown for the creation of a continuous Thames path to increase accessibility and also for health/lifestyle benefits. Waterside development A significant number of responses from the public and private sector specified issues relating to development alongside waterways. These included: Access and permeability – waterside mixed use development was supported by the private sector. However, concerns were raised about the permeability of these developments and safeguarding access to the waterways. Moorings – New moorings for residential and visitor uses were supported. However a request was specified to define where moorings would be appropriate. Heritage – Comments indicated a need to consider how potential development could affect the historic environment. Flooding Impact on development – Requests were provided that development not be resisted in flood risk areas, rather any development should demonstrate how the risk of flooding has been mitigated through design. Density standard – The implementation of a density standard for development in known flood risk areas was welcomed and criticised in comments from the private sector. Instead, a flexible approach was suggested. Leisure uses Making better use of the waterways for leisure activities in appropriate locations was supported. Water use and quality Water use – efficient use of water was supported with members of the private sector requesting that water use standards do not conflict with those set out in the London Plan and Code for Sustainable Homes. Water quality – references to the Thames Tunnel’s role in ensuring the quality of water were requested.
71 DEALING WITH WASTE OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Strengthening neighbourhood well-being’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? A total of 42 comments were received, the breakdown of responses from the different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 14% (6) 69% (29) 17% (7) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? General support was indicated and inferred from the comments with specific concerns regarding the clarification of the Council’s position on its waste development plan and potential sites for waste treatment facilities. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Joint Waste Development Plan Public sector bodies indicated the need for the Council to clarify its position on whether it will join its waste functions with another waste authority to pool their waste apportionments. Recycling Supportive commentary on recycling targets and facilitation of recycling was given.
Construction waste Community and public sectors suggested the need to ensure that construction, demolition and excavation are undertaken with the aim of minimising, reusing and recycling waste. Location of waste facilities
72 The selection of sites for waste management and disposal was requested to be defined with a commitment to safeguard all existing waste management sites. London Plan targets London Plan targets for recycling, self-sufficiency and Borough level apportionment for municipal, commercial and industrial waste were asked to be included. Water transport Comments were provided highlighting the potential use of waterways for the transport of waste within, and out of the Borough.
73 DELIVERING SUCCESSFUL MAJOR EMPLOYMENT HUBS OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Enabling Prosperous Communities’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 77 comments were received, a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 65% (50) 19% (15) 13% (10) 3% (2) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? There was general support for the proposals with a strong demand for a flexible approach when considering development opportunities. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? The representations commented on a variety of issues and a summary of grouped key comments is detailed below: Impact on potential development and development sites A significant proportion of responses were concerned with the potential effects of the proposals on development opportunities. Specifically these focused on office and mixed use development: Office development – Comments from the private sector supported the expansion of large floorplate office activities within specific areas such as the City Fringe and Canary Wharf. However those from the community were in opposition to this within the Bishopsgate and Tower Hill areas.
74 Mixed use – Objections were given regarding seeking an exemption from the London Plan mixed- use policy. These cited the need for a localised flexible approach and the need to acknowledge the funding relationships between residential and office development that would conflict with the objectives of the Community Plan. Local employment and training Comments were provided by private and community sectors supporting schemes to encourage training and recruitment of local people. Issues around funding for these schemes were also identified including the need to define priorities for planning obligations contributions. Olympics Support was indicated for improved connections from the Borough to the Olympics site in relation to the potential development of brownfield sites within the area. Evidence base The private sector felt a stronger evidence base was needed to inform the Core Strategy and suggested the Council carry out an employment land study to make more efficient use of underused employment sites. Flexible approach to policy implementation Concerns were shown by the private sector about the Council having a too prescriptive approach in policy implementation. A flexible approach was suggested to ensure efficient use of brownfield land in fringe areas.
75 MAKING SPACE FOR INDUSTRY OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Enabling Prosperous Communities’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 62 comments were received, a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 52% (32) 34% (21) 11% (7) 3% (2) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? The majority of the representations indicated support for the release of industrial land for a mix of uses with reservations regarding the release of Strategic Industrial Locations for housing. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? The representations commented on a variety of issues and a summary of grouped key comments is detailed below: Flexible approach to policy implementation A flexible approach was requested by the private sector to maximise opportunities for the redevelopment of underused brownfield sites. Evidence base Comments indicated a need for an updated evidence base in the form of an industrial land study.
Release of industrial land Strong support was given by the public and private sectors for the release of vacant industrial land for an alternative mix of uses. With regard to the Fish Island, Empson Street and Gillender Street
76 sites support was given for retaining these sites for a range of employment uses only and for the ‘industry plus mix’ approach. A mixed use development approach for Poplar Business Park was supported. Safeguarding wharves Public sector bodies highlighted the need to continue to safeguard protected wharves and that adjacent development should not have a negative impact on their activities.
77 ENCOURAGING TOURISM OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Enabling Prosperous Communities’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 41 comments were received a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 61% (25) 32% (13) 7% (3) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? General support was indicated for the suggested approach relating to hotel location and Olympic opportunities. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? The representations commented on a variety of issues and a summary of grouped key comments is detailed below: Hotel accommodation Support was given from all sectors for locating hotels within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and in Canary Wharf. The private sector also supported a flexible approach to the location of hotels within the Borough. Olympic related tourism A strong message of support to encourage tourism opportunities arising from the Olympics was shown from the private and public sectors but with a note of concern to ensure that the local community is not excluded from events.
78 GROWING CREATIVITY AND CULTURE OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Enabling Prosperous Communities’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 32 comments were received, a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 34% (11) 41% (13) 25% (8) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? The commentary showed support for the proposed approach with some concerns indicated for the distribution of planning obligation funds for affordable workspace over other needs such as affordable housing. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? The representations commented on a variety of issues relating to creative and cultural clusters. A summary of grouped key comments is detailed below: Protect and enhance Support was provided by all sectors to protect and enhance the Borough’s creative and cultural clusters. However concerns were given regarding giving priority to creative and cultural clusters above other industries. Affordable workspace Strong support was shown for the provision of affordable workspace, specifically within mixed-use development. Funding - The provision of funding for affordable workspace was indicated to need to be balanced against the overall developer contributions for affordable housing and infrastructure.
79 MAKING CONNECTED PLACES OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Designing a high quality city’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 89 comments were received, a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 55% (49) 38% (34) 3.5% (3) 3.5% (3) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? Comments received were supportive of the Council’s approach with a need to further clarify the Council’s position on the linkages between development and transport issues. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? The representations commented on a variety of issues, a summary of grouped key comments is detailed below: Car free development Car free developments were supported by the public and private sectors with requests for these to be considered on a site by site basis
Public transport Improving public transport accessibility was supported. Comments cited the DLR, Crossrail, East End Tram proposal, Tube and bus networks.
80 Canal transport - Proposals for canal based transport were welcomed for both public and freight transport. Flexible approach to policy implementation A flexible approach to policy implementation was requested by members of the private sector. High(er) density development Consideration was requested to be given to the potential for high density development to be accommodated at current or proposed transport hubs. Infrastructure improvements Private sector organisations gave encouraging comments for the Council to issue a programme of infrastructure improvements. Transport policy Public sector bodies suggested the inclusion of an overarching transport policy that would guide the transport aspects of development. Sustainable transport Improvements to sustainable transport networks were supported, in line with increasing permeability. Permeability - Increasing permeability of developments was supported by the private sector however it was noted that this may not always be appropriate depending on safety and security matters.
81 CREATING ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE STREETS AND PUBLIC SPACES OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Designing a high quality city’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 33 comments were received, a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 33% (11) 48% (16) 19% (6) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? Comments were broadly supportive of the suggested approach. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? The representations commented on a variety of issues, a summary of grouped key comments is detailed below: Car parking provision Commentary from the public and community sectors supported proposals for reducing the amount of available space to cars but noted that the potential impacts on the local economy should be taken into consideration. Cycling schemes Support for cycle hire schemes was given from the private sector with requests to take a flexible approach to implementation. Streetscene / streetscape A significant level of commentary indicated support for improving the streetscene / streetscape through measures such as designing out crime, improved lighting schemes, appropriate levels of street furniture and removal of excessive guard rails.
82 Public realm strategy Support for a public realm strategy were received, referencing caution on sanitising public spaces and the need to consider historical attributes within the local context.
83 CREATING DISTINCT AND DURABLE PLACES OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Designing a high quality city’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 46 comments were received, a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 59% (27) 26% (12) 15% (7) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? The strategy for creating attractive and safe streets and public spaces was strongly supported with a focus on the positive impacts that new development can have on built heritage. Reservations were given regarding implementing a too prescriptive approach. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? The representations commented on a variety of issues that focused on the value of local heritage and identity. A summary of grouped key comments is detailed below: Building for life programme A concern was indicated regarding the proposal to adhere to the principles of the ‘Building for Life’ programme given the voluntary nature of the scheme.
Sustainable buildings Reference was given to the role that sustainable buildings can have in creating distinct and durable places. Conservation Areas / listing of buildings Whilst support was given for the general appreciation and protection of historic buildings, places and environments concerns were raised that the Council may be suggesting enlarging
84 Conservation Areas. The approach was also criticised for increasing the use of local designation of locally listed buildings. Tower of London Protecting and enhancing the setting of the Tower of London was specifically referenced and supported. Impact on development potential The private sector commented on a number of issues that would potentially impact on development opportunities within the Borough. A number of comments requested that any strategy be implemented on a site-by-site basis to ensure new development can contribute to the historic environment. In particular, the potential for the beneficial reuse of historic buildings was stressed in line with PPG15.
85 CREATING A RENEWABLE ENERGY GRID OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Tackling climate change’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 48 comments were received, a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 54% (26) 33% (16) 13% (6) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? The overall principles was strongly supported but with a flexible approach. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Impact on the local environment Comments highlighted the potential impact of renewable energy sources on the local environment, specifically air quality, and the potential negative impacts on the local context and built form. Low / zero carbon development definition Clarity was sought regarding the definition of low and zero carbon development. Flexible approach to policy implementation A flexible approach was called for by the private sector in the implementation of renewable energy generating technology with reference to the London Mayor’s Energy Toolkit and other London Plan policies.
86 WORKING TOWARDS ZERO CARBON BUILT FORM OVERVIEW The questions proposed by this element of the ‘Tackling climate change’ spatial theme were: Do you agree with the overall approach? Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be? Have we missed any alternatives that could help us to where we want to be? A total of 82 comments were received, a breakdown of responses from different sectors is as follows: Private Public Community Other 66% (54) 27% (21) 9% (7) 0% (0) DIAGRAM OF KEY ISSUE GROUPS
KEY REPRESENTATION RESPONSES Do you agree with the overall approach? Support was provided for the principles of the suggested approach but elements of criticism included implementation of targets and designating specific areas for zero and low carbon development. Which of these will best help us get to where we want to be and have we missed any alternatives that could help us get to where we want to be? Targets The suggestion that the Council should seek greater than the current 20% of energy requirements for new development from on-site renewable energy sources was met with criticism from the private sector. However, it should be noted that some comments indicated that the 20% target should remain, subject to a demonstration of feasibility. Evidence Base Public and private sectors suggested that the Council expand its evidence base, specifically through the development of a Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy. Flexible approach to policy implementation A general flexible approach was suggested in implementing the strategy (specifically zero / low carbon schemes). Low / zero carbon zones Private sector commentary criticised the implementation of specific zero / low carbon areas, instead favouring a site by site approach using the Mayor of London’s Energy Toolkit.
87 88 WHERE TO FROM HERE…
89 A STRATEGY FOR PLACES IN TOWER HAMLETS OVERVIEW Four comments were provided relating to a strategy for places in Tower Hamlets: The need for a greater focus on the Borough’s heritage; Definition of the linkages between the hamlets and areas outside of the Borough; A joined up approach with the London Plan Opportunity Areas and Regeneration Areas; and Provision of an example of a places strategy.
90 IMPLEMENTATION, DELIVERY AND MONITORING OVERVIEW Four comments were provided relating to Implementation, delivery and monitoring: Request for an outline of potential implementation costs; Further information on the flexible monitoring framework; Request for further links to the Community Plan; and Identification of topics for inclusion within SPDs.
91 OTHER COMMENTS A number of comments were given that related to the document as a whole that could not be accommodated by other portions of the document. Once grouped into common themes, these comments looked at: Format of the document Clarity of proposals Site specific comments Timeframe and programming
92 LAP SPATIAL PRIORITIES CONSULTATION SUMMARY Affordable housing in successful neighbourhoods Focus new homes in growth areas There is a strong call from all the LAPs for more good quality, affordable housing that is affordable for local people. LAPs agreed that housing growth could be delivered from potential development sites situated within the Borough and also requested considering the potential for providing new homes in decontaminated industrial and waste land. A better mix of private (for sale) and affordable homes in our area and more family sized homes Family sized homes with large rooms were identified as a key requirement when providing new homes to address overcrowding, suggestions were also put forward to increase the provision of family homes in conservation areas. LAPs were keen to encourage increased levels of home ownership/part ownership to provide the incentive for residents to take more responsibility of their surrounding environment. The importance of using high quality materials to improve the aesthetics of buildings was also stressed. High rise residential buildings and exclusive private ‘enclaves’ were unpopular throughout the LAPs. With regards to interior quality and location of affordable homes on developments, LAPs wanted these to be on an equal footing to private homes. New approaches to estate regeneration A number of approaches were identified by the LAPs to estate regeneration which included, protecting open spaces as well as providing additional large parks and green spaces, improving accessibility, permeability and the public realm and importantly for homes to be brought up to the decent homes standards. LAPs rejected private estates as a new approach to estate regeneration as they tend to exclude local people. There were calls to increase, and considerately locate, infrastructure provisions to reflect rising population including providing youth centres on every estate. Better Connected Communities Better quality ‘public realm’ where people can come together LAPs were keen for more play areas for children and youth facilities which would also contribute to tackling anti social behaviour. Retaining existing open spaces as well as providing high quality spaces and ensuring the spaces were linked well was also highlighted by the LAPs as ways to improve the public realm. General improvements to public realm, in terms of connectivity, appearance and uses of space were also identified as necessary by the LAPs. Key popular landmarks need to be retained and improved.
Emphasise walking and cycling over car based transport There was strong support from the LAPs to increase cycle paths that are well designed and well connected, linking local places to each other and with key emerging sites such as the Olympic Park and High Street 2012. LAPs also expressed the need to improve routes for pedestrians as well as the need to consider the impact on pedestrians from motor and cycle traffic flows.
93 Address barriers to movement caused by main roads, badly planned estates and large vacant sites LAPs want to see improvement works carried out on underground stations throughout the Borough as well as more effective linkages on the bus network. There were also calls to improve interchanges and accessibility to transport nodes including improving safety within local areas to encourage more public transport use. Pedestrian linkages were identified by the LAPs as requiring further improvement to enhance the environment, particularly creating good pedestrian links across major roads and railways as well as walkways along the riverside and crossings over docks. Careful and considerate design and layout of developments was also pointed out as a means of reducing barriers. Tackling Climate Change Encourage more renewable energy LAPs expressed support for combined heat and power units in estates as well as incorporating renewable energy within new developments. However, there was some disagreement over the use of wind turbines with LAP 3 expressing preference for solar panels over wind turbines and LAP 5 advocating the latter. There was clear support for using High Street 2012 as a showpiece for renewable energy; LAPs were also keen to investigate how best to use the Olympic Energy Centre once the games ended. The need for more green fuel and electric car charging points was also identified. Reduce the number of car journeys The need to improve cycling and walking facilities to make using them easier as well as to encourage people to walk and cycle more was identified as an effective means to reducing car journeys. Improvements to public transport, including reducing the cost of using public transport, and locating new developments in highly accessible areas were highlighted as possible means of reducing car journeys, as were ideas such as introducing school buses and having shopping delivered to homes. Improve recycling and turn waste into energy for the Borough LAPs wanted more recycling points, at key community sites as well as recycling bins for business use and market traders to encourage more recycling. Vibrant town centres Establish a programme to regenerate our town centres There was strong support for better retail provision amongst the LAPs; however, there was some disagreement between certain LAPs on the issue of providing new supermarkets due to the impacts on the existing local economy. The need for a balance of markets and high street stores to cater for different communities was seen as necessary. A town centre in every ‘hamlet’ was suggested. Focus all new infrastructures in town centres Provision for youth clubs, sport centres and facilities have been strongly advocated by the LAPs, although they expressed the need for them to be sited away from crime hotspots and parks to reduce territoriality, with suggestions that existing social infrastructures also be moved away from individual estates and into town centres over time. Certain LAPs wanted to see the growth of a night time economy as well as local entertainment opportunities for young and old. Cultural facilities, including art centres, cafés and internet cafés,
94 workshops and health food shops were also popular suggestions among the LAPs, however LAP 1 did want a restriction on nightclubs in particular locations. Better coordinated streetscape improvements, crime prevention and street cleaning Litter dropping and reducing street clutter including bollards and railings were a few things identified by the LAPs that could improve streetscapes. Providing community based educational facilities, resource and drop in centres and health services were other necessities identified. The need to tackle anti social behaviour and to foster community pride was also put forward. Safer Communities Modern and well located Police accommodation There were strong calls from the LAPs for more Police Officers who possessed local knowledge and for more police stations located in town centres that are open 24 hours a day. Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT) need to be locally based and available after 10pm. Design out crime – improving the quality of the environment to reduce opportunities for crime Improved lighting was a popular suggestion amongst the LAPs as a means to reduce crime. Parks and open spaces were identified as places where improving the appearance and security would contribute to reducing opportunities for crime. Providing facilities for young people, including utilising empty spaces as places where they can gather as well as giving them a say in local community issues was identified as a key method in reducing crime. LAPs also highlighted that developments needed to be more considerate in their design to help to tackle crime. Linking estate renewal with the safer communities programme was suggested. Targeting crime and anti social behaviour hotspots LAPs identified a number of crime and anti social behaviour hotspots including boundaries with adjoining London Borough of Hackney, certain bus routes, specific streets and housing estates. The illegal trade of cigarettes and counterfeit DVDs in the boroughs street markets also needs to be addressed. Supportive communities Accessible service in accessible buildings – hostels, detox, day care LAPs have identified the need to provide more crèche, youth and play facilities as well as GP surgeries, preventive services and drug/alcohol misuse help centres. However LAPs have also expressed a need for the preventive service and drug/alcohol misuse centres to be monitored by SNTs to tackle street drinking and drug dealing focused around these centres. Plan for an inclusive Borough A number of issues were identified by the LAPs that would contribute to planning for an inclusive Borough, including ensuring all developments sites consist of mixed type and tenure of houses and where affordable houses are not pushed to the back of the development and are also of the same internal and external designs and specification as private homes. Gated developments were viewed by the LAPs as a hindrance to an inclusive Borough and should be restricted. Other suggestions included providing more open green spaces, community centres and entertainment facilities and opening up the riverfronts for local people. LAPs also wanted to see neighbourliness encouraged and promoted as well as more inter faith and inter generational opportunities and a greater acceptance of young people within the public realm. LAPs were also aware of and supported the need to tackle issues of territoriality and exclusion in many of the housing estates.
95 Promoting Healthy Lifestyles More active lives through cycle lanes, road improvement and access to green space There is a very strong call from all the LAPs to encourage cycling by making busy roads safer for cyclists as well as improving the current cycle lanes and providing new cycle links throughout the Borough, particularly along riversides and docksides. Enhancing pedestrian movements was deemed necessary by the LAPs, which called for preservation of good walking environments, making certain areas more pedestrian friendly whilst pedestrianising other areas completely. LAPs wanted to see assets, such as waterways, utilised more effectively whilst addressing poor open space provision. Reduce car journey with better public transport and easier access to services LAPs supported the idea of introducing more car free development as well as restricting parking permits to one per household. Improving access to town centres and public transport including enhancing links between areas severed by major roads and railways were further issues the LAPs wanted addressed. The idea of a community shuttle service was put forward. Reduce fast food outlets and increase access to health food options LAPs placed heavy emphasis on restricting new A3-A5 fast food outlets whilst encouraging existing ones to serve healthier foods. This should be supported by educating young people and the population in general on healthier alternatives and by supporting healthy outlets and training centres for healthy eating. Mental wellbeing Better designs of buildings There is a general disapproval of tall buildings, with calls to limit them to clusters in the City fringe, however they should also accommodate affordable housing for local people. LAPs were keen for buildings to be designed so that they are more aesthetically pleasing but at the same time sensitive to local context. Competition for iconic designs were suggested as a method to improve designs. Concerns were raised about the Borough’s heritage buildings, with calls for them to be better protected including listing all dock walls, fittings etc. The protection of open and green spaces and providing better quality open spaces in housing development was highlighted as was managing riverside walkway amenities. Access to nature, rivers and open spaces Provision, accessibility, maintenance and safety of open and green spaces need to improve to ensure all local people are able to use open green spaces. LAPs also wanted provision for growing space and allotments. LAPs have shown a strong desire for greater access to waterside walkways, activities and facilities and for general improvements to such areas including creating more piers and providing cross river transport. Build sense of belonging through shared facilities, vibrant local centres LAPs are in strong agreement and advocate more shared community based facilities, including facilities for older people and religious facilities such as mosques, which could also be used to deliver local services. However, these should be based in renovated older buildings rather than building new ones.
96 Access to health services Address ‘unevenness’ of GP distribution There appears to be little issue with regards to the ‘unevenness’ of GP distribution, with only LAP 8 stressing the need for facilities to be more spread out and be more family orientated to retain families within the area and also be open 24 hours. LAP 2 pointed out that more dental practices are needed and that mental health facilities and talking therapies are non existence. Locate new health facilities in accessible places including Town Centres Suggestions from LAPs included ensuring services are provided within walking distance, providing mobile health services and free local bus services for elderly and sick people. Locate new health facilities where growth is highest LAPs identified a few existing areas which needs (free) health facilities and fitness centres, they also stressed the need to provide new facilities where residential development is taking place. Lifelong learning and skills High quality school: Improve number of places and access to all schools LAPs acknowledged the need for creating more places in existing schools as well as the need to provide new schools to cater for the growing population. There were also calls to improve transport links to enable children to go to schools outside of the Borough. Provide continuous learning opportunities so everyone can learn basic and new skills LAPs strongly advocated the need for improving and creating adult learning facilities and opportunities. LAPs also want further improvement for opportunities for volunteering and work placements as well as encouraging commercial businesses to employ local people. Make better use of school space – playing field, community learning space LAPs supported opening up school facilities out of hours for use by the local community. They also acknowledge the need for more school places particularly at nursery level as well as the need to provide more playgrounds for school and community use. Reducing worklessness Sustainable transport links to places of work LAPs have suggested a number of improvements and enhancements to transport connections, routes and stations, including improvements to Shoreditch High St Station, creating a new Central Line station at Fairfield Road, improving access to the DLR between Bow Church and Pudding Mill and improving bus route 488 as well as reopening disused overland railways. LAPs have also identified a shortage of manual work and middle range opportunities that do not require extensive academic qualification. LAPs would also like to see new employers introduced to the Council’s Skillsmatch service to encourage more local employment. Focus back to work programmes on area with most deprivation LAPs acknowledged the pressing need to get more local people back into work, suggesting a number of ways this could be achieved including, developing apprenticeship programme and incentives, providing advice and information as well as creating links with employers and encouraging more work placements as well as employers to recruit locally.
97 Support should also be provided to small scale employment projects in high unemployment areas as well as training people with skills to take up self employment. Fostering enterprise Maximising opportunities from the Olympic Games i.e. tourism LAPs were keen to maximise opportunities from the Olympic Games and as such have suggested that tourist attraction in Tower Hamlets like Columbia Flower Market are improved. LAPs were also keen on linking areas within Tower Hamlets with key Olympic sites such as the Olympic Park and High Street 2012 to act as a catalyst for regeneration outside the Park. However, this should not be at the expense of existing commercial centres, which should be retained. Provide a range of opportunities for enterprise – the right type of business space in the right place Support and encouragement should be provided for more small and medium local enterprises, start ups and farmers markets as well as supporting the creative businesses in and around Truman’s Brewery. People should also be encouraged to shop locally and residents should be enabled to run core commodity services. LAPs were against monotype areas, preferring areas to contain a mix of uses and services. Regenerate town centres as attractive placed to do business LAPs have highlighted that office spaces in the Borough are too expensive for local residents. They advocate the need to create and support business improvement districts and to promote key centres, as well as incorporating community training centres in new developments
98 APPENDIX 1 RESPONDENTS
Type On behalf of Organisation Community Fish Island Business Club Fish Island Business Club
99 JHERA (Jesus Hospital Estate Residents Community JHERA Association) Community LAP3 LAP3 Community OPEN Shoreditch OPEN Shoreditch Community Spitalfields Community Association Spitalfields Community Association Community Theatres Trust Theatres Trust Community UNITE Gerald Eve Other Friends of the Earth Friends of the Earth Other LBTH Employee LBTH Employee Other Resident Resident Other Resident Resident Other Resident Resident Other Resident Resident Other Resident Resident Other Resident Resident Other Resident Resident Alami International Ltd Private sector Alami International Ltd Private sector Ashbourne Beech/Asda Stores Ltd Jones Lang Lasalle
Private sector Ballymore Group Ballymore Group Private sector Barton Willmore Barton Willmore Private sector Bishopsgate Goods Yard Regeneration Ltd DP9 Private sector Brixton PLC DTZ Private sector Broadstone DP9 Private sector Canary Riverside GVA Grimley Private sector Canary Wharf Group Canary Wharf Group Private sector CEMEX Drivas Jonas LLP Private sector Commercial Estates Group GVA Grimley Private sector Derwent London DP9 Private sector European Technologies Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Private sector Galliard Homes Galliard Homes Private sector Glenkerrin (UK) Ltd DP9 Private sector Henley Homes Savills plc Private sector Home Builders Federation Home Builders Federation Private sector Land Securities Land Securities Private sector London Newcastle DP9 Private sector MOA - Mobile Operators Association Mono Consultants Ltd Private sector Molloy Properties DP9 Private sector Morley CBRE Private sector National Grid National Grid Private sector National Grid Property Ltd Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Private sector Neptune Group DTZ Private sector Network Rail Network Rail Private sector News International Montagu Evans LLP Private sector Pentland Savills plc Private sector Poplar Business Park (Workspace Group) GVA Grimley Private sector RoyPark (1988) Ltd GVA Grimley Private sector Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd Turley Associates Private sector Sir Robert Ogden Signet Planning
100 Private sector SJS Property Management Ltd Vincent and Gorbing Planning Associates Private sector St. Katharine's Investments LP DP9 Private sector Tameric Investments DP9 Private sector Tesco Stores Ltd GL Hearn Private sector Thames Water Thames Water Private sector Thompson Reuters GVA Grimley Private sector Valson International Ltd Revill Consultancy Private sector Woodwharf GVA Grimley Private sector Workspace Glebe Gerald Eve Private sector Workspace Group plc RPS Planning Private sector Yianis Group GVA Grimley Private sector ZOG Group Rolfe Judd Public sector Barts & London NHS Trust Barts & London NHS Trust Public sector British Waterways British Waterways Public sector City of London Corporation City of London Public sector City of London Corporation City of London Corporation Cleveland and East Thames Group and Public sector Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Southern Housing Group Public sector Coal Authority Coal Authority Public sector English Heritage English Heritage Public sector Environment Agency Environment Agency Public sector GLA GLA Public sector Government Office for London Government Office for London Public sector Her Majesty's Court Service DPP Public sector Highways Agency Highways Agency Public sector Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Lee Valley Regional Park Authority Public sector LFEPA Drivas Jonas LLP Public sector London Borough of Greenwich London Borough of Greenwich Public sector London Metropolitan University John Sharkey & Co Public sector London Metropolitan University Drivas Jonas LLP London Thames Gateway Development London Thames Gateway Development Public sector Corporation Corporation Public sector Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Public sector Metropolitan Police Authority CGMS Public sector Natural England Natural England Public sector Notting Hill Housing Notting Hill Housing Public sector ODA ODA Public sector Paddington Churches Housing Association DP9 Public sector Poplar HARCA Poplar HARCA Public sector Port of London Authority Port of London Authority Public sector Tower Hamlets Housing Forum Tetlow King Public sector Tower Hamlets PCT NHS Trust Tower Hamlets PCT NHS Trust
101 Appendix 5 – Options and Alternatives for Places Consultation Summary Report
102 103 This page is intentionally left blank
104 CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 INTRODUCTION 7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 8
COMMENT ANALYSIS 13
Setting the Scene 13 The Big Spatial Idea 13 Preferred Strategy 13
The Spatial Themes 14 Urban living for everyone 14 Supporting growth with infrastructure 16 Creating liveable and healthy neighbourhoods 16 Creating a green grid 17 Creating a blue grid 17 Dealing with waste 18 Delivering successful employment hubs 18 Encouraging tourism 19 Facilitating employment and improving education 20 Making connected places 20 Creating attractive and safe streets and public places 20 Creating distinct and durable places 21 Protecting and celebrating our history 21 Working towards a zero carbon borough 22
Places Plans 23 The places of today 23 Questions relating to paired LAPs and Places 23 LAP 1 & 2 contextual information 23 Shoreditch 23 Spitalfields 24 Bethnal Green 24 Globe Town 24 LAP 1 & 2 Emerging Spatial Strategy 24 LAP 1 & 2 Delivery Programmes 24
LAP 3 & 4 contextual information 24 Tower of London 25 Aldgate 25 Whitechapel 25 Wapping 25 Shadwell 25 Stepney 26 Limehouse 26 LAP 3 & 4 Emerging Spatial Strategy 26 LAP 3 & 4 Delivery Programmes 26
LAP 5 & 6 contextual information 26 Victoria Park 26 Fish Island 26
105 Bow 27 Mile End 27 Bromley-by-Bow 27 Bow Common 27 LAP 5 & 6 Emerging Spatial Strategy 27 LAP 5 & 6 Delivery Programmes 27
LAP 7 & 8 contextual information 27 Poplar 28 Poplar Riverside 28 Blackwall 28 Leamouth 28 Canary Wharf 28 Millwall 28 Cubitt Town 29 LAP 7 & 8 Emerging Spatial Strategy 29 LAP 7 & 8 Delivery Programmes 29
Implementation and monitoring / Strategic Sites 29 General Commentary 29 Document Structure 29
PUBLIC CONSULTATION EVENTS FEEDBACK EXECUTIVE 31 SUMMARY
WHERE TO FROM HERE 32 Commentary summary 32 Next Steps 32
APPENDIX - RESPONDENTS 33
106 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 5th February 2009 the London Borough of Tower Hamlets published its Core Strategy Options and Alternatives for Places document for public consultation. The six-week consultation period ended on 19th March 2009. The consultation on the Core Strategy Options and Alternatives for Places followed on from the consultation on the previous Options and Alternatives document in summer 2008. The Options and Alternatives for Places provided an update of the themes previously consulted on and placed them in a spatial context. It did this by setting out the themes at a borough-wide level and at a local ‘place’ level. It developed the themes by applying them locally to the 24 places of the borough, identifying delivery options and setting out a proposed implementation and monitoring methodology. Consultees were asked to give their views and to respond to a series of questions relating to each section of the document. COMMENTARY SUMMARY
1729 identifiable comments were received (including late responses) from 98 respondents. Representations were submitted by organisations in the public, private and community sectors and from individuals.
13%
7%
41% Community Sector Individuals Private Sector Public Sector
39%
Graph showing percentage distribution of responses relating to sector Comments varied in terms of topics, scale and location but with featured several common themes (please see table overleaf). Overall there was a general consensus of support for the strategy, specifically relating to The Big Spatial Idea and the approach to Application to Places. The following were the five most commented on Spatial Themes sections: Urban living for everyone 173 Delivering successful employment hubs 131 Supporting growth with infrastructure 87 Preferred Strategy 78 Creating a green grid 77 The following were the five most commented on Places: Fish Island 54 Whitechapel 39 Shoreditch 32 Aldgate 21 Bromley-by-Bow 21
107 Common themes related to: Olympics – role and connections Waste management facilities Crossrail – role and impact on development Industrial land release Affordable housing Location of employment uses Housing density Fish Island future development Family housing Public ream improvements Community Infrastructure Levy Pedestrian accessibility / permeability of areas Public transport capacity and affects on Planning obligations development Section 106 contributions Tall building location Open space provision Zero / low carbon development and areas Flood risk Renewable energy generation NEXT STEPS
Alongside the updated evidence base, the information provided by the representations and information provided by the consultation events are being used to inform the development of the next version of the Core Strategy and other LDF documents. This information is also being used to inform the development of other projects, strategies and programmes within the borough. For a 6-week period in late summer 2009 we will be seeking representations on the soundness of the next version. This information will be submitted to the Secretary of State to examine as part of the submission material. The following diagram indicates the next steps:
Feb 09 May 09 Sept 09 Dec 09 Spring 2010
Core Core Strategy Core Strategy Options & Strategy Call for Alternatives Drafting represent- for Places Adoption
ations Submission Examination
108 INTRODUCTION
CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES FOR PLACES DOCUMENT OVERVIEW
The consultation on the Core Strategy Options and Alternatives for Places followed on from the consultation on the previous Options and Alternatives document in summer 2008. The Options and Alternatives for Places provided an update of the themes previously consulted on and placed them in a spatial context. It did this by setting out the themes at a borough-wide level and at a local ‘place’ level. It developed the themes by applying them locally to the 24 places of the borough, identifying delivery options and setting out a proposed implementation and monitoring methodology. Consultees were asked to give their views and to respond to a series of questions relating to each section of the document. HOW THE CONSULTATION SUMMARY REPORT WORKS
This document aims to provide a concise and informative summary of the representations made for the Options and Alternatives for Places document during the 6-week consultation period (including hard- copies, e-copies and web-based responses). The principle source of information were: Comments received during 4 evening public consultation events; and Comments received during additional public consultation events and activities. The document is divided into the following sections: Statistical Analysis – provides a numerical breakdown of the responses, defining the overall number of respondents and number of comments. Comment Analysis – provides summary information for each section and includes any questions stated and summaries of the key issue groups. Public consultation events feedback executive summary – provides an overview of the information provided by attendees at the four evening consultation events. Where to from here – provides an overall commentary summary and gives details of the next steps for the development of the Core Strategy.
109 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The following table provides information relating to the total number of respondents by sector. Responses were noted from statements and inferred from supplementary text. RESPONDENTS
Community Private Public Individuals Total Sector Sector Sector Total number of respondents 7 22 44 25 98 % Total number of respondents 7% 22% 45% 26% 100%
7%
26% Community Sector 22% Individuals
Private Sector
Public Sector
45%
Graph showing percentage of respondents from different sectors RESPONSES The following table breaks down identifiable responses according to sector and by document section. Responses were noted from statements and inferred from supplementary text.
Community Private Public Section Individuals Total Sector Sector Sector Executive Summary 0 0 7 1 8 Setting the Scene 3 1 5 7 16 The Big Spatial Idea 2 2 9 11 24 Preferred Strategy 20 4 29 25 78 Urban living for everyone 16 7 100 50 173 Supporting growth with infrastructure 15 5 29 38 87 Creating liveable and healthy 10 4 20 18 52 neighbourhoods Creating a green grid 10 5 29 33 77 Creating a blue grid 1 3 29 39 72 Dealing with waste 7 2 18 30 57 Delivering successful employment 22 11 63 35 131 hubs Encouraging tourism 6 1 21 11 39 Facilitating employment and 1 1 16 10 28 improving education Making connected places 4 5 22 31 62 Creating attractive and safe streets 8 4 19 17 48 and public places
110 Creating distinct and durable places 16 8 33 18 75 Protecting and celebrating our history 12 2 13 13 40 Working towards a zero carbon 7 2 42 25 76 borough Application to Places 0 1 3 14 18 LAP 1 & 2 contextual information 5 1 1 11 18 Shoreditch 17 1 9 5 32 Spitalfields 11 0 1 1 13 Bethnal Green 6 1 7 4 18 Globe Town 0 0 0 15 15 LAP 1 & 2 Emerging Spatial Strategy 7 0 1 1 9 LAP 1 & 2 Delivery Programmes 0 0 0 0 0 LAP 3 & 4 contextual information 6 3 1 10 20 Tower of London 0 0 2 13 15 Aldgate 0 0 13 8 21 Whitechapel 0 8 11 20 39 Wapping 0 1 7 1 9 Shadwell 0 2 1 1 4 Stepney 0 1 0 4 5 Limehouse 0 0 2 8 10 LAP 3 & 4 Emerging Spatial Strategy 0 0 0 4 4 LAP 3 & 4 Delivery Programmes 0 0 0 0 0 LAP 5 & 6 contextual information 0 2 2 10 14 Victoria Park 0 0 0 3 3 Fish Island 2 15 13 24 54 Bow 0 1 0 5 6 Mile End 0 3 2 15 20 Bromley-by-Bow 0 2 9 10 21 Bow Common 0 0 6 10 16 LAP 5 & 6 Emerging Spatial Strategy 0 0 3 3 6 LAP 5 & 6 Delivery Programmes 0 0 0 1 1 LAP 7 & 8 contextual information 0 0 19 5 24 Poplar 0 0 4 14 18 Poplar Riverside 0 0 9 10 19 Blackwall 0 0 5 4 9 Leamouth 3 0 1 10 14 Canary Wharf 0 0 13 5 18 Millwall 0 1 12 4 17 Cubitt Town 0 2 3 4 9 LAP 7 & 8 Emerging Spatial Strategy 0 0 1 0 1 LAP 7 & 8 Delivery Programmes 0 0 1 0 1 Implementation and monitoring / 0 1 3 6 10 Strategic sites Document Structure 8 0 7 24 39 General Commentary 0 3 5 8 16 Total comments 225 116 681 707 1729 Total percentage of comments 13% 7% 39% 41% 100%
111 13%
7%
41% Community Sector Individuals Private Sector Public Sector
39%
Graph showing percentage distribution of responses relating to sector.
112
Public Sec tor Sector Private Individuals Sector Community
rbon borough rbon
istory a
h
our our
es
ng ac
pl
ards a zero c zero a ards
ble ble w
a
celebrati
ur
d
aces
d pl
and g
Working to Working
ntan inct
laces
rotectin dist p
P
g
n
in ts and public public and ts
t
o i e
Crea
onnected onnected
educat
gc
n
i ng m i
ov and sa fe stre fe sa and
Mak
pr e
m
i
ng touris ng
uragi tand nt
ting attractiv ting
yme a
Enco
o e
pl Cre
em wast
Section
g h
t
in
wi
at
t
grid
ng
i
cili e
a
F Deal
Comments relatingComments to Spatial Themes
n blu a ing
Creat Delivering successful employment hubs employment successful Delivering green grid green
a
g
in
at
Cre
e ghbourhoods
r i
u t
ruc
t
s
a
with infr with
h
able and healthy ne healthy and able
e
v
li
rategy
t g
in
rting growt rting
dea
po
lI
Creat Urban living for everyone for living Urban
up
S
Preferred S Preferred
cene Big Spatia Big
0 he
80 60 40 20 T
200 180 160 140 120 100 S the
ing
ett
S Number of comments of Number
113
Public Sector Public Sector Private Individuals Sector Community
own
tT t
Cubi
llwall i
M
Wharf
Canary
eamouth
L
Blackwall
Poplar
Poplar Riverside Poplar
on
m
Bow
- Bow Com Bow
End
le le i
M Bromley-by
ow
B
sland I
ish ish
F
ark
Sections P
a i
r
e o
Comments relating to Places to relating Comments
Vict
ehous
m
Li
ney
Step
dwell
ha
S
ping
p
Wa
hitechapel
ate
W
dg
l
A
don
fLon of
own
T
ower ower
T
lobe lobe
G
ds
iel f
Bethnal Green Bethnal
al t
pi S
0
60 50 40 30 20 10 Shoreditch Number of comments of Number
114 COMMENT ANALYSIS
SETTING THE SCENE
Overview This section looks at the comments received relating to information provided for the drafting process, international, national, regional and local influences and the relationship with the Local Strategic Partnership and the Community Plan. Questions Questions specifically referring to this section of the document were not provided. Key issue groups Support – high levels of support for the content of Setting the Scene were provided, specifically placing the Core Strategy in a wider context and linking it to other strategies and programmes. Statistics – comments indicated that the use of both GLA and Office for National Statistics were confusing. THE BIG SPATIAL IDEA
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to the Big Spatial Idea of ‘reinventing the hamlets’ and the emerging spatial vision for the borough. Questions Questions specifically referring to this section of the document were not provided. Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were provided for ‘reinventing the hamlets’ and the emerging spatial vision. Evidence base – references in the document to the Urban Structure and Characterisation Report document were requested. Strategic objectives – comments requested the need to include further information pertaining to environmental enhancements and social regeneration. THE PREFERRED APPROACH
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to the Preferred Approach – an overarching spatial strategy for the borough. It provides further information to the combining of previously stated Option A (refocusing on our centres) and Option B (organic growth across the borough). Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the town centre hierarchy? If not, what are the alternatives? Do you agree with the preferred overarching strategy? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups
115 Support – high levels of support were provided for the town centre hierarchy and the strengthening of centres with town centre uses. However concerns were expressed for the need for flexibility in defining town centre boundaries. Objections – comments continued in stating their support for the previous Option B. Columbia Road town centre – concerns were expressed regarding the designation of Columbia Road as a neighbourhood centre and what outcomes this may entail. Hackney Road – comments suggested that the eastern portion of Hackney Road should be designated as a town centre. Development – supporting comments were provided for the integration of elements of the previous Option B within the preferred approach to encourage regeneration of brownfield sites outside of town centres. Tower Hamlets Activity Areas – further information were requested for these areas. Density – supports and concerns were expressed for guiding higher density development to town centres. Evidence base – references to the Urban Structure and Characterisation Report evidence base document were requested. SPATIAL THEMES The Spatial Themes are applicable across the whole borough and follow on from the themes defined by the previous Options and Alternatives consultation document. They include: Urban living for everyone Supporting growth with infrastructure Creating liveable and healthy neighbourhoods Creating a green grid Creating a blue grid Dealing with waste Delivering successful employment hubs Encouraging tourism Facilitating employment and improving education Making connected places Creating attractive and safe streets and public places Creating distinct and durable places Protecting and celebrating our history Working towards a zero carbon borough URBAN LIVING FOR EVERYONE
Overview This section received the greatest number of comments (173) with a wide range of topics relating to housing. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the identified locations and intensity of housing growth? If not, what would be the alternatives? Do you agree with the indicated locations for new larger family housing? If not, what would be the alternatives? Do you agree with the overall approach to Urban Living for Everyone? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups
116 Support – high levels of support were shown for the general strategy of Urban Living for Everyone and the locations of housing growth. Affordable housing – comments included: Flexibility in implementing targets; Flexibility in tenure mixes; Ensuring all developments have an element of affordable housing; Affordable housing should be dependent on viability and deliverability of schemes; and Provision of off-site affordable housing and / or financial contributions. Amenity space – responses asked that the quality of amenity space is prioritised over provision of quantity. Density – comments included: The London Plan Density Matrix should be used as a guideline and densities be assessed by a variety of criteria; Medium to high density development is not appropriate across the whole borough; Indicative spatial designations should not undermine development opportunities; and Policies should seek to maximise the development potential of all sites. Population Growth and Change Model – should be used to inform housing development. Empty homes – comments indicated empty homes should be brought back into use. Family housing – comments included: Support for the identified locations of family housing but with greater clarification; Family housing should be spread across the borough; Locations should be focussed in areas of less intensive new housing and with good access to services; Support for locating family housing in central and peripheral areas of the borough; Policies should be implemented flexibly; and Locations for family housing should not include northern Millwall and Canary Wharf. Housing growth – comments included: Housing targets are indicated to be too high; Levels of growth indicated in Shoreditch do not correspond with those for the CAZ; Chrisp Street should not be identified as an area of less intensive housing regeneration; Diagrams need further clarification, and should state provision of actual housing growth figures; Housing growth should not be restricted on former employment land.
117 Space standards – responses requested that space standards are provided to have a high level of internal and external amenity space with regard to individual characteristics of the site and existing local provision. Student accommodation – comments included: Provide flexibility in provision between student accommodation and key worker housing; Ensure consultation with universities; To not limited the provision of student accommodation; and Locations should be focused around educational establishments. Supported housing – requests were given for the provision of housing for the homeless, vulnerable and elderly people.
SUPPORTING GROWTH WITH INFRASTRUCTURE
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to the provision of social and physical infrastructure. It received the third highest amount of comments (87). Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with focusing services and some infrastructure in town centres and other accessible locations? If not, what would be the alternatives? Do you agree with the preferred option for a location of a secondary school within Fish Island? Do you agree with the overall approach to Supporting Growth with Infrastructure? If not, can you suggest any improvements to this strategy? Key issue groups Support – support was shown for the general approach proposed for the provision of infrastructure. School provision – support was indicated for the provision of a new school in Fish Island. However comments also indicated concern that a new school on Strategic Industrial Land would be contrary to London Plan policy and that a more suitable location would be the alternative site at Southern Grove (Mile End) given current public transport connections. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – comments relating to the CIL requested more detailed information on implementation of the structure with many stakeholders asking to be further involved in its development. Other responses asked that indicative targets should be used and not state required amounts. Crossrail – further emphasis on planning obligations towards Crossrail were requested. Health facilities – comments relating to health infrastructure requested further linkages to be made between the benefits of leisure facilities to increase health and for further detail to be provided on the proposed types of health facilities. Location of infrastructure – support was provided for the proposed location of infrastructure in accessible locations and town centres.
118 Planning obligations – further information was requested on the implementation and structure of planning obligations taking into consideration viability and deliverability. Section 106 contributions – s106 contributions were supported, however a number of responses indicated the need for funds to be directed towards infrastructure in the immediate area of the scheme (referring to Circular 05/05) and that the agreements should be fairly and reasonably related in scale to development. CREATING LIVEABLE AND HEALTHY NEIGHBOURHOODS
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to the wider aspects of health, including noise pollution, healthy eating, air quality and promoting active lifestyles. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you support the proposals to reduce the over-concentration of take-away food premises? If not, what would you suggest as an alternative? Do you agree with the overall approach to Creating Liveable and Healthy Neighbourhoods? If not, can you suggest any improvements to this strategy?
Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were shown for the general approach of Creating Liveable and Healthy Neighbourhoods. Air quality – proposals to improve air quality were supported with comments requesting specific focus on areas along the Highway and the A12. Healthy eating – responses indicated support for improving access to healthy food however some comments requested actions to not be overly intrusive. Noise – proposals to address noise pollution were supported. Leisure – proposals to improve accessibility to leisure facilities and open spaces were generally supported. CREATING A GREEN GRID
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to the creation of the Green Grid with aims to improve open spaces in the borough in terms of quality, quantity, sustainability and biodiversity. It received 77 comments making it the 5th most commented section. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the safeguarding of existing open spaces? If not, what / where would you suggest? Do you agree with the requirement that new development which increases the living and working population of the borough contribute to the creation of new open space? Do you agree with the overall approach to Creating a Green Grid? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups
119 Support – high levels of support were shown for the general approach to Creating a Green Grid. Biodiversity – support was shown for the designation of biodiversity enhancement areas, however concerns were indicated that development may be restricted in these locations. New open space – comments included: Requests for emphasis on quality rather than quantity of open space; Contributions to new open spaces should be fair and reasonable; and A target for developments to provide open space should be provided. Safeguarding open space – comments were supportive and critical of safeguarding open space if the quality of spaces were able to be improved by a net area loss. Connectivity – improving accessibility between green open spaces was generally supported. CREATING A BLUE GRID
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to the creation of the Blue Grid with aims to create a network of high quality, accessible and useable waterspaces, reducing the risk of flooding and reducing water usage and improve water quality. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the proposed approach to improve access and connections to the waterways? If not, what alternatives would you suggest? Do you agree with the proposals for managing flood risk including using the Leven Road site as open space to act as flood water storage? If not, what alternatives would you suggest? Do you agree with the overall approach to Creating a Blue Grid? If not, how could it be improved?
Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were shown for the general approach of Creating a Blue Grid with specific references to mitigating flood risk, improving access to and quality of water ways. Leven Road site – support and objections were indicated for the proposals for the Leven Road site as a new green space for water storage flood mitigation measures. Flooding – strong support was shown for the prevention of flooding (including SUDS) with requests for development in flood risk areas to be designed to accommodate flooding rather than restrict development. Freight transport – comments indicated that using waterways for freight transport should be emphasised. Water efficiency – responses asked for further information on water efficiency for new developments.
120 DEALING WITH WASTE
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to the management of waste in a sustainable manner. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the proposed approach to safeguard all sites currently being used for waste management? If not, what alternatives would you suggest? Do you agree with the proposed preferred option of Fish Island South? If not, what alternatives would you suggest? Do you agree with the overall approach to Dealing with Waste? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were shown for dealing with waste in a sustainable and responsible manner. Location of waste sites – support was shown for the potential location of a waste site in Fish Island South. However comments asked for the Core Strategy to consider any impact on Olympic related development and Legacy Masterplan Framework. Safeguarding – commentary supported and objected to the safeguarding of waste sites. Objections questioned why waste related businesses should be safeguarded and waste sites operating under capacity should be redeveloped if possible. Recycling – responses supported the proposals for recycling, specifically the use of recycled material in construction. Waste Targets – comments requested that Core Strategy should set out the London Plan self-sufficiency and borough level apportionment for municipal, commercial and industrial waste. Waste management facilities – responses requested that waste management facilities should be well designed and should not detract from their surrounding areas. Waste to energy – comments asked that further work be carried out for the viability and deliverability of the waste to energy facility and network. General support was offered, specifically regarding connections between LBTH facilities and the Olympics waste to energy facilities.
DELIVERING SUCCESSFUL EMPLOYMENT HUBS
Overview This section looks at the comments relating supporting the local and regional economy, including provision and access to employment opportunities. It was the second most commented on section with 131 comments. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the proposal for the creation of a Tower Hamlets Activity Area? Do you agree with areas identified for Preferred Office Locations and Local Office Locations? If not, why not? Are there any alternatives?
121 Do you agree with the proposals to focus employment opportunities in identified town centres and fringe areas, rather than on the periphery locations? If not, what are the alternatives? Do you agree with the preferred option for reducing the amount of land allocated for SIL at Fish Island? If not, what are the alternatives? Do you agree with the overall approach of Making Successful Employment Hubs? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – support was indicated for the general approach to Delivering successful employment hubs. City Fringe – comments showed concern regarding the description of the City Fringe and should be further integrated with the spatial vision of reinventing the hamlets. Evidence Base – responses requested that the Employment Land Study should be comprehensively referenced within this section. Fish Island – the release of industrial land was supported within Fish Island, however comments stated that any release would need to be justified by a robust evidence base. Location of employment uses – locating appropriate businesses in town centres and fringe areas were supported and questioned. Olympics Media Centre – comments requested further emphasis on the legacy role of the Olympics Media Centre. Preferred Office Locations / Local Office Locations – comments were generally supportive but concerns were raised regarding restricted mixed-use potential and overdevelopment within these areas. SME – proposals for supporting SMEs were commended. THAA – support was indicated for the THAAs, with requests for further information on their role and location. ENCOURAGING TOURISM
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to supporting the growth of sustainable tourism. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Are there any additional key tourist destinations we need to add? Do you agree with the proposed preferred hotels locations. Do you agree with the overall approach of Encouraging Tourism? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – support was indicated for the general approach to encouraging tourism. Hotels – comments included: General support for development was provided; Potential for Olympics related development; and Wood Wharf to be a preferred hotel location.
122 FACILITATING EMPLOYMENT AND IMPROVING EDUCATION
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to improving skills, education and training while supporting the growth and expansion of universities. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the overall approach to Facilitating Employment and Improving Education? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – support was indicated for the general approach to facilitating employment and improving education. Universities – the university hubs were supported in comments. MAKING CONNECTED PLACES
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to improving access to places of work, learning, leisure and services. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you have any views on areas of opportunity for public realm improvements. Do you agree with the overall approach to Making Connected Places? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were shown in comments, specifically relating to pedestrian and cycling access and public realm improvements. Accessibility – responses were concerned with addressing barriers to pedestrian and cycling access and improved routes between destinations such as the Olympic Park and western areas of the borough. References to cycle parking standards in line with the London Plan were requested. Public transport capacity – comments indicated the need to consider transport capacity alongside access. Car parking – comments relating to car parking requested the inclusion of parking standards and a flexible approach in implementing these. Crossrail – further emphasis on the future impact of Crossrail was suggested. Freight – comments stated the need to include further information on freight transport and servicing. Olympic connections – further information on improved connections to the Olympic Park should be provided. Traffic management – comments requested that development should not result in an unacceptable adverse traffic and safety impact on local transport networks. Transport Policy – an overarching transport policy was requested for strategic guidance. CREATING ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES
123 Overview This section looks at the comments relating to improving access to places of work, learning, leisure and services. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the proposed locations for public realm improvements? If not, what / where are the alternatives? Do you agree with the priority areas for pedestrian / cycling improvements? If not, what / where are the alternatives? Do you agree with the overall approach to Creating attractive and safe streets and public places? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were shown in comments, specifically relating to pedestrian and cycling access, public realm improvements, Building for Life and High Street 2012. Accessibility – responses were concerned with addressing barriers to pedestrian and cycling access such as the A12, A13 and the River Lea. Public Ream – supporting comments included requests to include Secured by Design principles and improve signage across the borough. CREATING DISTINCT AND DURABLE PLACES
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to improving local identity, character, sense of place, building quality and identifying preferred areas for tall buildings. A large proportion of the comments were related to tall buildings. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the proposed potential preferred tall building locations? If not, what / where are the alternatives? Do you agree with the overall approach to Creating Distinct and Durable Places? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were shown in comments, specifically relating to tall building location, local views and identifying local characters of areas. Local landmarks – further information relating to the description and justification for choosing local landmarks was requested. Tall buildings – comments included: Objections and supporting comments for tall buildings; Tall buildings to be located outside of clusters and economic hubs where appropriate (such as Wood Wharf); Further detail and definition of ‘tall buildings’; and Supporting and critical comments of using tall buildings for legibility. Public Ream – supporting comments included requests to include Secured by Design principles and improve signage across the borough.
124 Local views – comments requested further information on local views with a mix of supporting and critical comments. PROTECTING AND CELEBRATING OUR HISTORY
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to conservation and heritage. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with identifying local views to help define the built form? If not, what are other alternative methods? Do you agree with the overall approach to Protecting and celebrating our history? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were shown in comments. Conservation – protection and conservation of heritage assets was strongly supported; however some comments requested that conservation areas should not be increased and new locally listed buildings should not be designated. Local views – comments requested further information on local views with a mix of supporting and critical comments. WORKING TOWARDS A ZERO CARBON BOROUGH
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to tackling climate change through the use of renewable energy and zero carbon development. Questions Questions stated within this section were: Do you agree with the proposed location of the Combined Cooling Heating Power Plants? It not, what / where are the alternatives? Can you suggest any areas in which the Council should identify potential energy action zones under the emerging Community Energy Saving Programme? Do you agree with the overall approach to working towards a zero carbon borough? If not, how could it be improved? Key issue groups Support – high levels of support were shown in comments. CCHP – while generally supported, responses requested that further information is provided for the location of the CCHP and heat main. Support locations for CCHPs included Fish Island South, sites adjacent to residential areas and sites adjacent to waterspaces. Development – comments stated that the rate of development is unsustainable. Flexible approach – comments requested a flexible approach in implementing zero carbon measures. Zero / low carbon development – comments requested a flexible approach in implementing zero carbon measures and objected to developments needing to undertake environmental assessments. Retrofitting – further emphasis on retrofitting current housing stock was requested.
125 Targets – concerns were indicated regarding the stated zero carbon targets and timelines; viability and deliverability were asked to be considered. Waste to energy facilities – comments supported the location and development of waste to energy facilities, however concerns were given for the use of the Olympic Park Energy Centre. Zero / low carbon areas – application of a rigid spatial designation for zero / low carbon areas was objected to citing restriction of development. Comments requested low carbon development should be assessed on a site to site basis.
126 PLACES PLANS THE PLACES OF TODAY
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to tackling climate change through the use of renewable energy and zero carbon development. Questions Questions specifically referring to the Application to Places sections were not provided. Key issue groups Issues stated within the representations relating to the Application to Places section were diverse however some common themes include: Flood protection; Level of detail; Support for visions; and Clarification on urban design terminology. QUESTIONS RELATING TO PAIRED LAPS AND PLACES
Common questions were asked for each paired LAP and for each Place. These were: Does the context information accurately describe each LAP X and X? Are any changes needed? Do you agree with the emerging vision for each Place? Are there any alternatives? Are you aware of any other opportunities that exist for each Place? Do you agree with the short term and long term objectives for each Place? If not, what are your suggested alternatives? Do you have anything to add to the Strategic Development Principles for each Place? Do you agree with the emerging Spatial Strategy for LAP X and X? If not, what are any alternatives? Are you aware of any other programmes, projects and / or strategies that need to be included within the emerging live delivery programme? LAP 1 & 2 CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
Key issue groups Support – comments indicated broad support for the contextual information. SHOREDITCH
Key issue groups Bishopsgate Goodsyard – responses requested further emphasis on the site; new development should include leisure facilities, open space, integration with the surrounding areas and development at an appropriate scale. Columbia Road – further clarification on its role was requested. Hackney Road – comments proposed the eastern section of Hackney Road should be designated as a neighbourhood centre in place of Columbia Road. Strategic Development and Design Principles – support was given for this section however some comments requested a less prescriptive approach and others
127 suggested further information on the potential for tall buildings and high density development. Vision – support was given for this section with further emphasis required for Bishopsgate Goodsyard. SPITALFIELDS
Key issue groups Brick Lane – responses requested that more connections to the north are depicted; emphasis on public realm improvements; and the management zone for Brick Lane should be extended northwards. Preferred Office Location – further clarification on the location of Preferred Office Locations was requested with objections towards the designation from the community sector. Strategic Development and Design Principles – support was shown for preserve or enhancing the urban grain of the area, however this was indicated to be in conflict with the Preferred Office Location. The principle of medium scale development for the area was also questioned. BETHNAL GREEN
Key issue groups Civic cluster – the community sector requested that the Bethnal Green Library is included within the indicated Civic Cluster. Town centre boundary – requests were given for extending the town centre boundary to include Three Colts Lane. Strategic Development and Design Principles – the inclusion of providing student and key worker accommodation was requested in this section. GLOBE TOWN
Key issue groups London Chest Hospital – comments supported the proposal for potential housing on the site if it were to be redeveloped but with a higher degree of flexibility. Proposals for social infrastructure were not supported. Waterways – potential appropriate development along the Regents Canal was supported as was improving the quality of the waterways and connections along them. LAP 1 & 2 EMERGING SPATIAL STRATEGY
Key issue groups Bishopsgate Goodsyard – comments requested further information on tall buildings to be included and that there should not a focus on the evening and night-time economy in the development. Housing – family housing was supported. Town centres – requests asked for Hackney Road be considered as a town centre in place of Columbia Road. LAP 1 & 2 DELIVERY PROGRAMMES No key issue groups were identified. LAP 3 & 4 CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
128 Key issue groups Mile End - Comments requested that the reference to Mile End is to Mile End Old Town, which is at the start of the Mile End Road. Support – general support was indicated. TOWER OF LONDON
Key issue groups Support – general support for the proposals was indicated with some further queries. Heritage – objectives to protect and enhance the Tower of London and its setting were strongly supported. Preferred Office Location – Concerns were expressed regarding the impact of large floorplate offices on the Tower of London and its setting. Public realm – improvements to the public realm to increase accessibility were welcomed. Vision – further linkages with strategic accessibility projects were requested. ALDGATE
Key issue groups Support – general support was shown for the emerging vision. Tall buildings – further information on Aldgate for a preferred location for tall buildings was requested. Higher education – support was given for utilising higher education facilities as regeneration drivers, however comments expressed the desire for higher education facilities to be included in long term objectives. Student accommodation – comments asked for specific references to student accommodation. Preferred Office Location – Concerns were expressed regarding the impact of large floorplate offices on the Tower of London and its setting. WHITECHAPEL
Key issue groups Support – general support was shown for the emerging vision. Public realm – support was shown for public realm improvements, specifically management and maintenance. Affordable housing – comments showed support for the provision of affordable housing, dependent on viability. Sainsburys – the importance of the Sainsburys site was indicated, in terms of retail provision and development potential. Royal London Hospital – further emphasis on the expansion of the Royal London Hospital was requested. WAPPING
Key issue groups News International site – support was shown for the short term objectives. Town centre – further clarification was requested for the town centre boundaries.
129 Accessibility – responses support the improvements in pedestrian/cycling routes but indicated a need to acknowledge security and safety measures. SHADWELL
Key issue groups Housing estate regeneration – housing estate regeneration was supported with a highlighted need for more affordable housing. Safety – safety concerns were expressed and public realm improvements welcomed. STEPNEY
Key issue groups Housing estate regeneration – housing estate regeneration was supported with a highlighted need for appropriate family housing. Green infrastructure – further greening of areas were requested north of Mile End Road. LIMEHOUSE
Key issue groups Waterways – comments supported the enhancement of the waterways including canals and Limehouse Basin with further emphasis on ensuring new development enhances heritage assets. Town centre – the proposed neighbourhood centre at Limehouse was supported. LAP 3 & 4 EMERGING SPATIAL STRATEGY
Key issue groups Higher education – requests for the inclusion of higher education facilities proposals were requested to be included. High Street 2012 – inclusion of High Street 2012 was requested. LAP 3 & 4 DELIVERY PROGRAMMES No key issue groups were identified. LAP 5 & 6 CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
Key issue groups Support – general supporting comments were received. Olympics – further emphasis on the Olympic Games was requested. VICTORIA PARK
Key issue groups Support – general supporting comments were received, specifically regarding enhancements to heritage assets. Olympics – further linkages to the Olympic Parklands was requested. FISH ISLAND
Key issue groups Preferred strategy – The preferred strategy of a mixed-use approach was highly supported by local residents and the private sector. Alternative option – the alternative option was not supported and further clarity and explanation was requested.
130 Industrial land release – concerns were raised regarding the proposed release of industrial land and that any release would need to be fully justified through an extensive evidence base including a completed Employment Land Study. Olympic Energy Centre – further information on the technical feasibility for making use of energy generated by the Olympic Energy Centre was requested. Schools – responses raised queries regarding the provision of schools on Fish Island given the proposed schools as part of the Legacy Masterplan Framework for the Olympics. BOW
Key issue groups Heritage – support was received for reinstating the historic urban street pattern and other comments requested further reference to the heritage assets of Roman Road market. Housing – support was given for the improvements to housing and provision of family housing. Olympics – Support was given for the reference to connecting Bow with Fish Island and the Olympic Park. MILE END
Key issue groups St. Clements Hospital – concerns were raised about the development of St. Clements Hospital regarding viability issues and safeguarding of listed buildings at risk. Housing – further emphasis on linking new housing growth with the emerging vision diagram of Mile End. Student accommodation – support was shown for student accommodation provision. Tall buildings – comments indicated that tall buildings in the town centre would not be supported. Town centres – support was shown for the designation of a town centre to attract investment and regeneration. BROMLEY-BY-BOW
Key issue groups Support – general support for the proposals was received. Industrial land release – reference to the Empson Street Strategic Industrial Location was requested and support by the private sector made for release of industrial land. Accessibility – support was provided for improving connections to the area but with further emphasis on addressing severance caused by the A12. Town centre – the proposed designation of the town centre as a neighbourhood centre was questioned with district centre preferred. BOW COMMON
Key issue groups Family housing – provision of family housing was provided, specifically on the Bow Common Lane gasworks site. Waterways – further emphasis on the role of the Limehouse Cut was requested, specifically improving the quality of the waterways and ensuring waterside development is integrated with the waterfront.
131 Town centre – the designation of the area around Devons Road DLR station as a new town centre was welcomed. LAP 5 & 6 EMERGING SPATIAL STRATEGY
Key issue group St. Clements Hospital – concerns were raised about the development of St. Clements Hospital regarding its potential for the location of a new secondary school. LAP 5 & 6 DELIVERY PROGRAMMES
No key issue groups were identified. LAP 7 & 8 CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
Key issue group Support – general support was indicated. Crossrail – responses requested that more emphasis is placed upon the future role of Crossrail. POPLAR
Key issue group Support – general support was indicated. Bartlett Park – representations requested that the proposed housing around Bartlett Park is of a higher density than stated; that the Church needs to be renovated and that the former Blessed John Roche School site is designated as a strategic site. Housing density – support was given for high density housing around Chrisp Street but concerns were raised regarding the proposals for low density housing around Bartlett Park. POPLAR RIVERSIDE
Key issue group Leven Road – comments relating to the current Leven Road gasholders site included: Objection to new open space; Request for the site to be identified as a Strategic Site; and Viability and development. Flood risk – support was given for the provision of new open space for flood water storage. Connectivity – comments indicated support for proposals to improve access across the A12 and further information on proposals. BLACKWALL
Key issue group Poplar Business Park – comments requested that Poplar Business Park is not designated as a Local Industrial Location. Robin Hood Gardens – responses indicated the need for phasing and viability assessment for the redevelopment of Robin Hood Gardens. LEAMOUTH
Key issue group
132 Support – general support was indicated. East India Dock Basin – comments requested further emphasis on the Lea River Park project and the need for improving biodiversity. Housing – references to housing were asked to refer to the Lower Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework. CANARY WHARF
Key issue group Support – general support was indicated. Tall buildings – comments supported the development of tall buildings. Strategic connections – comment supported further linkages with growth drivers such as the City Fringe and the Olympic Park. Town centre – comments requested that the town centre boundary be extended to include Wood Wharf. MILLWALL
Key issue group Support – general support was indicated. Tall buildings – comments relating to tall buildings asked for a flexible site by site approach to be undertaken. Development – responses requested that opportunities for development be maximised. CUBITT TOWN
Key issue group Town centre – the proposed redevelopment of Crossharhour as a district centre was support but with requests for a balanced mix of tenures. Housing – support was shown for the provision of housing in the north of Cubitt Town. LAP 7 & 8 EMERGING SPATIAL STRATEGY No key issue groups were identified. LAP 7 & 8 DELIVERY PROGRAMMES
Key issue group Wood Wharf – further clarification on the ownership and responsibility of the development of Wood Wharf was requested to be provided. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING & STRATEGIC SITES
Implementation and monitoring No key issue groups were identified. Strategic sites Key issue groups Fish Island – support was shown for the identification of Fish Island as a strategic site. News International – requests asked for News International to be designated as a strategic site. Leven Road – concerns were raised regarding Leven Road being designated as a strategic site.
133 GENERAL COMMENTARY
Overview Issues that could not be grouped within specific sections of the document were placed within this category. Key issue groups include: 2012 Olympic Games Representation / role within the Core Strategy Connectivity Flexible approach in implementing the Core Strategy DOCUMENT STRUCTURE
Overview This section looks at the comments relating to the structure of the document and suggestions for the structure of the final Core Strategy document. Questions Questions specifically referring to the structure of the document were not provided. Key issue groups Support – general support was provided for the overall structure and layout of the consultation document. Evidence base – references to the evidence base documents were requested. Health and well being – requests were made to further define and high light the health related aspects of the consultation document Language – comments asked for further clarity in the language and a simplistic approach in using terminology. Length of the document – comments indicated that at times the document was repetitive and too long. Maps – support was given for the use of maps and spatialising of information; however at times the scale was seen to be too small with non-essential information presented.
134 PUBLIC CONSULTATION EVENTS FEEDBACK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Council carried out four well-attended public consultation events with each looking at one paired LAP area. Feedback the events showed a strong level of support for the visions and objectives. Participants had many individual comments to make, but few where in direct opposition to the aims set out in the Core Strategy consultation document. Whilst each area had a broad number of similar themes emerging, the common themes in each paired LAP area were (in no particular order): LAP Areas 1&2 LAP Areas 5&6 Parks and open spaces Parks and open spaces Car parking Car parking Supermarkets Public transport Cycling Family housing Pedestrianisation Community and youth centres LAP Areas 3&4 LAP Areas 7&8 Parks and open spaces Parks and open spaces Public transport Car parking Waterways Waterways Cycling Family housing Low-rise/family housing Retail hubs Most of the conversation held around the tables focussed on the vision presented to the groups and the planning-related issues up for discussion, although a significant amount of time was spent discussing issues outside of the remit of the Core Strategy. These issues included many around perceptions of safety and crime related issues, as well as those around employment, youth services and public transport. As listed above, a number of key themes emerged throughout the course of these events; themes which went beyond place and LAP boundaries. Whilst some of these may have been expected, such as parks, open spaces and car parking, others focussed on issues more area specific, such as the strong support for making more of our canals and other waterways. Parks and open spaces were a recurring theme in nearly all of the place conversations, with participants calling not just for more open space to be identified but for existing space to be protected from encroachment, better maintained and developed in the future. This was identified as a key issue in 19 of the 24 places discussed. Housing, and in particular family housing, was also identified as a cross-boundaries issue with 19 of the place discussions featuring significant focus on this and nine of these highlighting family housing in particular as a priority. Over half of the discussions indicated car parking as a major issue, with many participants suggesting pedestrianisation of areas, particularly around market and retail centres, as something which would make a real difference. The expansion of cycle networks throughout the borough was also consistently support across all four events.
135 The waterways – both canals and rivers – were brought up time and again as an asset which is currently being vastly underused and should be both expanded and improved. Riverside walkways were very well supported, along with utilising the waterways for additional public transport.
136 WHERE TO FROM HERE
COMMENTARY SUMMARY The issues of commentary ranged widely in terms of topics, scale and location. Overall there was a general consensus of support for the strategy, specifically relating to The Big Spatial Idea and the approach to Application to Places. The following were the five most commented on Spatial Themes and Places: Spatial Themes Places Urban living for everyone 173 Fish Island 54 Delivering successful employment 131 Whitechapel 39 hubs Supporting growth with 87 Shoreditch 32 infrastructure Preferred Strategy 78 Aldgate 21 Creating a green grid 77 Bromley-by-Bow 21 Popular specific issues of comment related to: Olympics – role and connections Waste management facilities Crossrail – role and impact on development Industrial land release Affordable housing Location of employment uses Housing density Fish Island future development Family housing Public ream improvements Community Infrastructure Levy Pedestrian accessibility / permeability of areas Public transport capacity and affects on Planning obligations development Section 106 contributions Tall building location Open space provision Zero / low carbon development and areas Flood risk Renewable energy generation The majority of representations provided comments structured around each section but did not answer the questions directly. Other remarks were provided in an unstructured context. NEXT STEPS
Alongside the updated evidence base, the information provided by the representations and information provided by the consultation events are being used to inform the development of the next version of the Core Strategy and other LDF documents. This information is also being used to inform the development of other projects, strategies and programmes within the borough. For a 6-week period in late summer 2009 we will be seeking representations on the soundness of the next version. This information will be submitted to the Secretary of State to examine as part of the submission material. The following diagram indicates the next steps:
137 Feb 09 May 09 Sept 09 Dec 09 Spring 2010
Core Core Strategy Core Strategy Options & Strategy Call for Alternatives Drafting represent- for Places Adoption
ations Submission Examination
138 APPENDIX
RESPONDENTS
Organisation / Group / Individual:
Allan Wilson Ballymore Barts and the London NHS Trust Bellway Homes and Family Mosaic Housing Association Berkeley Homes Bishopsgate Goods Yard Regeneration Ltd British Waterways Broadstone Limited Canary Wharf Group Plc Caroline Paget CEMEX City of London Clifford Chance CMA Planning Costco Wholesale UK Ltd Criterion Two LLP and O Twelve Beckton Ltd Crossrail Ltd Derwent London Dominique Valmy Douglas Thackway East Thames Group and Southern Housing Group English Heritage Environment Agency Exemplar Developments LLP Fish Island Business Club GLA Glenkerrin GOL Graham Dunn GVA Grimley HCA / Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Henley Homes HUDU Hugh Clarke Iron Mountain Jago Action Group JHERA John and Jethro Kruger John Littman Kenneth Marshall Land Securities Laura Stokes LBTH 2012 Olympics Unit LDA
139 LDA Olympics Lloyd Brown London & Newcastle London Metropolitan University Luis Caicedo Mandy Fenton Martin Parker Matthew Randall McGrath Holdings Metropolitan Police Authority Michael Dover Michael O'Rorke Molloy Properties National Grid National Grid Property Holdings Ltd Natural England Neptune Wharf New Grove Co-Investment Partnership News International Limited Olympic Delivery Authority OPEN Shoreditch Paddington Churches Housing Association Pamela Glintenkamp Paul Mihajlovic Paul Moore Peter Downie Pirin Plc Poplar HARCA Port of London Authority Queen Mary University of London Royal Mail Roypark Ltd and Newstates Ltd Sainsbury's Supermarkets Savills Steven Baker Talya Construction Tameric Investments Tesco Stores Limited TfL Thames Water Tower Hamlets Housing Forum Tower Hamlets NHS PCT Tricia Wombell Trillium (Prime) Property Group Ltd Trinity Buoy Wharf Trust Turks Head Company Valson International Limited Wood Wharf Workspace Workspace Glebe
140 Workspace Group Plc ZBV (RMS) Ltd ZBV (Skylines) Ltd
141