Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation Statement by the Mayor of London in response to public consultation on the proposed establishment of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC)

8 December 2014 Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 3 Copyright Old Oak and Greater London Authority 8 December 2014

Greater London Authority Park Royal City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London Development London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk Corporation enquiries 020 7983 4100 Statement by the Mayor of London in response to public consultation on the proposed establishment of the Old Oak and Park Royal https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/general/old- Development Corporation (OPDC) oak-mayors-development-corporation

Mail: [email protected] minicom: 020 7983 4458 8 December 2014 Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 5

Contents

1 Introduction p.6

2 Statement of Reasons p.11

3 Response to other consultation comments p.28

4 Conclusion p.42

5 Appendices p.44 REPEATING REPORT TITLE GOES HERE 7

1 Introduction • Navin Shah AM (London Borough of Brent) Introduction The Further Alterations to the London Plan • Dr. Onkar Sahota AM, (London identifies the Old Oak Opportunity Area as Borough of Ealing) having the capacity to accommodate 24,000 new homes and 55,000 new jobs, and also the • the following Members of Parliament within Park Royal Opportunity Area as having the whose parliamentary constituency the capacity to accommodate 10,000 new jobs and proposed Mayoral Development Area will be 1,500 new homes. This capacity for development located: is linked to significant improvements in the • Andy Slaughter (MP for transport network including delivery of a new Hammersmith) High Speed 2 and Crossrail station, and the • Angie Bray (MP for Ealing proposed London Overground stations. Central and Acton) • Sarah Teather (MP for Brent Old Oak and Park Royal sit across three London Central) borough boundaries of Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham. To support delivery • the three London borough Councils on this scale the Mayor identified the need within whose areas the proposed Mayoral for a single, robust plan with clear direction Development Area will sit: and governance. Driving forward this scale of • Brent Council development is of strategic London importance • Ealing Council and for this reason the Mayor proposed the • Hammersmith and Fulham Council establishment of a new Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) for Old Oak and Park Royal • Any other person whom the Mayor considers it that would plan for, and support, this scale of appropriate to consult. regeneration. Section 197 of the Localism Act states that 1.1 Consultation requirements where the Mayor does not accept comments provided either by the London Assembly or Section 197 of the Localism Act 2011 requires the London Boroughs of Brent, Ealing and the Mayor to consult on a proposal to establish Hammersmith and Fulham, the Mayor must a Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC). The publish a statement giving his reasons for non- Act specifically requires consultation with the acceptance. In addition, the Mayor must also following bodies and persons: have regard to comments made in response by other consultees. This document satisfies that • Roger Evans AM, the Chair of the London requirement. Assembly; • the following constituency members of the This report includes the following sections: London Assembly within whose Assembly constituency the proposed Mayoral • Method of consultation Development Area will be located: • Overview of the consultation responses • Kit Malthouse AM (London • Statement of Reasons responding to comments Borough of Hammersmith and made by the London Assembly and the London Fulham) Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 9

Boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith • A press release was issued by the Mayor of respondents could not be directly notified. A and Fulham London on 24 June 2014 notifying people of copy of this leaflet and map are appended to • Response to other comments received the consultation this report • 55,000 leaflets were posted out across the • The information was made available on the 1.2 Method of consultation local area. Detailed consultation meetings were consultation section of the GLA’s website. held with London Assembly members and the • Adverts were placed in the following three As part of the Mayor’s proposal to establish three London Councils of Brent, Ealing and local papers; Brent and Kilburn Times; Fulham a Mayoral Development Corporation two Hammersmith and Fulham. Gazette and the Ealing Gazette. These consultation exercises were carried out: • Meetings were held with landowners; adverts notified people of the consultation, Government; and transport providers. explained the proposed changes to the Mayoral • The main public consultation ran from 18 June • Consultation events were held with locals and Development Area and provided detail on 2014 to 24 September 2014 interested groups including: where additional information was available. • Following comments received during the • Wells House Road Residents main consultation the Mayor proposed two Association amendments to the boundary of the Mayoral • Wellesley Estate Residents 1.3 Overview of consultation responses Development Area and a supplementary Association consultation was carried out from 5 November • College Park and Old Oak Main consultation 2014 to 26 November 2014 Residents Association • Island Triangle Residents For the main consultation a total of 309 Main consultation Association consultation responses were received. 211 of • Grand Union Alliance these responses were received via the online TfL Please note that in most cases respondents A detailed report, a proposed map and • Friends of Wormwood Scrubs consultation tool and 98 directly in writing to commented on more than one issue. questionnaire were consulted on. The following • Park Royal Business Group the GLA. The results in summary are: consultation exercises were carried out: • Harlesden Area Forum Supplementary consultation on proposed • Old Oak Housing Association • 95 respondents were in overall support boundary amendment • The above listed information was made • Shaftesbury Avenue and • 43 respondents were in overall support but available on the GLA website for public review Midland Terrace Residents did raise some specific questions, and/or For the supplementary consultation, a total of • Information was made available on TfL’s Association (a meeting recommend some changes to the proposal 247 consultation responses were received. The consultation website, including an interactive was offered but declined). • 135 respondents objected to the proposal results in summary are: consultation tool that encouraged respondents • 35 respondents were undecided to answer eight consultation questions, and • 4 respondents were in overall support of the gave the opportunity to provide any other Supplementary consultation on proposed proposed amendments comments boundary amendment Responses to the main consultation were • 3 respondents were in overall support but did • A consultation email was sent to a database of received from the following groups: raise some specific questions (approximately 300) residents, business, local A leaflet explaining the supplementary • 228 respondents specifically objected to the groups, public authorities and service providers. consultation was prepared and the following • 215 residents (a map showing the location is continued inclusion of Wormwood Scrubs This consultation email provided detail on the consultation exercises were carried out: included in appendix 3) within the proposed Mayoral Development consultation, the consultation timescales, and • 36 businesses Area. Of these respondents 201 provided their the process of providing comments either to • A leaflet explaining the proposed changes to • 35 responses from people representing local comments based on a pre-scripted email, which the GLA or TfL the proposed MDA boundary and the rationale groups included a concern about splitting Wormwood • The consultation was advertised on the TfL for this approach was sent directly to all those • 18 public sector (including Brent, Ealing and Scrubs from the Linford Christie stadium and page of the Metro newspaper detailing where that responded to the main consultation. 18 Hammersmith & Fulham) associated car park. further information could be found and how to respondents to the main consultation did • 5 respondents that did not provide any details respond to the consultation not provide any contact details and so these on who they were Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 11

• 5 respondents solely opposed the proposed removal the Linford Christie stadium, the hospital and the prison. Statement of • 9 respondents made neutral statements reasons Responses to the supplementary consultation were received from the following groups:

• 230 residents or people with a local interest • 12 responses from people representing local groups • 2 public sector (including Brent and Hammersmith & Fulham) • 2 businesses • 1 education provider Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 13

2 Statement of Reasons 2.12 Housing 2.1 Principle of an MDC and alternative • It was not clear how the proposed partnership governance models would be resourced In line with the requirements of section 197 2.13 London Assembly oversight of the MDC • The proposed MDC is considered to be a more of the Localism Act this section provides a The London Borough of Brent and Ealing appropriate governance model for the area for breakdown of the comments received from the 2.14 MDC establishment and timescales of supported the principle of the proposed MDC, the following reasons: London Assembly and the three relevant London operation but highlighted a series of aspects that needed • The establishment of an MDC would Boroughs and includes the Mayor’s response. further work. represent a step change in the profile for this 2.15 MDC structure and resources regeneration project and would help build The London Assembly Planning Committee The London Borough of Hammersmith and confidence with central Government and the responded on behalf of the London Assembly. 2.16 Minimising disruptions from Fulham objected to the principle of the private sector. This approach is confirmed The London Assembly supported the overall development proposed MDC and instead proposed an in the recently published Growth Task Force principle of establishing an MDC to meet the alternative governance model to support the recommendations; significant regeneration potential of the area. 2.17 Name of the proposed MDC regeneration of the area. The alternative model • The MDC would act as a single point of contact was a local authority led partnership with a for Old Oak and Park Royal, giving clear The following issues were raised by the three 2.18 Non-designated heritage assets board comprised of representatives from the leadership and direction for this nationally London Boroughs and the London Assembly: GLA, TfL, local resident and business groups important regeneration project. 2.19 Planning committee composition as well as representatives from the transport • The MDC would provide a dedicated team 2.1 Principle of an MDC and Alternative community and central government. The focussed solely on the planning, regeneration Governance Model 2.20 Proposed MDC boundary partnership would have some level of delegated and promotion of this area; decision making but key decisions would • The MDC would co-ordinate all public 2.2 Anti-Localism concerns 2.21 Proposed MDC objectives continue to reside individually with each of the authorities, service and transport providers and three local Councils with a potential to deliver a the private sector; 2.3 Board composition 2.22 Protection for existing industrial areas joint Area Action Plan. • The MDC would provide a catalyst for securing funding for strategic infrastructure investment; 2.4 Conservation Area consents and 2.23 Scheme of delegation and determining Mayor’s response • The MDC board and planning committee would proposals for enhancement planning applications create a single and streamlined decision taking The Mayor has considered these responses and function, ensuring timely and less bureaucratic 2.5 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 2.24 Supplementary consultation plans to proceed with the establishment of the decision making. The MDC would be able to MDC at Old Oak and Park Royal. address cross boundary issues, support the 2.6 Community involvement 2.25 Transitional arrangements relocation of existing businesses and support Upon review of the Hammersmith and Fulham’s infrastructure delivery; and 2.7 Detailed planning comments – density 2.26 Waste planning alternative model, the following concerns were • The MDC would have statutory planning and building heights proposals identified: powers to enable the production of a holistic 2.27 Future liability and robust planning policy framework to be 2.8 Detailed planning comments – local • Key decisions would continue to be made put in place quickly covering both Old Oak and character individually by each of the three local Councils Park Royal. This would include a new Local that would increase complexity of decision Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). 2.9 Detailed planning comments – making and timescales. The CIL tariff generated by development within infrastructure • The proposed arrangement would not the boundary of the MDC would be focussed sufficiently raise the profile of the area in line on infrastructure delivery in that area. 2.10 Detailed planning comments – local with its status employment • It was not clear how the proposed partnership arrangement would be established within an 2.11 Heritage applications appropriate timescale Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 15

2.2 Anti Localism concerns should have greater local accountability Mayor’s response • Residential community representative within its governance structures. Steven • Expert regeneration representative Hammersmith and Fulham Councils response Knight (Assembly Member) stated that Schedule 21 of the Localism Act 2011 makes • Expert education representative highlighted the desire to devolve more power elected representatives from each of the provision for appointments, by the Mayor, to • Independent business representative to local residents, giving them a greater say in affected boroughs should sit on both the the Corporation’s Board, and for the terms of policy formulation and delivery. Hammersmith MDC Board and planning committee and that such appointments. The Board must consist and Fulham Council expressed concern that it may be appropriate to adjust the make-up of a minimum of six people. Appointments In appointing Board members the Mayor must the establishment of an MDC would result in of the Board and committees to reflect the to the Board will be made by the Mayor. The have regard to the desirability of appointing a a more centralised approach with less local geographical coverage of the MDC, giving Chair of the Board must be appointed directly person who has experience, and has shown some accountability. greater representation to those boroughs that by the Mayor. The Board must consist of at capacity in a matter relevant to the carrying out are most affected. Nicky Gavron (Assembly least one elected member of each of the three of the Corporation’s functions, and must also be Mayor’s response Member), on behalf of the London Assembly relevant London Councils (i.e. Brent, Ealing and satisfied that the person will have no financial Labour Group, also stated that the Old Oak Hammersmith & Fulham). The Mayor may also or other interest likely to affect prejudicially the The proposed MDC structure supports the and Park Royal MDC Board and planning choose to appoint any other members to the exercise of that person’s functions as a member. requirements of the Localism Act 2011. In committee should have a formal place for Board as he considers appropriate. In response addition, the Mayor is keen to further bolster community representation and that in particular, to comments received during consultation with With regard to LBHF having two representatives local involvement by including local people on the MDC’s planning committee should be the following additional Board members are on the MDC Board it is considered that the MDC Board and giving the opportunity configured in such a way that results in genuine proposed: one elected member from each authority, for local people to sit on the MDC Planning influence for the local authorities. Nicky Gavron bolstered by the local community and business Committee. It is also proposed to establish a (Assembly Member), in her response on behalf • One local residential representative representation, provides appropriate and Community Charter that would commit the MDC of the London Assembly planning committee • One local business representative sufficient representation for authorities to to community consultation with local people. raised similar concerns in respect of local • The Chair of the MDC planning committee represent their communities. With regard to This Community Charter would be prepared and accountability, stating that there should be • One Network Rail representative unelected representation from the business, agreed in collaboration with local groups. significant efforts made by the MDC to ensure • One High Speed 2 representative education and transport sectors, it was that businesses, local residents and stakeholders • One un-conflicted independent business considered that such representatives would 2.3 Board composition are adequately consulted on an engaged into the representative provide useful experience and expertise to the planning process. Further, the London Assembly Board and should therefore remain. Brent and Ealing Council requested that there Planning Committee also stated that the Mayor should be representatives from the local should consider commissioning a short piece As a result, it is proposed the MDC Board will It is proposed that there would be a Senior residential and business community on the MDC of academic research to objectively assess the include the following: Officers group that the MDC team would bring Board. LLDC’s planning committee to inform planning reports and work to for review and discussion. decisions in the Old Oak and Park Royal MDC. • Mayor (or chair designate subject to London Ealing Council also proposed that there would Navin Shah (Assembly Member) also supported Assembly confirmation) With regard to the specific issues raised on the also need to be a Senior Officers group that the the perspective that there should be genuine • Elected Member Brent Council planning committee, please see paragraph 2.13. MDC should report to. consultation with residents and businesses in • Elected Member Ealing Council the area and that there should be a formal place • Elected Member Hammersmith & Fulham Hammersmith and Fulham Council requested for community and business representation Council at least two representatives on the MDC Board. within the MDC on either the MDC Board or • Greater London Authority representative Hammersmith and Fulham Councils response Planning Committee. Navin Shah (Assembly • Transport for London representative also objected to any unelected representatives Member) also stated that the three boroughs • Department for Transport representative sitting on the MDC board. should be adequately represented within the • High Speed 2 representative MDC governance structure and treated as equal • Network Rail representative All four of the London Assembly representations partners. • Chair of the MDC Planning Committee stated that the Old Oak and Park Royal MDC • Local business community representative Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 17

2.4 Conservation Area designation and Ealing Council has requested that they remain Should the proposed MDC Planning Functions would prepare and agree a Community Charter proposals for enhancement the CIL charging and collecting authority for Order come into force, the MDC would become in collaboration with the local community. This North Acton. the plan making authority for the entire Mayoral Charter would commit the MDC to a series of Hammersmith and Fulham Council stated development area, and consequently the CIL meetings with local people on a regular basis to that the status of existing Conservation Areas Ealing Council has also noted that in charging authority. In setting a future CIL the ensure local people are given opportunities to is unclear as part of the MDC proposal and setting a future CIL levy for industrial and MDC would work closely with the boroughs feed into the future planning of the area. The that the Council should retain powers for other employment uses within the Mayoral to agree an appropriate CIL level across the Charter would be reviewed on a yearly basis. conservation area designation. development area, that the MDC should have Mayoral development area. The MDC would due regard for the viability and should not stifle prepare its CIL in line with the CIL regulations. 2.7 Detailed planning comments – Mayor’s response development. In doing so the MDC would be very mindful of density and building heights proposals existing CIL levels for these land uses and the Should the MDC be established, it would take Hammersmith and Fulham Council requested need to ensure that future CIL levels do not Navin Shah (Assembly Member) raised concerns on the role of the local planning authority, which that they influence the prioritisation of adversely impact on development viability. about creating a ‘mini-Manhattan’ at Old Oak includes the power to designate conservation expenditure raised by the CIL charge. The and Park Royal and stated that development areas. The MDC as local planning authority Council also highlighted the need to be Decisions on the expenditure of CIL would be should be low rise and of a contemporary would exercise its functions subject to the involved in the preparation of the Development made by the MDC Board, which would have design. normal duties under the Planning (Listed Infrastructure Funding (DIF) study. representatives from the three local Councils. Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Mayor’s response To ensure comprehensive planning across Mayor’s response Over the last 12 months officers from all of the proposed Mayoral development area it is the three local Councils are already closely Residential density is guided by the London important to ensure that conservation area As set out in paragraph 9.12 of the consultation involved in the preparation of the Development Plan (2011) with further housing detail in designation is appropriately considered and report, the intention is that the Corporation Infrastructure Funding (DIF) study and will the GLA Housing SPG (2012). The OAPF will addressed as part of this process by the MDC. would become the local planning authority for continue to be. refine this guidance for the Old Oak and Park the area and in accordance with Section 206(2) Royal alongside undertaking comprehensive 2.5 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) of the Planning Act 2008 would therefore also 2.6 Community involvement infrastructure planning. Further detailed become the charging authority for its area. guidance for the location and distribution of Brent Council stated that transitional It is proposed that should the MDC become The London Assembly, Brent, Ealing and densities across the area will be developed arrangements for CIL should not apply in Brent the local planning authority it would start the Hammersmith and Fulham Council all raised during the production of the Local Plan as under regulation 63A of the CIL Regulations statutory process of consulting on and adopting questions about how the local community would alongside infrastructure planning. The Mayor if, before the MDC becomes the charging its own CIL. In the interim period before the be involved in the future planning and decision considers this to provide the appropriate authority for the area, a London Borough MDC adopts its own CIL, the MDC would not making in the MDC. guidance framework to deliver densities that Council: (a) had in place a charging schedule adopt, or apply, existing borough CILs. Instead, contribute to the delivery of successful and approved under section 213 of the Planning Act the MDC would use section 106 agreements to Mayor’s response sustainable mixed-use neighbourhoods. 2008; and (b) granted planning permission for secure financial contributions from applications a development, or received or issued a notice and the relevant CIL and section 106 regulations Community participation is a very important 2.8 Detailed planning comments – local of chargeable development in relation to a would apply to this process. For any applications tenet of the future planning for Old Oak and character development under regulation 64 or 64A of determined by a local authority prior to MDC Park Royal. Should the MDC be established the CIL 2010 Regs; then that London Borough Planning Functions Order come into effect, it is proposed that representatives from both Nicky Gavron (Assembly Member), in her Council shall be entitled to receive the CIL for CIL monies would continue to be paid to that the local business community and the local comments on behalf of the London Assembly the development to which planning permission authority, in accordance with Regulations residential community will be offered a seat on Labour Group raised the need for improving or notice of chargeable development relates – 63A and 64A of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as the MDC board and so will be closely involved in connections between new development and the as would be the case with Brent. In particular, amended). all future decision making. This approach would existing nearby communities. the London Borough of Brent requested greater also ensure transparency of decision making clarity on the transitional arrangements. with the local community. In addition, the MDC Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 19

Ealing Council pointed out that there is an is properly planned for and delivered. TfL are 2.11 Heritage Applications permission for the demolition of an existing existing local character that has developed over currently in the process of drafting a Transport building and its replacement with another many years that includes historic residential Study for Old Oak and Park Royal, which is Hammersmith and Fulham Council requested underlines the reasons why it is sensible for and that future development needs to respect looking at potential improvements at Willesden that Listed Building Consent applications would control over demolition within conservation existing areas. Junction. The GLA will continue to engage be best dealt with by the local Councils and areas to lie with the local planning authority. with Brent Council regarding the potential for a that there could be confusion in terms of the Mayor’s Response Crossrail station at Wembley Central. approach to Conservation Area Consent. 2.12 Housing provision

The Mayor envisages that the OAPF, and 2.10 Detailed planning comments – local Mayor’s response Both Hammersmith and Fulham and Ealing local plan, will include guidance and policy to employment Council raised concerns about the need for ensure positive aspects of existing character Once the MDC Planning Functions comes development at Old Oak to deliver affordable are reflected in the placemaking of future Nicky Gavron (Assembly Member), in her into force the MDC would become the local housing. Their response also highlighted the development. The OAPF will provide place- comments on behalf of the London Assembly planning authority for the area which includes impact that international investors can have based guidance for the areas within the Labour Group, and Ealing Council noted the responsibility for heritage planning. The MDC on delivery of new homes for Londoners and proposed MDC. Should the MDC be established, valuable role that affordable workspace and as local planning authority would exercise its that conversations with developers need to be the Local Plan will provide further guidance start-ups can play in the local economy and functions subject to the normal duties of the transparent to maximise affordable housing relating to character and context. the need to promote such uses. The London relevant Acts. delivery.which was reciprocated in Brent Borough of Brent stated that it was concerned Council’s response. 2.9 Detailed planning comments – that development at Old Oak will impact With Wormwood Scrubs prison removed infrastructure negatively on nearby town centres and that from the proposed MDC boundary, there The London Assembly Planning Committee to mitigate any potential negative impacts a are no longer any listed buildings within the and Labour Group highlighted the need for Steven Knight (Assembly Member) noted commitment is sought towards significant on- Hammersmith and Fulham part of the MDC area. the MDC to provide sufficient numbers of the importance of securing necessary social going High Street investment in Brent. types of affordable housing and secure high infrastructure to support the needs of In agreeing a future scheme of delegation quality residential development. Steven Knight development and for such facilities to be Mayor’s response with the local Councils, as to which planning (London Assembly) also stated that the Mayor delivered in a timely manner. This perspective functions the local Council would carry out must ensure that a sufficient proportion of new was shared by Navin Shah (London Assembly) The Mayor considers the delivery of new, fit- in the name of the MDC, there may be an homes are made available to local residents at who notes that social infrastructure is often for-purpose employment floorspace and the opportunity to consider the role of the local prices they can afford. The London Assembly neglected, or even scrapped on the grounds protection of viable employment floorspace to Council in performing this function, so long as Labour Group stated that the MDC’s local of commercial viability. The London Borough be critical to the long-term success of Old Oak this fits within the overall plan for the Mayoral plan should require that 50% of all new homes of Brent stated that Willesden Junction and Park Royal. It is envisaged that the OAPF development area. The scheme of delegation should be affordable. station should not have a reduction in will provide strategic guidance for the delivery would be agreed between the MDC and the local commuter services and that the station also of new employment floorspace to meet demand Councils separate to the Planning Functions Navin Shah (London Assembly) also promoted requires considerable early improvements and and protect existing employment floorspace in Order. A future agreement between the MDC the importance of affordable housing and investment. The London Borough of Brent also identified locations in consultation with land and the local Councils may include an agreement particularly the challenges of securing family requested support from the MDC and the wider owners and tenants. Detailed guidance for on how the MDC may utilise existing heritage sized affordable accommodation within high rise GLA/TfL family in lobbying strongly for Crossrail the management of employment floorspace expertise within the local Councils. developments. trains to stop at Wembley Central. and securing local employment, training and apprenticeships would be set out in the Local The previous requirement for Conservation Brent Council also stated that there was no Mayor’s response Plan. Should a MDC by established, impact on Area Consent for demolition of a building in reference to the treatment of New Homes nearby town centres and potential mitigation a conservation area has been abolished and Bonus and that they wanted reassurance that Work is already underway to identify the level mechanisms would be considered as part of replaced with a requirement for planning this would continue to be paid to the relevant of social infrastructure required to support evidence work in support of a Local Plan. permission. The fact that it is now possible authority to allow for the delivery of essential the development at Old Oak to ensure this to make a single application for planning services. Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 21

Mayor’s response 2.14 MDC establishment and timescales MDC, which would be funded by the GLA in 2.17 Name of the proposed MDC of operation the early years. This would be approved by the Should the MDC be established it would become Mayor as part of any decision to proceed with Ealing Council preferred the name “Old the local planning authority for the area and Steven Knight (London Assembly) stated that the establishment of the MDC. It is anticipated Oak Common and Park Royal Development would prepare a Local Plan. The Local Plan it is a matter of concern that the Mayor has not that the MDC would generate income from Partnership” because it felt it to be less would include planning policies on housing, set an end date for the proposed MDC, as this planning application fees and pre-application laden with the legacy of the LLDC and would affordable housing and place-making. These might result in planning powers being taken advice (subject to satisfactory amendments emphasise the partnership between the GLA, policies would be in general conformity with the away from boroughs in perpetuity. to existing legislation). The proposed OPDC TfL, Network Rail and the boroughs. London Plan. will be difference in scale and operation to the Mayor’s response LLDC. The Mayor envisages a more streamlined Mayor’s response In terms of the concerns relating to foreign organisation whose primary function is to deliver investors, recognising that this issue is not The work to secure the future regeneration for the planning framework and drive forward It is proposed to use the name Old Oak and unique to a single part of London, the Mayors Old Oak and Park, as set out in the Further regeneration. Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). Housing team is considering this issue at a Alterations to the London Plan, is likely to Alternatives were considered but it is felt that pan London level. The MDC would give due take decades. At this stage it is not possible 2.16 Minimising disruptions from the name originally consulted on is sufficiently consideration to implementing any policy to predict how long the Corporation might development succinct and clear to narrate to the wider public recommendations from the Mayor on this issue. be required. As such, the Mayor therefore the ambitions for the area. Any development management negotiations does not wish to formalise an end date for the The London Assembly Planning Committee regarding the delivery of affordable housing will Corporation. The Localism Act 2011 does not highlighted a concern that the scale of 2.18 Non-designated heritage assets be reflected in the relevant planning reporting require the Mayor to set an end date, but it development could have a potentially negative documents. does require that the Mayor ‘review, from time impact on existing communities both during Hammersmith and Fulham Council has stated to time, the continuing in existence of any construction and once development has been that the status of Buildings of Merit and The MDC will continue to engage with the local Mayoral Development Corporation’. The Mayor completed. The London Borough of Brent responsibility for management of the Local authorities on the issue of the payment of New proposes to conduct the first of such reviews by requested that in the future planning for the Register within the proposed MDC area is Homes Bonus monies. April 2017 and after this at such intervals as he area, consideration is given to the provision of unclear. considers appropriate. a distribution centre in Park Royal to alleviate 2.13 London Assembly oversight of the freight. Mayor’s response MDC 2.15 MDC structure and resources Mayor’s response Should the MDC be established, the existing The London Assembly’s Planning Committee has Steven Knight (London Assembly) stated that adopted development plans would still form requested an oversight role in scrutinising the it is important the long-term transformation of It is very important that any disruption during part of the development plan for the proposed proposed MDC. the area is not put at risk by any uncertainty both construction and the end-state are Mayoral development area and as such this over its future income stream, noting that in the carefully planned to minimise negative impacts. would include the local register, which forms Mayor’s response case of the LLDC, funding that had originally Should the MDC be established it would work part of the existing development plan. been allocated from central Government is now closely with TfL and the local Councils to prepare The proposed MDC would be a functional being withdrawn and the Mayor has been clear detailed construction logistics and transport 2.19 Planning Committee composition body and so the role of the London Assembly that outside investment will be sought to help plans to minimise disruption on the local and in scrutinising the Mayor’s functional bodies finance the MDC, opportunities for this may be wider area. This would consider the potential Brent and Ealing Council both stated that of the generally would operate in the normal way, limited. for a distribution centre in Park Royal. Early three planning committee options presented including scrutiny of its operations and budget. planning work has started through the Vision as part of the main MDC consultation, Option It is suggested that a sensible programme of Mayor’s response 2013 document. 1 was their preferred option. Brent Council scrutiny be agreed. noted that there should be an increase in the A structure and resource plan have been proportion of locally elected members on the prepared to ensure effective operation of the planning committee. Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 23

Hammersmith and Fulham Council stated that of The planning committee would also contain 2.20 Proposed MDC Boundary important both to mitigate potential impacts the three planning committee options presented other appointed members drawn from the Board and also to prepare a plan for the area that could as part of the main MDC consultation, the or stakeholders. The Chair of the planning Brent Council requested that the Northfields allow for sensitive enhancements to the Scrubs Councils preference was for Option 3 and that committee would sit on the MDC’s Board. site should be removed from the proposed MDC in line with the requirements of the Wormwood Hammersmith and Fulham Council should have 3 Appointments to the planning committee boundary. Scrubs Act. members sitting on the committee. would be carried out in a transparent manner and would have to be agreed by the Board. Hammersmith and Fulham Council requested This approach of having a clear long term The London Assembly Planning Committee In appointing any non-council or non-Board that Wormwood Scrubs, Wormwood Scrubs planning framework that considers Old Oak, sought assurances that the views of local people members to the committee, the Act requires that Prison, the Linford Christie Stadium, the Scrubs and how it relates to existing are canvassed and heard as part of the Planning the Mayor must consent to the appointment Hammersmith Hospital, Queen Charlotte’s and communities is important and necessary to Committee decisions and also that any potential appointee has Chelsea Hospital be removed from the proposed mitigate development impacts. The Wormwood no financial or other interest likely to affect MDC Boundary. Scrubs Act would not be altered and the The London Assembly Planning Committee prejudicially the exercise of the person’s Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust (WSCT) requested the Mayor to commission some functions as member. Representatives from the Mayor’s response would continue to govern the Scrubs. additional research into the optimal arrangement local resident and business community would be for a future planning committee. able to apply to be a member of the planning It is proposed to exclude land to the west of the It is important to note that neither the proposed committee. A406, located in the London Boroughs of Brent MDC or anyone else can do anything to the Mayor’s response and Ealing. This land includes the industrial Scrubs without the express permission of the As part of researching the proposed MDC, areas of Northfields, Water Road, Abbeydale WSCT. The MDC team would work closely Option 1 is the option preferred by two of the GLA officers have discussed potential Planning Road, Queensbury Road, North Circular Road, with the WSCT, and the local community, to three boroughs concerned, and it is proposed Committee arrangements with the London Brent Crescent and Park Avenue. This area is inform any future planning of the Scrubs. Any that Option 1 should be adopted as the planning Legacy Development Corporation and the local considered to be part of the Councils’ emerging proposals for the Scrubs would be in line with committee structure. It is considered that Councils of Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith regeneration plans for Alperton. the requirements of the Wormwood Scrubs Act. both Option 2 and 3 would result in complex and Fulham. In addition, as part of the main structures that would fail to achieve a single consultation people were specifically asked to It is proposed to remove Hammersmith Hospital 2.21 Proposed MDC Objectives and joined up approach across the Mayoral comment on the proposed planning committee Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital, Development Area. options. Given the level of research carried out Wormwood Scrubs prison and the Linford Brent and Ealing Council suggested several in considering the various Planning Committee Christie stadium from the MDC boundary as minor changes that could be made to the As set out in the main consultation report, options, the Mayor does not propose to it is recognised that these three sites relate regeneration objectives, and Nicky Gavron Planning Committee option 1 proposed ‘A commission a specific piece of additional more closely to communities to the south of (Assembly Member), in her response on behalf single planning committee determining planning research. Wormwood Scrubs and development proposals of the London Assembly planning committee, applications for the entire Old Oak and Park around White City and Wood Lane. and the London Assembly Labour Group made Royal area. The chair (or designate) of the The views of local people would be heard as part the following suggestions: Corporation board would chair the planning of the preparation of both the Opportunity Area It is not proposed to remove Wormwood Scrubs committee. The Committee would include six Planning Framework and the Local Plan. These from the boundary. Wormwood Scrubs is green • To protect and enhance the interests of existing additional members including one Councillor policy documents would be used to inform lung that provides people and wildlife with the businesses and residents from each of the three London borough the determination of planning applications. opportunity to enjoy green amenity space in • Securing a high quality sustainable councils.’ In addition, the local community would be central London. Wormwood Scrubs is proposed development consulted as part of the planning application to be kept as part of the proposed Mayoral • Ensure quality connections into the Each of the three London borough councils determination process and these views would be Development area A new High Speed 2 and surrounding area would have a councillor as their representatives presented to the Planning Committee. Crossrail station is planned on the northern • Identify support for a better connection from on the planning committee. This is considered boundary of the Scrubs, which would be a Crossrail onto the West Coast Mainline sufficient to ensure that the views of the catalyst for the significant regeneration to the boroughs are represented. land immediately to the north. As such it is very Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 25

• Retain waste management facilities to regeneration of Old Oak and Park Royal is 2.22 Protection for enhance existing The London Assembly Planning Committee safeguard London’s waste management accountable to Londoners, and is consistent industrial areas noted that the final scheme of delegation would requirements with the principles of localism; need to be agreed with the local Councils. • Ensure affordable housing provision with a mix • Safeguard and plan for the regeneration of The London Assembly Planning Committee and of tenures Park Royal as a Strategic Industrial Location, Labour Group highlighted the important role of Mayor’s response • Careful planning of the transitional ensuring investment that will improve existing existing industrial land in the Park Royal area arrangements operations, maximise the area’s industrial and its important role in the London economy. The Mayor recognises these concerns about • Minimise disruption to existing residents potential, and support the smooth transition of creating unnecessary confusion for applicants • Include local people and businesses in business and industrial relocations; Mayor’s response and the local community. The inclusion of any consultation and planning • Plan for Old Oak and Park Royal in a strategic such caveat, as mentioned above, would need • Ensure transparent decision making and holistic way that includes an integrated Should the MDC be established, it would to be individually agreed with each of local approach with the boroughs planning prepare a Local Plan that would seek to secure Councils. policy, planning decisions and Community the long term protection and regeneration of Mayor’s response Infrastructure Levy (CIL); this industrial land. The MDC would also work It is not proposed to change to the arrangement, • Maximise local and regional connections that closely with existing businesses in preparing as described above, that all planning The statutory objective for the MDC is to secure will see Old Oak become the most connected future plans. As noted in paragraph 2.5 above, it applications in North Acton would continue to the regeneration of the area, as set out in the station in London and the South East, and is proposed that a local business representative be determined by Ealing Council. Localism Act. The MDC Board will need to ratify support delivery of, a new station on the Great would have a seat on the MDC board. the final set of objectives and in doing so the West Mainline that would serve Crossrail 1, 2.24 Supplementary consultation Board will have regard to the detailed objectives a new High Speed 2 (HS2) station, future 2.23 Scheme of Delegation and consulted on and the comments received during London Overground station(s), local public determining planning applications Hammersmith and Fulham Council supported the public consultation. transport including buses, cycling and highway the proposed removal of Wormwood Scrubs improvements; Brent and Ealing Council stated that the Prison, Hammersmith Hospital and Linford In particular, when setting the final set of • Support delivery of 24,000 new homes at Old proposed inclusion of the caveat within the Christie Stadium from within the proposed objectives the MDC board would be asked Oak and 1,500 across the Park Royal gateways draft scheme of delegation enabling the MDC Mayoral Development Area, however, objected to recognise the importance of protecting including a mix of affordable, tenures and sizes; to determine any planning applications deemed to the continued inclusion of Wormwood Scrubs Wormwood Scrubs as a leisure and recreation • Promote economic growth and job creation appropriate, would serve to create uncertainty on the following grounds: space as per the Wormwood Scrubs Act. The with potential for 55,000 additional jobs at Old both with developers and the planning service objectives may include: Oak and 10,000 new jobs at Park Royal; and that this has the potential to cause • Concerns that developers may consider • Ensure world class architecture, place making disruption. Wormwood Scrubs provides sufficient open • Regenerate, develop and transform Old Oak to and urban design that deliver a well-connected, space to support development proposals and ensure the area becomes a major contributor to high quality part of London; Ealing Council has stated that their support for that this may result in the failure to provide London’s position, in a way that is sustainable, • Maximise opportunities presented by the proposed scheme of delegation is subject to adequate open space to the north of the Grand meets local needs and supports the strategic significant ownership of land and assets by confirmation that planning applications in North Union Canal; long-term priorities in the Mayor’s London Plan transport authorities and public bodies, by Acton would be delegated to Ealing Council for • Insufficient clarity regarding the relationship (Further Alterations to the London Plan) and co-ordinating the strategic development and determination, aside from applications related between the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable the Old Oak a Vision for the Future; stewardship of those assets; and to development that comprises new and altered Trust and the MDC and the Trust’s role in • Respect the role and importance of the three • Build confidence in Old Oak and Park Royal vehicle, rail, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, managing the Scrubs; local authorities whose boundaries fall within and attract long term investment by promoting including but not limited to new roads, bridges • Local support for Hammersmith and Fulham the boundary of the proposed MDC, including it as a significant development opportunity. and tunnels, which would be determined by the Council to continue its role as the Local assisting them in carrying out the duties and MDC. Planning Authority for Wormwood Scrubs. functions that remain their responsibility within the area. • Work with key stakeholders, service providers and the local community to ensure the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 27

The London Borough of Brent supported the need to be reviewed and an apportionment 2.27 Future liability and maintenance removal of Area 1 (in and around Northfields). calculated for the MDC area. The MDC would costs then need to ensure this apportionment could Mayor’s response be met without impacting on the apportionment Brent Council has raised questions about any targets and wider strategic policy approach to future liabilities and maintenance requirements Please refer to section 2.20 above for a detailed waste in the WLWP. that might transfer back to the local Council response. when the proposed MDC comes to an end and Hammersmith and Fulham Council stated that also that may arise during the course of the The Mayor welcomes the Borough’s support and the Councils apportionment target is currently areas regeneration. looks forward to continuing to work together in met through the EMR and Powerday waste sites, delivering the regeneration of Old Oak and Park which lie within the boundary of the proposed Mayor’s response Royal. MDC. The Council has requested that the MDC should therefore take responsibility for the Section 211 of the Localism Act gives an MDC 2.25 Transitional arrangements Councils waste apportionment target in full and power to adopt private streets and spaces to fund the relocation of these uses outside of and subsequently to manage these as a local The London Assembly Planning Committee has the Borough. planning authority. In addition future services requested that any transitional arrangements delivered within the Mayoral development area should be clear to avoid any confusion for Nicky Gavron (Assembly Member), on behalf including, but not limited to health, education, the local community, applicants and the local of the London Assembly Planning Committee, affordable housing, community and leisure Councils. stated that waste management facilities should space, may have future liability requirements. be retained, with scope to be developed further Decisions over future physical and social Mayor’s response as London’s waste management demands infrastructure to be delivered within the Mayoral require. development area would be taken by the MDC Should the MDC be established, there would be Board (including representatives from the local a requirement to put in place clear transitional Mayor’s response Councils) and these decisions would need to arrangements. These transitional arrangements take account of liability and maintenance costs. would be secured through the Establishment Should the MDC be established it would take on and Planning Functions Order. Early discussions planning powers and would become the waste • Concerns that developers may consider on these potential transitional arrangements planning authority for the MDA. A future MDC Wormwood Scrubs provides sufficient open are underway with the local Councils. It is Local Plan would have to plan for waste in line space to support development proposals and important that these transitional arrangements with the requirements of the National Planning that this may result in the failure to provide are clear and avoid any confusion for the local Policy Framework, the London Plan and would adequate open space to the north of the Grand community, local Councils and applicants. be prepared in cooperation with the borpughs Union Canal; in the West London Waste Authority area ( • Insufficient clarity regarding the relationship 2.26 Waste planning the West London Waste Plan went through between the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Examination in Public in summer 2014). How Trust and the MDC and the Trust’s role in Brent and Ealing Council stated that the future waste apportionment targets are allocated managing the Scrubs; production of a separate waste plan that is not across different local planning authorities would • Local support for Hammersmith and Fulham consistent with the West London Waste Plan be agreed during the preparation of a future Council to continue its role as the Local (WLWP) would not meet the legal requirement London Plan. This could include the potential Planning Authority for Wormwood Scrubs. of the Duty to Cooperate. Brent Council also for discussions with other local authorities to noted that should the MDC progress a separate deal with waste apportionment and/or jointly waste plan, the waste apportionment targets in produce waste plans and pool waste sites. the Further Alteration to the London Plan would Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 29

3 Response to other consultation 3.12 Housing comments Response 3.13 Local accountability The main consultation received 309 responses and the supplementary consultation received 3.14 MDC boundary to other 247 responses. There is no statutory duty to provide a statement of reasons for not accepting 3.15 MDC establishment and timescales of the comments of consultees other than those operation consultation considered in Section 2 above. However, the following section addresses the main issues 3.16 MDC structure and resources raised during the public consultation, in so far comments as these have not already been addressed in 3.17 Name the comments in response to the the London Assembly and the three boroughs. These issues 3.18 Proposed objectives are: 3.19 Principle of the MDC 3.1 Business rate relief 3.20 Plan making powers 3.2 Consultation process 3.21 Planning application powers 3.3 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 3.22 Residential compensation and/or Council 3.4 Commitment to future consultation tax relief

3.5 CPO powers 3.23 Representation on the MDC Board

3.6 Detailed planning comments related to – 3.24 Representation on the MDC Planning waste Committee

3.7 Detailed planning comments related to - 3.25 Scheme of delegation density and building heights proposals 3.26 Supplementary consultation on revised 3.8 Detailed planning comments related to – boundary proposals local character 3.27 Transitional arrangements 3.9 Detailed planning comments related to - amenity health and well-being

3.10 Detailed planning comments related to – transport impacts

3.11 Detailed planning comments related to – local employment Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 31

3.1 Business rate relief The Mayor does not considered it necessary to 3.3 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) In addition, the Mayor will commit the MDC to grant the Corporation powers for discretionary preparing a Community Charter in collaboration Issue relief from non-domestic rates. In granting these Issue with the local community. This charter will powers there is an expectation that they would ensure regular meetings with local groups on key 68 respondents agreed that the Mayor should be used and this is currently not considered 17 respondents requested greater clarity on the dates to discuss issues relating to a future plan. not take on powers to grant business rate relief, necessary. In the future, if the Corporation proposed CIL arrangements under any potential 14 respondents stated that they felt that the thinks it is necessary to have such powers the MDC. 3.5 CPO powers Mayor should take on such powers, whilst 128 Mayor would undertake a consultation similar to respondents did not comment on this question. this exercise. Mayoral Response Issue

3 Respondents felt that this issue should be kept It is worth noting that not granting these Please refer to section 2.5 for a detailed Mayoral 28 respondents raised concerns about the ability under review and 1 respondent felt that business powers to the Corporation would not impact on response. of the proposed MDC to CPO land. A particular rate relief should only apply to small businesses. any future aspiration to potentially set up of an concern was raised in relation to the CPO of Enterprise Zone for this area. 3.4 Commitment to future consultation residential properties and respondents wanted Mayoral Response assurances that the MDC would not look to CPO 3.2 Consultation process Issue such properties. The Localism Act 2011 allows the Mayor to decide whether to give the Corporation Issue Angie Bray MP stated that the engagement Mayoral Response additional powers to give discretionary rate process conducted by the MDC needs to relief for business (non-domestic) rates paid 22 respondents raised concerns about the extent include local residents, community groups, The Localism Act automatically grants CPO by businesses in the area, except where of public consultation carried out, the level and businesses and is not conducted solely at powers to any MDC. The MDC will not possess the ratepayer concerned is a not-for-profit of information provided to allow respondents a Council level. She went on to suggest that a any CPO powers over and above those already organisation, a charity or a community amateur to make informed decisions, the fact that the community engagement strategy be published possessed by the local Councils. The use of CPO sports club, in which case the decision as to consultation appeared to be a ‘done-deal’. and widely circulated to inform residents and powers would be subject to safeguards including whether or not to grant discretionary relief businesses how they may best participate. public inquiry and confirmation by the Secretary will remain with the relevant London borough Mayoral response of State. council. Andy Slaughter MP stated that a number of The level of consultation undertaken exceeded established residents’ organisations in the 3 3.6 Detailed planning comments – waste Where the power to grant discretionary relief the requirements of the Localism Act. The Boroughs, including the Grand Union Alliance, planning is transferred to a Mayoral Development scale of consultation carried out is set out are meeting regularly to discuss the scheme and Corporation it would need to meet the costs in paragraph 1.2. The consultation was not that both individually and collectively, these Issue associated with the decision even though the a done deal. The Mayor has given detailed representative bodies should be both a formal boroughs will continue to send the business consideration to all comments made as part of a consultee and an active participant in the 7 respondents raised questions about the MDC’s rates to businesses and collect the rates due. the consultation and made amendments to the development. future role in waste planning and its ability to Under section 48A of the Local Government proposals as required, including for instance, achieve future waste planning requirements. Finance Act 1988 the Secretary of State has alterations MDC boundary, which has undergone During the public consultation, 21 respondents the power to make regulations concerning the a subsequent round of public consultation raised the need to be consulted on future plans Mayoral Response funding of discretionary rate relief and any for the area. associated costs in terms of collection and Please refer to section 2.26 for a detailed enforcement that arise where the power to Mayoral Response Mayoral response. provide the relief is transferred to a Mayoral Development Corporation, including transitional Any future MDC would have a statutory duty to arrangements. consult on both planning applications and local plans and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 33

3.7 Detailed planning comments - and a future MDC local plan would include be encouraged to employ local residents. This 3.13 Local accountability density and building heights proposals relevant planning policies. The long term development must be required to employ a regeneration and development of the area would percentage of local residents. Issue Issue be required to accord with the relevant national, regional and local construction guidance and 15 Respondents specifically requested that In addition to the noted in section 2 of this 20 respondents raised concerns regarding the amenity protection. employment floorspace, specifically affordable document, 138 respondents raised questions levels of residential density and building heights and/or floorspace suitable for SMEs, be about the future level of local accountability and envisaged for Old Oak and the impact on local 3.10 Detailed planning comments - safeguarded and delivered through future sought increased levels of local accountability. infrastructure and open spaces. transport impacts development proposals. Mayor’s response Mayoral Response Issue Mayoral Response The proposed MDC Board and committees Please refer to section 2.7 for a detailed Mayoral 26 respondents raised concerns regarding Please refer to section 2.10 for a detailed would be agreed in line with the requirements of response. the potential negative impact of construction Mayoral response the Localism Act. In recognition of concerns and vehicles and the creation of additional traffic in the interest of involving local people in the 3.8 Detailed planning comments - local on the road network. Additionally, concerns 3.12 Housing future regeneration of the area, amendments character were raised about the potential disruption to are proposed to the composition of the MDC the public transport network and the need to Issue board (see section 2.4) and the MDC planning Issue improve the existing level of public transport. committee (see section 2.13) to include more Andy Slaughter MP raised concerns regarding local representatives. In addition, it is also 4 respondents sought that the existing Mayoral Response the delivery of affordable housing at Old Oak proposed to establish a new Community Charter local character of the area and surrounding and Park Royal and the need for development that would commit the MDC to a level of neighbourhoods be reflected in forthcoming Should the MDC be established, the Mayor to deliver genuinely affordable housing for local community consultation with local people over development. would ensure that the MDC and TfL work residents. He went on to also raise concerns the coming years. This Community Charter would closely to identify and address impacts on the about the impact that international investors be discussed and agreed with local groups. Mayoral Response road and public transport networks and reflect have had on property prices in Hammersmith these requirements in the OAPF and Local and Fulham and the need to ensure that this 3.14 MDC boundary Please refer to section 2.8 for a detailed Mayoral Plan policy. In addition to policy guidance, does not happen at Old Oak. response. each development will be required to provide Issue transport planning information which identifies 31 respondents raised concerns relating to 3.9 Detailed planning comments related the impact it will have on these networks and affordable housing delivery, housing density, Andy Slaughter (MP) objected to the proposed to - amenity & health and well-being how these would be addressed through planning housing design and the need to ensure that inclusion of Wormwood Scrubs within the contributions. future housing is protected for local people and boundary of the MDC. Issue not given over to overseas investors. 3.11 Detailed planning comments – local 72 respondents were in support of the proposed 10 respondents sought that the amenity employment Mayoral Response boundary and 104 respondents were against and health and well-being of residents were the proposed boundary. Of those that were protected from potential negative impacts Issue Please refer to section 2.12 for a detailed against the proposed boundary, 96 respondents generated by construction activities. Mayoral response. requested Wormwood Scrubs be removed. 4 Andy Slaughter MP stated that there must be respondents wanted Hammersmith hospital Mayoral Response mechanisms to make sure that employment removed. 4 respondents wanted Horn Lane opportunities benefit the local people. Jobs and adjacent rail sidings included within the The Mayor considers the health and well-being must be advertised locally, and the companies boundary. 3 respondents wanted the Hangar of existing residents of the upmost importance that stand to profit from this development must Lane gyratory and tube station to be included Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 35

within the boundary. 4 respondents stated it is therefore sensible that it remains within establish any potential MDC as expeditiously as • West London Triangle Development that they felt that there was insufficient the boundary so that these improvements can possible, in order to progress development plan Corporation; information to make a decision whilst a further 3 be planned for holistically. Acton Cemetery is a documents and determine planning applications. • Park Royal and Old Oak Regeneration Body; respondents stated that they were unsure about valued heritage asset within Park Royal and it is and the proposed boundary. 2 or less respondents important that this is included within the MDC 3.16 MDC structure and resources • Old Oak Common and Park Royal Development stated that: boundary in order that consideration can be Partnership. given to its continued protection. Issue • East Acton should be included in the proposed boundary; It is not proposed to remove the residential areas There were 4 specific queries related to the Mayoral Response • Wormwood Scrubs prison should be removed; along Old Oak Lane from the boundary as it will structure and resources allocated to set up and • Northfields Industrial Estate should be be important to plan for development to respect run the proposed MDC. Please refer to section 2.17 for a detailed removed; the setting of this Conservation Area. There also Mayoral response. • The Park Royal Industrial Estate should be may need to be transport improvements made to Mayoral Response removed; Old Oak Lane. 3.18 Proposed MDC objectives • Stonebridge Park station should be removed; Please refer to section 2.15 for a detailed • The derelict land around Alien Way should be It is not proposed to extend the boundary of Mayoral response. Issue included; the MDC to include any sites suggested as part • The residential areas around Old Oak Lane of the consultation. The Mayor recognises that 3.17 Name of the proposed MDC 81 respondents were in support of the should be removed; some of the suggested sites have the capability objectives, 95 respondents were opposed to the • Harlesden Town Centre should be included; to provide new homes and jobs but the Mayor Issue objectives and 11 respondents were unsure. Of • College Park should be included; considers that these sites do not directly relate the 95 respondents who were opposed to the • Wembley High Street, Sudbury Town and to the proposals for Old Oak and Park Royal and 88 respondents were in support of the name proposed objectives all objected to the proposed Barkham Place should be included; that planning powers for these sites are best left OPDC, 84 respondents did not comment on this establishment of an MDC. • Perivale should be included; with the local authorities. question and 13 respondents disliked the name. • Alperton station should be included; 62 respondents felt that the protection of • Park Royal Cemetery should be removed; 3.15 MDC establishment and timescales 24 respondents stated that they did not support Wormwood Scrubs should be listed as an • Unisys building and Bridge Park Leisure Centre of operation the identification of the MDC and it should objective. 14 respondents believed that the should be included; and therefore not have a name. 2 respondents objectives should be informed by discussions • Rail corridor to Westbourne Park station should Issue suggested the name Old Oak Development with local residents and the local authorities. be included. Corporation. The following were suggested by 5 respondents felt that the MDC objectives 6 respondents stated that the MDC should individual respondents: needed to acknowledge the need for the MDC define the period of time for which it would be to deliver social infrastructure. 5 respondents Mayoral Response in force. A number of respondents also queried • OOPRDC; also thought the objectives should reflect the the start date of 1st April 2015. • London City West; need to ensure housing delivery and a further In addition to the comments out in paragraph • PROODC; 5 respondents the need to the delivery of 2.13, it is not proposed to remove the Park Mayoral Response • The Western Corridor; affordable housing. 3 or less respondents noted Royal Industrial Estate, Stonebridge Park • New Queen’s Park Development Corporation; that the objectives should: station or Park Royal Cemetery (Acton Please refer to section 2.14 for a detailed • Grand Union Development Corporation; Cemetery) from the proposed MDC boundary. Mayoral response. • Old Oak and Park Royal Local Stewardship • Say more about open space, biodiversity and The Park Royal Industrial estate needs to be Committee; environmental protection; planned for holistically with Old Oak as it will The Mayor’s intention is that the Corporation • Old Oak Sustainable Development Project; • Should say that homes will be for Londoners fulfil a valuable role in terms of relocating would become operational on 1 April 2015. • West London CBD; and not international investors; businesses. Stonebridge Park station may need The Mayor considers these timescales to • West London Regeneration Scheme; • State that there will not be development at Old improvements as a result of development and be achievable and it to be advantageous to Oak and Park Royal; Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 37

• Should state that the MDC will grant business 93 respondents to the 8 questions were in detail and insufficiently researched as presented, Mayoral Response rate relief; support of the establishment of a MDC at Old that the mayor should be working in partnership • Exclude existing residential areas; Oak and Park Royal, 24 were in broad support with the local authorities and not against them The ability of the MDC to prepare a single plan • Focus on business and not housing; but expressed concerns about particular issues, and that a MDC could deliver quality new places. across the whole of the MDC area is central • Exclude Park Royal; 141 objected to the establishment of a MDC and to the ability of the MDC to secure the long • Recognise the need to mitigate development 13 made no comment on the principle of the Mayoral Response term regeneration of the area. In this regard it through infrastructure provision; establishment of the MDC or were undecided. is proposed the MDC should retain powers to • State that development should happen Please refer to section 2.1 for a detailed Mayoral prepare local plans for the MDC area. Local incrementally; 108 respondents were concerned that the response. planning policy would be prepared in line with • State that development should not be high establishment of a MDC would take powers planning policy requirements. rise; and away from local councillors and local people who 3.20 Plan making powers • Look to protect Park Royal. are capable of performing planning functions The Mayor does not propose to alter the MDC and that this would result in less transparency. Issue powers for preparing Local Plans and CIL. The 22 respondents were keen to ensure that any MDC would prepare a local plan and CIL in line Mayoral response MDC ensures that development respects the 85 respondents were in agreement that the MDC with all relevant planning policy requirements setting and character of Wormwood Scrubs and should have powers to prepare Local Plans and and legislation. Planning policy and CIL would Please refer to section 2.21 for a detailed that there should be no development on it. 17 Community Infrastructure Levy. 92 respondents be subject to public consultation. The Mayor Mayoral response. respondents were supportive of the MDC but were opposed to the establishment of the MDC does not propose to differentiate between plan wanted assurances that the local authorities, and so the role of the MDC in preparing plans making powers in Old Oak and Park Royal as it 3.19 Principle of the MDC residents and businesses are involved to for the area. is considered that to properly plan in a holistic ensure local accountability. 7 respondents were manner across the MDC area, it is necessary to Issue supportive of the proposals for a MDC as they 17 respondents wanted more information and apply the same powers to both areas. considered that this would expedite the delivery detail on what would be in the Local Plan. Angie Bray MP was broadly supportive of of new homes and jobs. 6 respondents were 6 respondents felt that there should be a As set out in paragraph 9.12 of the consultation proposals to establish a MDC at Old Oak and concerned about the implications that a new differentiation in planning powers between Old report, the intention is that the Corporation Park Royal, stating that there would be benefits mayor might have for any MDC. 5 respondents Oak and Park Royal. 5 respondents supported would become a local planning authority upon in terms of coordination and strategy that the stated that they were disappointed with current plan making powers but wanted guarantees its coming into effect and in accordance with MDC may be able to bring to a project of this local authority led partnership working in the relating to the involvement of residents. 3 Section 206(2) of the Planning Act 2008 would complexity. area and that they thought a MDC would respondents raised concerns in relation to the therefore also become the charging authority for overcome this. 5 respondents also considered expenditure of CIL monies and the lack of local its area. Andy Slaughter MP stated that he was unable that the establishment of a MDC would help accountability. In particular, 2 respondents felt to support the MDC as currently envisaged and to regenerate this deprived part of London. that the local authorities should be able to The Mayor’s proposal is that at the time when believes it may be the worst of both worlds in 4 respondents believe that there should not influence the expenditure of CIL. 2 respondents the MDC Planning Functions Order comes into terms of the development. Andy Slaughter MP be any development in the Old Oak and Park felt that it was not clear how CIL would be force then the MDC would become the CIL went on to state that there is an argument for Royal area, 4 respondents also considered managed. The London Borough of Brent charging authority and at that point would start appointing an impartial individual to coordinate that a joint public/private partnership might requested greater clarity on the transitional the statutory process of adopting its own CIL. and arbitrate between the various interested be a better model for delivery at Old Oak arrangements where a local authority has parties, but that the best course in determining and Park Royal and a further 4 respondents an adopted charging schedule. A further 2 In the interim period before the MDC CIL both a strategic, democratic and sustainable considered that a MDC would help to resolve respondents state that it was unclear how waste is adopted the MDC would use section 106 development for the area is to leave the final complex infrastructure delivery issues. 3 or less planning would be dealt with. agreements to secure financial contributions decision making in the hands of the Local respondents considered that a MDC would help from applications. In doing so the MDC would Authorities. to resolve cross borough issues, that a MDC comply with all relevant CIL and section 106 would result in the sale of homes to only foreign regulations. Existing borough CILs would not investors, that the current proposal is limited in apply to new development in the MDC area. Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 39

For any applications determined by a local the MDC to determine any planning applications 3.22 Residential compensation and/or 3.24 Representation on the MDC authority prior to MDC Planning Functions Order it chooses to. 1 respondent wanted the Council Tax relief planning committee coming into effect, CIL monies would continue MDC to determine all planning applications. to be paid to that authority, in accordance with 1 respondent stated that the proposal was Issue Issue Regulations 63A and 64A of the CIL Regulations premature. 1 respondent requested that North 2010 (as amended). Acton be removed from the planning application 10 respondents suggested that residents should 10 respondents were in support of Option 1 determining area. 1 respondent stated that be compensated directly or through Council Tax which consists of a single planning committee Para 9.5 of the MDC Consultation Report detailed HS2 applications should be determined relief for the potential impact on local services. for the MDC area. 3 respondents were in support explains that the MDC would take on waste by the council. of Option 2 which consists of a single committee planning powers. As a consequence, the Mayoral Response but with an extra councillor sitting on the MDC would need to produce its own Waste Mayoral Response committee for the local authority in which the Development Planning Document. The establishment of an MDC through the planning application is situated. 5 respondents For the MDC to be successful at delivering Localism Act 2011 does not afford the MDC were in support of Option 3 which consists of 3.21 Planning application powers regeneration at Old Oak and Park Royal, the the power to grant residential compensation or 3 planning sub-committees, one for each local Mayor considers it imperative that the MDC has Council Tax relief. authority area. Issue the power to determine planning applications. The power to determine planning applications 3.23 Representation on the MDC Board 91 respondents believed that the planning Andy Slaughter MP was concerned that ceding ensures the ability of the MDC to deliver the committee should have representatives from the control of major planning applications to the local plan. It is proposed to delegate planning Issue local community. 23 respondents considered GLA would be seen by local people as a way applications to the local Councils to determine that any planning committee should comprise of imposing unwanted development on the through a scheme of delegation to be agreed Andy Slaughter MP stated that Hammersmith largely of locally elected representatives. 14 area and that local residents will feel that their between the MDC and the Councils. and Fulham Council should have more respondents felt that no planning committee was views are not being properly represented. Andy representation on the Board than other interests. required. 12 respondents stated that planning Slaughter MP urged that whatever option is In terms of the suggestion that there should be The Board must be seen to be accountable powers should remain with the local authority. 7 chosen for deciding planning consents, the joint decision making between the MDC and to local people, and it is not appropriate for respondents felt that the Friends of Wormwood Boroughs must have a majority of votes on the local authorities, the Mayor has considered this unelected members to have such influence over Scrubs should be represented on any planning relevant committee or committees. and is of the opinion that this could lead to decisions that will affect so many people; and committee. 6 respondents considered that potential uncertainty and confusion, possible also that the Board must be seen to be acting there should be representation on the planning 73 respondents were in support of the MDC delay to delivery and this approach is therefore on behalf of local people. A majority of Board committee from local businesses. 4 respondents having the power to determine planning not supported. The planning committee would members should represent either the Boroughs felt that the environmental sector should be applications. 107 respondents considered that include representatives from each of the three or local residents. represented within any planning committee powers to determine planning applications local authorities to ensure local accountability. structure. 2 or less respondents stated that: should remain with the local authorities (of 22 Respondents raised concerns about the level these 92 were opposed to the establishment of In terms of residents being involved in of local representation on the board. • The Mayor should not have too much power; the MDC). determining planning application, the MDC • The committee should consist of individuals would have a statutory duty (Article 13 of the Mayoral Response with talent and expertise; 42 respondents considered that the MDC should The Town and Country Planning (Development • The London Borough of Hammersmith and not have any powers over Wormwood Scrubs. Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010) Please refer to section 2.3 for a detailed Mayoral Fulham should not be represented; 6 respondents believed that local residents to consult residents on planning applications response. • The development community should be need to be more involved in determining and consider any representations in the represented; planning applications. 5 respondents felt that determination of these applications. As noted in • The Canal and River Trust should be there should be joint decision making between paragraphs 2.5 and 2.6 above, transparency and represented; and the MDC and local authorities. 2 respondents wider community involvement are at the heart of • Committee members should be chose via a live wanted the removal of the blanket caveat for the MDC proposal. televised auction. Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 41

Mayoral Response that the proposed new development would 1 respondent provided commentary on a number included in any future planning guidance and negatively impact on the existing character of of additional elements: policy for Old Oak and Park Royal. Please refer to section 2.19 for a detailed the Scrubs. 2 or less respondents stated that: Mayoral response. • Requesting that existing residential areas It is proposed to continue to maintain the • Wormwood Scrubs should continue to be are protected and well integrated into new identified boundary and work with the London 3.25 Scheme of delegation included in the proposed boundary. residential and green space areas Borough of Brent to manage traffic in and • Wormwood Scrubs should continue to be • Protection should be given to residential around Park Royal. Issue included in the proposed boundary subject amenity that exceeds existing best practice to there not being housing on the railway • Waste sites should be relocated 3.27 Transitional arrangements 26 respondents requested further clarity on the embankment overlooking the Scrubs or a details of who would determine which planning flyover motorway south of the railway line. Issue applications. However, no specific comments on • Wormwood Scrubs in its entirety must be 1 respondent objected to the proposed removal the scheme of delegation were received. protected and access from the north improved. of the slip road running adjacent to the A406 During the consultation 12 respondents raised a • The new developments to the north of from Hanger Lane (travelling north east), number of detailed questions in relation to the Mayoral Response Wormwood Scrubs would rely on the Scrubs in relation to traffic management, and the proposed transitional arrangements. to meet their needs for public open space, removal of land to the west of the A406 (in and Please refer to section 2.23 for a detailed therefore resulting in poor provision of new around Northfield) as proposed as part of the Mayoral Response Mayoral response. public open space. supplementary consultation. • Management of Scrubs has not been fully Please refer to section 2.25 for a detailed 3.26 Supplementary consultation on considered and further information regarding Mayoral response Mayoral response. revised boundary proposals this should be provided. Please refer to section 2.20 for a detailed 228 respondents were against the continued response to comments relating to the removal inclusion of Wormwood Scrubs within the 2 respondents objected to the continued of Wormwood Scrubs from the boundary of the proposed boundary. Of those that were against inclusion of the Royale Leisure Park and proposed Mayoral development area the continued inclusion, 205 stated that as adjacent areas south of the A406. the Scrubs is designated as Metropolitan Open The delivery of new public open spaces north Land in the London Plan and is protected 1 respondent supported the proposed of the canal will be a critical element of any by the Wormwood Scrubs Act, the proposed amendment to remove the A406 North Circular future planning framework for the area and will MDC would not have any planning authority Road, north-east of the West Coast Main Line be achieved through development management over the area. 204 respondents objected to railway bridges. discussions. LB Hammersmith and Fulham no longer being the Local Planning Authority and felt that 1 respondent suggested a number of transport It is proposed to continue to include this area this change would result in the dilution of network improvements including: to deliver the coordinated protection and democratic control. 201 respondents objected enhancement of Strategic Industrial Land in Park to Wormwood Scrubs continuing to be in the • A new road named ‘ Old Oak Common Lane Royal. boundary while Lindford Christie Stadium and North’ car parking facilities were not. 15 respondents • A new hour track bridge over Victoria Road With regards the transport suggestions stated concerns that the inclusion of Wormwood • A new permanent bridge over the Grand Union and requests that existing residential areas Scrubs would negatively impact on its local Canal from Atlas Road be protected and integrated into future role as an amenity space. 7 respondents stated development, that new amenity be provided, concerns that the inclusion of Wormwood that waste sites be relocated, the Mayor will Scrubs would negatively impact on its role as a consider whether they are suitable to be biodiversity asset. 7 respondents stated concerns Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 43

4 Conclusion Conclusion The Mayor has consulted on plans to designate a Mayoral development area at Old Oak and Park Royal with the aim of establishing a Mayoral development corporation (MDC) in that area, using powers granted by the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”) and becoming operational on 1 April 2015. The MDC would act as the agency responsible for planning and driving the regeneration of Old Oak and Park Royal.

The responses received during both the main consultation and the supplementary consultation have been considered in detail by the Mayor. Following the outcome of the consultation the Mayor has made amendments to the proposed boundary, the composition of the Board and the role of the local residential and business community in planning for the future of the area. This Statement of Reasons has provided a detailed breakdown of comments received during these consultation exercises and the Mayors responses.

He continues to propose that the MDC should be the local planning authority for the whole of the area to be designated a Mayoral development area and for the full range of potential planning powers available under the Localism Act 2011.

In conclusion, the Mayor will now lay before the London Assembly his proposals to designate a Mayoral development area, and thereby establish a Mayoral development corporation, at Old Oak and Park Royal. Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 45 Appendix: Main consultation leaflet aPPENDICES Page 1

Page 2 Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation 47 Appendix: Supplementary consultation leaflet Page 1

Page 2