London Borough of Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan … Borough of Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan 2031: Managing growth and sharing the benefits Regulation 18 consultation summary report

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Draft Local Plan 2031: Managing growth and sharing the benefits

Regulation 18 consultation summary report

A summary report of the second stage of public consultation on the draft Local Plan (regulation 18) held between Friday 11th November 2016 and Tuesday 2nd January 2017.

October 2017

Regulation 18: Consultation Summary Report

2

Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

2. Consultation methods .................................................................................................... 5

3. Consultation events and meetings ................................................................................ 7

4. Overview of consultation responses ............................................................................ 12

5. Summary of the main issues raised by respondents ................................................... 13

Appendix 1: Statutory and general consultees ................................................................... 17

Appendix 2: Email sent to statutory consultees, general consultees and other individuals and organisations interested in the development of the new Local Plan ........................... 18

Appendix 3: Neighbourhood planning and Local Plan workshop ....................................... 20

Appendix 4: Public Notice – East London Advertiser ......................................................... 55

Appendix 5: Article – Eastlondonlines ................................................................................ 56

Appendix 6: Article – The Wharf .......................................................................................... 58

Appendix 7: Article – Roman Road Trust ........................................................................... 67

Appendix 8: An example of an advert placed in Eventbrite ................................................ 68

Appendix 9: Adverts placed in Bengali newspapers .......................................................... 69

Appendix 10: An example of a community information panel and a map showing where community information panel were located across the borough ........................................ 73

Appendix 11: Advert - Tower Hamlets newsletter .............................................................. 75

Appendix 12: Feedback from the workshops ..................................................................... 76


3

1. Introduction The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is in the process of developing a new Local Plan to positively plan and manage future development up until 2031. This report contains a summary of the consultation carried out at the regulation 18 stage on the draft Local Plan. This includes:

details of which bodies and persons were invited to make representations on the draft Local Plan;

the various activities that were undertaken to engage with the public;

a summary of the main issues that were raised through these activities; and

details of how the comments made during the public consultation have been addressed. Consultation activities linked to the preparation and adoption of Local Plans are covered under the following legislation and guidance.

• The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 defines the consultation procedures local planning authorities must follow when preparing a Local Plan.

• The Localism Act 2011 sets out the legal duty to co-operate between local planning authorities and other public bodies to maximise the effectiveness of policies covering strategic matters in Local Plans.

• Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) empowers ‘local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area’.

• The Tower Hamlets Statement of Community Involvement (adopted in 2012) specifies the principles of community involvement in Tower Hamlets. With regard to Local Plan preparation, this statement explains when we will consult the community and how we will engage with them, and who we will involve in this process.

In line with the Town and Country (Local Planning) Regulations 2012, the preparation of the Local Plan will have been through the following rounds of consultation. Table 1: Consultation process

Stage Regulation* Title Nature of the stage Period

Stage 1: Regulation 18 Our Borough, Our Plan: A New Local Plan First Steps

Views were sought on what the plan should contain and the issues it should address – the scoping stage

Monday 14th

December 2015 to Monday 8

th

February 2016

Stage 2 Regulation 18 Draft Tower Hamlets Local Plan: Managing growth and sharing the benefits

Views were sought on the draft vision, objectives and detailed wording of the policies as well as the council’s preferred list of sites.

Friday 11th

November 2016 to Tuesday 2

nd

January 2017

Stage 3 Regulation 19 Tower Hamlets Local Plan: Managing growth and sharing the benefits

6-week consultation on the pre-submission version of the Local Plan.

Monday 2 October 2017 and Monday 13 November 2017

*The regulations referred to above are from the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.


4

This report essentially covers stage 2 of the consultation process. A separate report summarising the results from stage 1 has been prepared. Stages 1 and 2 follow the requirements set out in regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012. Specifically, it requires that various bodies and stakeholders be notified when a local authority is preparing a local plan and invites them to comment about what that plan ought to contain. As part of the regulation 18 process, the council consulted on the draft version of the Local Plan, known as “Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan 2031: Managing growth and sharing the benefits’. This document sets out the emerging vision, strategic objectives and a range of policies to positively plan and manage development in the borough up to 2031. It also identified the sites within different parts of the borough with the potential to accommodate significant development and infrastructure (known as allocations). The policies set out in this document covered a range of topics, such as housing, the economy, shopping, town centres and waste management. This report also provides a summary of the feedback we received from consultees during the regulation 18 consultation process and our response to the main issues raised (see appendix 3). In interests of completeness, it also covers part 1 of the consultation process in order to provide a clear audit trail to show how the consultation has influenced the direction of the plan from the outset. Consultation As part of this consultation, residents, businesses, stakeholders and the wider community were invited to comment on the draft Local Plan. In accordance with regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012) and the Statement of Community Involvement, the council has undertaken consultation with:

statutory consultees, who may have an interest in the subject of the plan;

general consultees and other consultation bodies; and

individuals, residents, businesses and organisations who are registered on our planning policy database who expressed an interest in being kept informed about the progress of the Local Plan and other planning policy documents.

Appropriate duty to co-operate bodies were also consulted (see section 3 below). The draft consultation document was also subject to detailed appraisal through the Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) to ensure it addresses or meets the principles of sustainable development. The Integrated Impact Assessment integrates the following assessments (Environmental Strategic Assessment, Health Impact Assessment, Equalities Impact Assessment and Habitats Regulation Assessments) into a single appraisal tool. The assessment report includes commentary of the feedback received on the assessment (see appendix A) and how it has been taken on board in the assessment (a copy of which can be downloaded from the council’s web site at www.towerhamlets.gov.uk).

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/


5

2. Consultation methods The council used a range of consultation methods to raise awareness of the draft Local Plan (regulation 18) consultation and engage with the public and relevant stakeholders (including the associated pubic consultation events) both during and before the consultation period. This is summarised below. a) Email and letters

Emails and letters were sent to all consultees on the council’s planning policy database. An example of the email/letter sent is included in appendix 2. In addition, a freepost address was made available for receiving written comments and publicised in consultation documents, e-mails, posters and leaflets. b) Libraries and Idea Stores

During the consultation period, hard copies of the draft Local Plan and supporting evidence were available to view at the Town Hall, Idea Stores and libraries during normal opening hours:

Town Hall (reception), Mulberry Place, Clove Crescent, E14 2BG

Idea Store Bow, 1 Gladstone Place, Roman Road, Bow, E3 5ES

Idea Store Canary Wharf, Churchill Place, E14 5RB

Idea Store Chrisp Street, 1 Vesey Path East India Dock Road, E14 6BT

Idea Store Whitechapel, 321 Whitechapel Road, E1 1BU

Idea Store Watney Market, 260 Commercial Road, E1 2FB

Bethnal Green Library, Cambridge Heath Road, E2 0HL

Cubitt Town Library, Strattondale Street, E14 3HG

Local History & Archives Library, 277 Bancroft Road, E1 4DQ

c) Summary of the draft Local Plan 2031: managing growth and sharing the benefits The council produced a booklet summarising draft policies in the draft Local Plan consultation document. The booklet was available online and hard copies distributed to the borough’s Idea stores and libraries. The booklet was also made available at consultation events. d) Website

The council’s website features a dedicated webpage providing regular updates on the development of the draft Local Plan and a link to the council’s consultation portal. The consultation portal contains extensive information including the draft Local Plan document and supporting evidence base documents available to download. The portal also explains how the public can get involved and submit comments. Link to the council’s website: http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/consultations/past_consultations/Local_Plan.aspx

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/consultations/past_consultations/Local_Plan.aspx

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/consultations/past_consultations/Local_Plan.aspx


6

Link to the council’s consultation portal: http://towerhamlets-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/planning/newlp/nlpr18/reg18 e) Press/media coverage

The draft Local Plan was publicised in local newspapers and websites including the following.

East London Advertiser - a public notice was placed on Thursday 10th November 2016 (see appendix 4).

An article was featured in EastLondonLines, an independent news website run by Goldsmiths, University of London which covers stories along the overground between Dalston and Croydon on Monday 12th December 2016 (see appendix 5).

The Wharf newspaper, a free local newspaper distributed throughout the Docklands and produced in Canary Wharf, covered the draft Local Plan both online and in the print edition on Wednesday 7th December 2016 (see appendix 6).

Roman Road Trust, a community organisation representing local residents and businesses in Bow, publicised the consultation workshops on Wednesday 30th November 2016 (see appendix 7).

Eventbrite was used to publicise workshops, exhibitions and drop-in sessions (see appendix 8)

Bengali newspapers: Bangla Times, Weekly Janomot, Weekly Desh and Weekly Potrika (see appendix 9).

f) Community information panels Community information panels were placed at various locations around the borough for two weeks from Tuesday 6th December 2016 (see appendix 10). g) E-newsletters The draft Local Plan was featured in Tower Hamlets e-newsletter and circulated to 9,207 residents, organisations and individuals on the 15th November 2016 (see appendix 11) h) Social media

Twitter, Facebook and Instagram were used to promote consultation events. 37 tweets were announced through the council’s twitter account: @TowerHamletsNow. The tweets resulted in 1,043 engagements and 62 retweets.

http://towerhamlets-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/planning/newlp/nlpr18/reg18


7

3. Consultation events and meetings The council held a series of public consultation events to proactively engage with residents, local organisations, businesses and the wider community. Officers from the council attended events in order to answer questions, promote discussion and receive comments. All comments have been reviewed and have helped to shape the proposed submission of the Draft Local Plan. a. Public exhibitions and drop-in sessions The council organised public drop-in sessions providing an opportunity for members of the community and everyone with an interest in Tower Hamlets to find out information about the draft Local Plan, ask questions and provide comments. Table 2: A list of the locations where public drop-in sessions were held

Date Time Venue

Thursday 24th November 2016 12.30pm – 3.30pm Idea Store, Poplar

Saturday 26th November 2016 10am – 1pm Idea Store, Bow

Saturday 3rd December 2016 10am – 1pm Victoria & Albert Museum of Childhood, Bethnal Green

Wednesday 7th December 2016 5.30pm – 8.30pm Alpha Grove Community Centre, Isle of Dogs

Wednesday 14th December 2016

5.30pm – 8.30pm Idea Store, Whitechapel

b. Workshops and meetings The council organised two workshops to hear the views of people living and working in the borough’s four sub areas.

City Fringe and Central area held on Tuesday 13th December 2016 between 6pm and 8pm at Mulberry & Bigland Centre, Whitechapel.

Isle of Dogs, South Poplar and Lower Lea Valley area held on Monday 19th December between 6pm and 8pm at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Town Hall, Poplar.

Details of the feedback obtained through the workshops that fed into the development of policies in the next stage of the plan are provided below. Each workshop followed the same format shown for the Isle of Dogs and Lower Lea Valley area shown below. Both workshops were facilitated by an independent facilitator in order to provide impartiality and expertise in obtaining participation and feedback from participants. Officers from the council gave presentations on the background to the Local Plan and key issues being considered at the regulation 18 stage. A summary of the key issues raised during the workshops is provided below. A full outline of the feedback obtained through the workshops is provided in appendix 12.


8

City Fringe and Central area workshop

p Photograph: City Fringe and Central area workshop

Table 3: Agenda for City Fringe and Central area workshop

Summary of key issues raised:

Green spaces as a valued resource

Improve access to stations for all

More provision for cycling

Suitability of tall buildings in different areas

Poor air quality around main routes

Suggestions for new/improved walking and cycling routes

Access to new community buildings

How consultation methods can be improved


9

Isle of Dogs, South Poplar and Lower Lea Valley workshop

Photograph: Isle of Dogs, South Poplar and Lower Lea Valley area workshop

Table 4: Agenda from Isle of Dogs, South Poplar and Lower Lea Valley area workshop

Summary of key issues raised:

Protection of employment sites and uses

Increase infrastructure provision to meet demand

New building heights and densities


10

c. Neighbouring planning and draft Local Plan workshop

Representatives from four neighbourhood forums - Limehouse, Spitalfields, East Shoreditch and Isle of Dogs - were invited to a workshop to debate key issues in the draft Local Plan. An independent facilitator was present along with councillor Rachel Blake (cabinet member for strategic development and waste) and officers from the council on Monday 1st August 2016. Comments from this session are summarised in appendix 3. d. Members workshop

The workshop sought views from all council members on Wednesday 27th July 2016 and 27th September 2016. e. Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Officers from the Plan Making Team presented the draft Local Plan to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on October 26th 2016. The Overview & Scrutiny Committee is made up of elected members from the council and their role is to review and scrutinise decisions in the public’s interest and make recommendations to elected members who sit on the council’s cabinet. The aim is to make the decision-making process more transparent, accountable and inclusive, and continually improve the council’s responsiveness to local needs.

f. Duty to co-operate

In line with the duty to co-operate, the council met with neighbouring boroughs and other public organisations to discuss the draft Local Plan and relevant cross-boundary issues. The council continues to collaborate with other local planning authorities and organisations to identify and resolve local and strategic issues discussions have included the following. • Waste management with the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the London Legacy

Development Corporation (LLDC) – Monday 12th December 2016. • Open spaces and Lea River Park with London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and the

London Borough of Newham – Monday 5th December 2016. • Water spaces with Canal and River Trust, Port of London Authority and Lee Valley Regional

Park Authority – Wednesday 25th May 2016. • Sport and leisure facilities discussion with Sport England – 6th June 2016 and 11th January 2017. • London Gypsies and Travellers and Old Willows Residents Association meeting on Thursday

30th March 2017. Full details about how the council has fulfilled its duty to co-operate with public bodies on the Local Plan are included in a separate statement. g. Focus groups

The council held focus groups to encourage discussion and gather feedback on key issues with the following organisations and groups.


11

Conservation and Design Advisory Panel This panel is made up of independent members from a range of disciplines including architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, planning and regeneration, who work in the borough and meet on a monthly basis. The draft Local Plan was presented at their meeting on Monday 10th October 2016.

• Developers Forum Key developers, landowners and agents were invited to a forum to discuss the draft Local Plan on Friday 9th December 2016.

Health and Wellbeing Board A partnership bringing together councillors, community organisations, public health, social care and housing providers in one forum. The draft Local Plan was presented on Tuesday 13th March 2016.

Local Voices An independent group made up of disabled people from across the borough. The draft Local Plan was presented on Monday 19th December 2016.

Tower Hamlets Housing Forum This forum is a partnership between housing associations (registered providers) and the council. The draft Local Plan was presented on Thursday 1st December 2016.

Tower Hamlets Youth Council The Plan Making Team also presented the draft Local Plan to the Tower Hamlets Youth Council which included candidates for the young mayor election in 2017 on Thursday 17th November 2016. The young people shared their opinions on the opportunities and challenges in the draft Local Plan.


12

4. Overview of consultation responses The regulation 18 consultation (stage 2) generated formal written responses from 103 individuals or organisations. These responses generated 908 individual comments on the content of the document. These comments were received email, letter and the council’s consultation portal. 2576 visitors were also recorded as visiting the draft Local Plan webpage during the consultation period (November 2016 – January 2017).

Figure 1: The percentage of responses by respondent types

Figure 2: The number of responses relating to the draft Local Plan themes

198

139

107

70

58

52

49

43

34

33

16

8

Delivering Sustainable Places

Design and Historic Environment

Housing

Economy and Jobs

Environmental Sustainability

Town Centres

Transport and Connectivity

Sustainable Growth

Open Spaces

Community, Cultural and Social Facilities

Developer Contributions

Draft Policies Map

Responses to the Draft Local Plan Themes

30%

22%

39%

9%

Respondent Types

Residents/Individuals

Statutory Consultees

Non-Staturtory Consultees

Developers


13

5. Summary of the main issues raised by respondents A summary of the main issues raised by respondents in the regulation 18 consultation (November 2016 – January 2017) is provided below, along with the council’s response to the comments received.

Policy Summary of the issue The council’s response

1 Sustainable Growth

Infrastructure contributions requirements need clarifying.

The infrastructure contributions requirements have been removed from this policy, as they are covered in the developer contributions section.

2 Sustainable Growth

Planning and construction of new development - need to consider the scale of development this applies to.

The policy has been clarified to provide further detail on the scale of development policies are applied to.

3 Design and Historic Environment

Define tall buildings. The definition of tall building as it applies to the borough has been clarified in the revised policy (see the supporting text) and may be amended further following the outcomes of the tall building study which has recently been commissioned.


Specify the location of Tall Building Zones.

A tall buildings study has been commissioned to identify: - suitable locations for tall building zones and - unsuitable locations for tall buildings in the borough.


Name of act incorrect and clarity on statutory provisions required.

This has been reviewed and amended.


There needs to be a distinction between designated and non-designated heritage assets.

The supporting text of the heritage policy sets out that designated heritage assets may be subject to separate consent. Further revisions will be sought in consultation with Historic England.

7 Housing Further clarity is required on the proposed future housing target (in relation to emerging London Plan, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Opportunity Area Planning Framework).

A single housing target has been provided as well as further information on how it relates to capacity identified in the new London Plan, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Opportunity Area Planning Framework.


14

8 Housing Prioritising new homes for British citizens is not a planning concern.

Policy has been reworded so that it focuses on encouraging development to sign up for the Mayor of London's Concordat.

9 Housing Further clarity or reference to build to rent should be included.

The council is developing its own evidence base regarding build to rent and will consider how best to reflect its objectives regarding this tenure within policy.

10 Housing 50% affordable housing requirement when allowed off-site is too onerous.

This is the current policy position and was found sound at previous examination. The interim viability testing suggests it is a viable policy. If the next viability assessment suggests this is not a viable policy, the policy may be reconsidered.

11 Housing Incremental development policy isn’t sound.

This policy has been reworded to clarify.

12 Housing Missing market unit mix requirement.

This was an omission which has been corrected. The whole table has been updated following the Strategic Housing Market Assessment refresh.

13 Economy and jobs Affordable workspace should be linked to viability, with an element of flexibility.

Policy has been reworded to promote the provision of affordable workspace as part of a range of unit types to ensure that the needs of different sectors and potential occupants are met.

14 Town Centres Objection to the 200 metres walking distance requirement from schools/leisure centres (part d).

The distance requirement is being maintained, as it is considered that there is sufficient justification for this approach and similar policies have been successfully defended at examination.

15 Community, Cultural and Social Facilities

Lack of evidence to justify that where a community facility is lost, the preferred use should be affordable housing.

Policy has been reworded so that where one type of community facility is lost, the preferred use is another community facility which better meets the local needs.

16 Open Spaces In line with London Plan (policy 7.27), support the provision of infrastructure and structures that support appropriate on-water uses.

A water space study has been commissioned to assess the opportunities for the borough’s water spaces and to identify suitable locations for appropriate water infrastructure to support water related uses. Policy has been reworded so to reflect the findings of this study.

17 Open spaces The Green Grid Strategy The Green Grid Strategy update


15

update should be published on the Local Plan consultation website as a key evidence base document.

document will be published on the Local Plan website as a key evidence base, once completed.

18 Environmental Sustainability

Air quality - need to consider the scale and type of development this applies to.

It is considered that the scale and type of development the policy applies to is proportionate with the policy objectives, the borough's local context of poor air quality and the health evidence regarding vulnerable uses.


Flood risk - concern that it wasn’t adequately worded to reduce flood risk.

The policy has been strengthened, with guidance from the Environment Agency.


Zero carbon - need to clarify how the policy will respond to new building regulations.

The policy has been updated to provide guidance on how the policy will be implemented following any change to building regulations.


Not all waste streams have been considered.

Additional evidence being procured to cover the outstanding waste streams. This will then inform the policy direction.


The methodology for calculating waste capacity is possibly flawed.

The methodology for calculating waste capacity will be reviewed as part of the evidence base update. The findings will inform whether any amendments are required to the policies.


Recycling targets have not been considered.

A policy has been included to ensure that developments seek to meet the recycling targets set out in the London Plan.


Replacement waste management capacity has not been fully justified.

The additional evidence base work will review this and inform whether any changes are required.

25 Transport and Connectivity

Wording and requirement for transport assessments differs from the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Local Plan is drafted in accordance with the NPPF. It does not seek to repeat the policies set out in the NPPF but to add a more local specificity to them. It is not felt that the wording and requirements of Tower Hamlets policy on transport assessments differs from the NPPF as it still requires them for 'significant impact.' However, it seeks to clarify


16

'significant' in light of the high levels of congestion and air pollution within the borough.

26 Developer Contributions

The removal of vacant building credit.

This has been addressed in the rewrite by referring to the London Plan.

27 Delivering Sustainable Places

Deliverability, including viability considerations of the required infrastructure on site.

The council's approach to site selection is set out in the Site Selection Methodology Note and will be further updated to provide greater detail on how the council selected sites for viability testing and how infrastructure was allocated to sites. This supports how site allocations are deliverable.

Detailed feedback from the regulation 18 consultation and the council’s responses to the main issues raised is outlined in appendix 3. The appendix provides a clear audit trail showing how the regulation 18 consultation (stages 1 and 2) has influenced the direction of the plan from the outset. For further information, please visit our website at: http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/consultations/pastconsultations/localplan. Alternatively, you can:

email us at [email protected]

phone us on 020 7364 5009

write to us at: FREEPOST, Draft Local Plan Consultation, D&R Strategic Planning, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, PO Box 55739, London, E14 1BY

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/consultations/pastconsultations/localplan

mailto:[email protected]


17

Appendix 1: Statutory and general consultees Statutory consultees 1. Canal & River Trust 2. City of London Corporation 3. Department for Education 4. Environment Agency (London) 5. Historic England 6. Lee Valley Regional Park Authority 7. London Borough of Greenwich 8. London Borough of Hackney 9. London Borough of Lewisham 10. London Borough of Newham 11. London Borough of Southwark 12. London Borough of Waltham Forest 13. London Legacy Development Corporation 14. Marine Management Organisation 15. Mayor of London and Assembly (GLA) 16. National Grid 17. Natural England 18. Network Rail 19. NHS Property Services (London) 20. NHS Trust (London) 21. Port of Tilbury (London) 22. Sport England 23. Thames Water 24. The Coal Authority 25. Transport for London (TFL) General consultees

Ward councillors

Resident associations

Housing associations

Police

Health trusts and emergency services; and

Other borough-wide groups and developers (where appropriate)

Other voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit any part of the council’s area; bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the council’s area; amenity societies, residents associations, association representing women and bodies which represent the interests of different religious groups in the council’s area.

All people who have advised the council that they are interested in being informed about a particular plan being prepared.


18

Appendix 2: Email sent to statutory consultees, general consultees and other individuals and organisations interested in the development of the new Local Plan Sent: 11 November 2016 Subject: Public consultation on London Borough of Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan and Statement of Community Involvement Refresh Dear Consultee, This email is to inform you of the following: Public consultation on London Borough of Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan and Statement of Community Involvement Refresh from 11 November 2016 to 2 January 2017. Local Plan In line with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, the Council would like to invite you to have your say on our second stage of consultation for a new Local Plan. The new Local Plan will set out a vision, strategic priorities and a planning policy framework to guide and manage development in the borough for the next 15 years, in line with the planning policy requirements set out by national and regional government. This consultation seeks views on the proposed draft vision, objectives and policies in the Draft Local Plan which will inform a revised version of the document to be published as the Proposed Submission Local Plan in summer 2017 before it is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination in public. Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) The Council also invites your comments on the Draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) Refresh. The SCI sets out how the community can get involved in the preparation of local planning policy documents and decisions on planning applications. This is Phase 1 of updating the SCI and brings the document up to date with changes in legislation, planning terminology and the greater use of electronic communication since the last SCI was produced in 2012. Phase 2 of the update will look more closely at engagement around the Development Management process and is anticipated to take place once the Local Plan has been adopted in 2018. How can I get involved? Please click on the following links to access the consultation documents and make your comments: Local Plan: Statement of Community Involvement Refresh Comments can be made to the Council in the following ways:

Online: (Local Plan Only) http://towerhamlets-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/planning/newlp/nlpr18/

Email: (Local Plan and SCI):[email protected] By post: (Local Plan and SCI): FREEPOST, Planning Policy Consultation , D&R Strategic Planning,

London Borough of Tower Hamlets, PO BOX 55739, London, E14 1BY Hard copies of the documents can be viewed at the Council’s Town Hall, libraries and Idea Stores. A list of locations can be found here: www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/localplan The Council will also be holding public consultation events regarding the Local Plan at various locations in the borough on the following dates: Drop-in sessions

Thursday 24 Nov 2016, 12.30pm -3.30pm: Idea Store, Chrisp Street, 1 Vesey Path East India Dock Road, E14 6BT

Saturday 26 Nov 2016, 10am- 1pm: Idea Store, Bow, 1 Gladstone Place, Roman Road, Bow, E3 5ES

http://towerhamlets-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/planning/newlp/nlpr18/

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/environment_and_planning/planning/planning_guidance/consultation_and_engagement/statement_of_community_involve.aspx





http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/localplan%20%20%20%20%20%0d


19

Saturday 3 Dec 2016, 10am-1pm: V & A Museum of Childhood (Bethnal Green), Cambridge Heath Road, E2 9PA

Wednesday 7 Dec 2016, 5.30pm – 8.30pm: Alpha Grove Community Centre (Isle of Dogs), Alpha Grove, E14 8LH

Wednesday 14 Dec 2016, 5.30pm – 8.30pm: Idea Store, Whitechapel, 321 Whitechapel Road, E1 1BU Workshops There will be 2 bespoke workshops on the proposed Local Plan sub-areas, which seek to better coordinate and manage growth in the borough. A map of these areas is available on the Council website: www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/localplan These workshops will take place at the following: Workshop 1: Tuesday 22 Nov 2016, 6pm - 8pm Central & City Fringe Sub-Areas Please register your attendance on EventBrite

Central City Fringe

Workshop 2: Thursday 1 Dec 2016, 6pm - 8pm: Isle of Dogs & Lower Lea Valley Sub-Areas Please register your attendance on EventBrite

Isle of Dogs Lower Lea valley

Please note that the workshop numbers are limited so you will need to book in advance. For those who are unable to attend the events, all information will be made available on the Council’s website. The Council looks forward to receiving your response. If you would like any further information or assistance, please contact the Plan Making team by email [email protected] or on 0207 364 5009. Yours Sincerely, Adele Maher Strategic Planning Manager Sent: 16 November 2016 16:06 Subject: Change of Date: Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan - Isle of Dogs & South Poplar Area Workshop Dear Attendee Thank you for registering to attend the above event. Due to a by-election taking place in the Whitechapel ward on 1st December, the Council has been advised to reschedule the Draft Local Plan sub-area workshops from the dates originally advertised. This is due to limitations on Council activities during the pre-election period. The workshop has now been re-arranged for Monday 19th December 2016, 6pm - 8pm. The venue remains unchanged. Your ticket(s) remain valid, but please do let us know if you cannot attend the new date. Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused by this change.

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/localplan

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tower-hamlets-draft-local-plan-central-area-workshop-tickets-29072271948

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tower-hamlets-draft-local-plan-city-fringe-area-workshop-tickets-29072131528

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tower-hamlets-draft-local-plan-isle-of-dogs-south-poplar-area-workshop-tickets-29072864721

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tower-hamlets-draft-local-plan-lower-lea-valley-area-workshop-tickets-29072727310



20

Appendix 3: Detailed summary of the consultation responses on the Local Plan and our response to the issues raised

Consultation: Regulation 18: Part 1 (December 2015 – February 2016)

Topic: Sustainable growth / vision

Number of responses:

Comment Relevant policy (if provided)

Respondent Council response

The new Local Plan needs to better manage the levels of growth coming forward, to make sure it can be supported by infrastructure, including transport and community facilities for all ages, and is sustainable for Tower Hamlets.

Vision Residents, community groups and neighbourhood forums

Policy SG1 provides a policy framework to ensure sustainable development in Tower Hamlets. The community facilities policies, in particular policies CF1 and CF2 ensures the provision of a wide range of community facilities.

The new Local Plan should ensure new development supports integrated, socially mixed, communities.

Vision Residents Policy SG1.8 outlines expectations for developments to contribute towards integrated, socially mixed, communities.

Secure new housing that is truly affordable for the borough’s residents.

Vision Residents This has been addressed in the housing policies, in particular H1 and H2. It is important to note that the Local Plan does have to comply with national definitions of affordable housing.

Identify and promote cross-boundary opportunities by working collaboratively with neighbouring boroughs and other partners.

Vision Developers and statutory consultees

The council has proactively engaged with the Greater London Authority and neighbouring boroughs to identify joint priorities. This is evidenced in the Duty to Co-operate Statement.

Support proposal to require developments to undertake health impact assessments.

Vision Statutory consultees (Clinical Commissioning Group)

Support is noted and the requirement is contained in policy SG1.7.

The Local Plan must address deprivation and poverty and the large income inequality within the borough.

Vision Residents One of the strategic objectives of the new plan is ‘sharing the benefits of growth’. Specifically, policy SG1.8 outlines expectations for developments to contribute towards delivery job opportunities, accessible community facilities and mixed and balanced communities.

Policies need to better reflect and protect the River Thames and borough’s water spaces

Vision Residents Policy OS4 manages development which may impact on the borough’s waterspaces, including the River Thames.

The vision and plan should more proactively respond to the South Poplar Housing Zone

Vision Developers / landowners

The vision map identifies the housing zone sites and sub-area 3 and references the role and opportunities afforded by the housing zone.

Consultation: Regulation 18: Part 2 (November 2016 – February 2017)


21

Topic: Sustainable growth

Number of responses: 43



Infrastructure contributions requirements need clarifying.

SG1.2 Developers The infrastructure contributions requirements have been removed from policy S.SG2, as they are covered in the developer contributions policy D.SG5.

Planning and construction of new development - need to consider the scale of development this applies to and requirements to consider cumulative impacts are considered too onerous.

SG2 Developers Policy S.SG3 has been clarified to provide further detail on the scale of development policies are applied to.

Promote ‘liveability’ (i.e. quality of life for existing and future resident and workers. Avoid over development without sufficient infrastructure of all kinds to support it).

SG1 Neighbourhood Forums

Policy S.SG2 seeks to ensure development contributes towards liveability through emphasising good design and limiting negative impacts.

Health impact assessment requirements are too onerous, should only be required for those developments which are considered to have a ‘significant implications for people’s health and wellbeing’

SG1.7 Developers Policy D.SG3 has been altered so that different scales of development have to complete different types of health impact assessments, reducing the burden on smaller developments.

Sustainable development criteria are too broad and unclear how or whether they can be delivered

SG1.1 Developers Policy S.SG2 has been altered to include tighter and clearer criteria.

Agree with proposal for developers to be required to consider the impact of construction of water supply, flood risk and drainage. May wish to reference the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) guidance in “The Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction and Demolition”

SG2 Statutory consultee (Environment Agency)

Policy supported noted and the Greater London Authority’s The Control of Dust and Emissions During Construction and Demolition Supplementary Planning Guidance has been referenced.


Topic: Design & historic Environment




A number of comments were received suggesting that mansard roof

Residents The Local Plan provides guidance on development involving heritage assets and their settings more generally, a separate


22

extensions should be permitted within the Medway and Driffield Road conservation areas.

piece of work is providing guidance on development within specific conservation areas.

It was suggested that the plan should set out circumstances where higher density and/or taller developments would be permitted, but also for some flexibility to be offered where developments come forward outside of such locations. Historic England suggested the specific tall building guidance in line with their revised advice note.

Developers/Landowners/Residents/ Statutory consultees

Proposed policy within the draft Local Plan has sought to designate ‘Tall Building Zones’ to guide the locations of tall buildings. In terms of density, new policy is being introduced to supplement the London Plan approach where development comes forward which exceeds the London Plan density matrix.

There was widespread support amongst local people and for review of the Tower Hamlets Local List, additions to be made to the statutory list and for additional conservation areas to be designated. There was also much support for promoting and protecting the historic environment, the historic fabric of the borough and protecting views.

Residents/Statutory consultees

Proposed policies are supportive of maintaining and enhancing the historic environment. New policy is also being brought forward to identify and protect important local views. Additions to the Tower Hamlets Local List and potential review of conservation areas falls outside of the Local Plan. The council cannot add to the statutory list: nominations must be submitted to Historic England for assessment.

There was much concern about the loss of non-designated heritage assets, with pubs, industrial buildings and canals given particular mention.

Residents/ statutory consultees

Proposed policy seeks to protect undesignated heritage assets. With regard to pubs, the plan is seeking to bring forward specific policy to better protect from unnecessary loss.


Topic: Design and the historic environment




Correct the name of the act in the explanatory text, reference is made to the “Conservation Areas and Listed Building Act” but this should be: Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’)

Strategic policy DH3: The Historic Environment

Developers, landowners, other stakeholders

For clarity, the reference to the conservation and listed buildings act has been deleted from the policy, as it did not add any merit to the overall policy.

Ensure the policy is compliant with the wording within the National Planning Policy Framework


Developers, landowners and statutory consultees

The policy has been extensively reworded so that it is more compliant with the NPPF wording and other heritage guidance, such as using the terms ‘preserve or


23

– specifically having clear distinction between designated and non-designated heritage assets

where appropriate enhance’ to safeguard heritage assets. The policy clearly identifies designated heritage assets (listed buildings, conservation areas etc.) and non-designated assets and sets out criteria for safeguarding these amenities. We have liaised closely with Historic England in finalising the policy.

Separate ‘strategic and locally designated views’ from the heritage policy – views are not considered heritage assets



A separate policy on views has been included within the emerging Local Plan to ensure development contributes positively to strategically and locally important views in and around the borough (see policy D.DH4: shaping and managing views)

Define the tall building zones

Policy DH5: Building heights Now policy D.DH6: Tall buildings


Following the regulation 18 consultation, the Council commissioned the preparation of the Tower Hamlets Tall Buildings Study (September 2017) to identify suitable locations for the development of tall buildings and to identify locations were the development of tall buildings may be less desirable. The submission stage tall buildings policy has been informed by the recommendations of the above study and sets out five tall building zones at:

Aldgate

Canary Wharf

Millwall Inner dock

Blackwall

Leamouth

The approach to tall buildings should be supported by a robust evidence base

Policy DH 5: Building heights Now policy D.DH6: Tall buildings


As above mentioned, the revised policy on tall buildings has been informed by the Tower Hamlets Tall Buildings Study, which forms part of the Local Plan evidence base.

Permitting tall buildings within tall building zones only is too restrictive



Although the revised tall buildings policy directs the development of tall buildings to tall building zones, the policy allows proposals outside of the zones to be considered where they can meet certain criteria such as contributing to open space. The Tall Buildings Study sets out areas outside of tall building zones that may be considered suitable for tall building proposals (such as sites in Wapping and Whitechapel). The study can be used as a guide by developers who are proposing tall buildings development.


24

Tall buildings should be located within town centre, opportunity areas, Central Activities Zone and other areas of growth



This has been considered and incorporated within the tall buildings study, which undertook a character analysis of the 24 places in the borough (as set out in the Local Plan) to identify suitable tall building zones.

The policy notes that where density exceeds the GLA recommendation the proposed development is required to exceed the minimum design standards of the Local Plan and London Plan. The design standards set out the minimum requirements for development and density should not be applied to an assessment of development proposals

Policy DH 6: density

Now Policy D.DH7: density


The density policy has been amended so that any development exceeding the GLA recommendations should avoid over-development or identify suitable mitigation measures in relation to excessive demand on infrastructure and services and design - such as impacts on local amenity and character.

Housing


Topic: Housing




New homes are not considered affordable. Developments need to deliver genuinely affordable homes for rent.

Housing topic area

Residents, community organisations and neighbourhood forums

This has been addressed in policy H1, which sets an overarching strategic target for 50% of all homes delivered to be affordable homes. It requires individual development schemes to deliver 35-50% affordable housing. Policy H2 requires the provision of a mix of affordable units.

Protect the unit mix of existing housing estates.

Housing topic area

Residents and community organisations

Policy H2 requires estate regeneration schemes to fully reprovide existing affordable homes and increase additional net affordable housing units.


25

New homes need to be better designed to improve long term liveability, this includes more innovate and efficient waste and servicing, affordable homes built to the same standards as market homes, and more integrated useable open space and children's play

Housing topic area


Policy H2.4 requires affordable homes to be built to the same standards as private homes. Although it is recognised that separate cores may be required to enable effective management arrangements. Policy H3 outlines housing quality standards, including child play space requirements. Waste servicing requirements have been outlined in further detail in policy ES9.

Too any homes are being delivered, especially on the Isle of Dogs and there is insufficient infrastructure to support this housing.

Housing topic area


Policy SG1 provides a policy framework to ensure sustainable development in Tower Hamlets including requiring development to support the provision of infrastructure. The specific mechanisms are included in policy DC1.

Need to positively address the borough’s housing target.

Housing topic area

Developers and landowners

Policy H1 outlines the borough’s housing target and the borough’s commitment to address it. Due to the ongoing work with the GLA on the London-wide SHLAA, it is appropriate that the plan references that this may alter the housing capacity assessment for the borough.

Support the need to update the Strategic Housing Market Assessment

Housing topic area


An updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment has been produced to support the regulation 19 consultation.

Policies should respond to government initiatives and changes in national policy

Housing topic area


Where national policies have become acts and clear guidance or directions have been issued on how to deliver these policies, they will be included in the policies. It is considered that the changes to the NPPF and Housing and Planning Bill are not at a sufficiently detailed stage to influence the policies.

Plan should identify and set policies to address the need for specialist older person’s accommodation

Housing topic area

Statutory consultee

Policy H4 addresses the need for older person’s accommodation.

The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment should be conducted in conjunction with the local gypsy and traveller community and support organisations.

Housing topic area

Community organisation (London Gypsy and Traveller Unit)

The Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment has been undertaken using the government methodology and best practice guidance, including consultation with relevant stakeholders including local gypsy and traveller support organisations.


Topic: Housing


Comment Relevant policy Respondent Council response


26

(if provided)

Clarify the London Plan Target is a minimum More detail required on the housing target split and trajectory in each sub-area. Recognition of the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework on the housing target should be provided.

H1 Landowner/ developer

Policy S.H1 clarifies the council’s position in relation to the housing target; this is supported by a detailed breakdown of anticipated delivery in each sub area and place. The council has drafted a Housing Delivery Strategy which indicates its approach to sustainable housing delivery, including in relation to the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

Prioritising new homes for British citizens is not a planning concern.


Policy S.H1 has been reworded so that it focuses on encouraging development to sign up for the Mayor of London's Concordat.

Further clarity or reference to build to rent should be included.

General comment on housing policies

Landowner/ developer

The supporting text to policy S.H1 outlines the council’s position in regards to build to rent schemes and other emerging innovative housing products. As the Strategic Market Assessment makes clear, the council’s main housing need is for affordable housing, so ensuring the delivery of affordable housing is the key objective for al housing delivery.

50% affordable housing requirement when allowed off-site is too onerous.


This is the current policy position and was found sound at previous examination. The interim viability testing suggests it is a viable policy. If the next viability assessment suggests this is not a viable policy, the policy may be reconsidered.

Incremental development policy isn’t sound.


Policy D.H2.2d has been reworded to clarify.

Missing market unit mix requirement.


This was an omission which has been corrected. The whole table has been updated following the SHMA refresh. The updated table is in S.H2.

Ensure the existing community are better involved in planning for new homes, particular estate regeneration.

H1 Residents and community organisations

Policy D.H2 includes a requirement for Major developments and estate regeneration schemes to undertake thorough and inclusive public consultations proportionate to the nature and scale of development and submit a consultation statement detailing these activities.

Housing Quality Mark cannot be mandated. Mandating it would contravene


The supporting text to policy D.H3 supporting text strongly urges developers to achieve high standards in line with the Home Quality Mark.

Housing Quality Mark should be obligatory.

H3 Residents In order for the plan to be in conformity with national policy, the Home Quality Mark cannot be obligatory. However the plan strongly encourages its use.

Plan needs to acknowledge that other policy requirements and designations may conflict with current policy wording requiring developments not


This has been acknowledged the supporting text under policy S.H1.


27

to undermine the supply of conventional housing.

Employment


Topic: Economy and jobs




There was much comment, particularly from individuals/residents that more should be done to provide jobs for local people and for job creation to benefit local people

Residents While the Local Plan is unable to dictate that jobs are provided to certain groups or persons, more generally the proposed policies promote a range of employment spaces to be provided/retained which means that local people have access to a wide range of employment opportunities.

There were lots of comments calling for greater provision of affordable workspace particularly to help local businesses and entrepreneurs

Business/ organisations/ residents

The draft Local Plan introduced specific policies on affordable workspace.

A number of comments called for the protection of employment space, although a number (particularly landowners and developers and their representatives) suggested there should be more flexibility to convert redundant employment sites to others uses.

Business/ developers/ landowners/organisations/ residents

Draft policy increased evidence requirements where the loss of employment floorspace is proposed, in line with advice contained within the council’s evidence base.


Topic: Economy and jobs




Affordable employment attracted a number of comments. There was conflict between respondents, with a number (predominantly individuals/residents but also the GLA and some landowners/developers) supporting the policy objectives or wanting the council to go further. On the other hand, there was much critique or objection to the

EMP 1/EMP 6 Developers/ landowners/residents

The bespoke affordable employment policy has been deleted. Policy S.EMP1 now promotes and encourages affordable employment provision along with co-working and grow-on space which have been identified as being in need. Policy EMP.2 now seeks 10% of new employment space within major developments to be provided as affordable workspace. Evidence in support of the approach to affordable employment has been further developed.


28

policy from developers and landowners. In particular it was cited that affordability is not necessarily linked to cost but to flexibility. There was also criticism as to a lack of evidence, and that such provision wouldn’t be viable.

A number of landowners/developers called for the de-designation of Local Industrial Locations, and greater support for housing and other uses within such areas. There was also support for the council’s approach to protecting such areas, and seeking to designate new areas.

EMP 1 Developers/ landowners

The council considers that its evidence on the need to safeguard remaining industrial land is strong, and as such the approach proposed during regulation 18 is being carried forward.

There was much comment on the evidence requirements being requested where loss of employment space is proposed as being too long/onerous. It was suggested it should be shortened. It was also suggested the Local Plan should be more permissive of alternative uses including residential where employment land is genuinely redundant.

EMP 4 Developers/Landowners

The council considers its proposed approach to be reasonable and justified by its evidence, particularly given the borough’s high employment projections. As such no change has been made to policy, and it is considered that policy is already supportive of alternative uses where those tests have been addressed.

A review of the designated Preferred Office Locations was suggested, including better identification of the core areas.

EMP 1 Landowners/statutory consultees

The council has reviewed the proposed Preferred Office Location boundaries, and modified its approach and boundaries backed by new bespoke evidence.

Town centres


Topic: Town centres




A number of local people expressed concern that there were too many chain stores and cafes in the borough, and that local independent businesses should be protected.


The planning system cannot differentiate between end users, nonetheless proposed policies are seeking to ensure a range of unit types which meet the needs of different users.

A number of comments received from local people expressed concern at the number of hot food

Residents Draft policies are seeking to protect from over-concentration of uses that may be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of local people, and restricting uses that


29

takeaways in the borough, and to a lesser extent betting shops.

may undermine the attractiveness and vitality of town centres.

A number of comments were received supporting markets, both existing and the potential for additional ones.

CSF.9 Residents New policies have been brought forward which promote and protect markets.


Topic: Town centres




A number of respondents commented on town centre boundaries. This was a mixture of suggestions for boundary additions or requests for boundary deletions/removals, plus a number of comments in support of or objecting to town centre designations and frontages more generally.

TC 1 Developers/ landowners/residents

The town centre boundaries and frontages as consulted on during regulation 18 have been reviewed, and where necessary amended. With specific reference to Canary Wharf and potential future re-designation to a Metropolitan Centre through the London Plan, the plan has made it clear that such re-designation would be supported.

There was objection to the restriction on hot food takeaways within 200 metres of schools, in particular whether such a restriction could be evidenced.

TC.6 The approach was reviewed and it was considered to be justified, based upon advice received and similar approaches elsewhere being found sound at examination. It is considered that the council has sufficient evidence for the approach.

Betting shop operators objected to the restriction on new betting shops within Primary Frontages, suggesting as town centre uses there is no basis for such an exclusion.

TC.2/TC.6 The council is seeking to maintain its approach - to maintain the attractiveness and vibrancy of the primary frontages.

Community facilities


Topic: Community facilities




General concern was expressed, particularly by individuals and residents about the overall provision of community facilities and community infrastructure such as schools and medical centres. Comments were also raised by statutory


Policies have been developed which continue to promote the provision of community facilities to meet identified needs, with particular sites identified within the plan’s Site Allocations.


30

consultees urging flexibility to take account of future delivery models particularly within healthcare.

There were many comments, particularly from residents, about ensuring that facilities bring the community together. This includes community gardens/allotments, community halls, a range of sports/recreational opportunities, and pubs

Residents This principal has been reflected within the draft plan, with proposed policies supporting new facilities that increase community cohesion, including particular reference to opportunities such as community gardens.

The loss of pubs in the borough was raised as a concern by a significant number of people, both through written comments and at consultation events. Some comments suggested that pubs shouldn’t be treated as a priority.

CSF.9 Residents Specific pub protection policy was introduced in order to manage unique challenges associated with pubs.


Topic: Community, cultural and social facilities




Suggestion that some community facilities such as health centres aren’t necessarily town centre uses, and as such should be greater flexibility as to where they should be located.

CSF 1/CSF 5 Statutory consultees

Greater flexibility has been introduced into policy to facilitate such uses, and community facilities more generally, outside of town centre locations where there is demonstration of need and appropriate accessibility.

In addition to comments during the initial engagement consultation, further support was received in relation to the need to protect pubs and of the council’s policy approach. No objections were received.

CSF.9 Residents The importance of this policy to local people has been recognised; evidence has been produced to further support the council’s approach.

Open spaces and water spaces


Topic: Open spaces




Deliver open space that is green and accessible for all;

S.OWS1 Continue to protect the borough’s open spaces and improve its quality


31

and accessibility

Create new and improve existing walking links between places

D.OWS3 Organisation, residents

Optimise opportunities to deliver new and enhance the existing linkages between open spaces, water spaces and community facilities;

Improve public access and the use of waterways in conjunction with adjacent green spaces and community facilities

S.OWS2 Residents Make water spaces easier to access and promote their use for transport, recreation and leisure as well as other potential uses like moorings, where appropriate.

Promote more innovative opportunities for delivering open spaces e.g. community gardens

D.OWS3 Organisations/ residents

Realise the potential of housing amenity land to provide attractive open spaces on site, accessible to and used by residents and, where appropriate, the public

Where the existing open space is patchy, poorly located and ill-defined it is preferable to “assemble” such space into better locations, even if this results in a marginal loss of quantity.

S.OWS1 Developer Policy S.OWS1 protects the borough’s open spaces against loss, recognising the borough’s level of open space deficiency and the multiple benefits that it brings to the local communities and residents. Where consolidation of open space is proposed, it needs to be done in a manner that does not result in net loss of open space. The policy aims to increase and enhance the borough’s networks of open spaces.


Topic: Open spaces




Support the provision of infrastructure and structures that support appropriate on-water uses.

S.OWS2 and D.OWS4

Organisation Policy D.OWS2 and D.OWS4 have been amended to reflect that suitable infrastructure that supports water dependant and water related uses will be supported at appropriate locations in line with policy 7.27 of the London Plan. In addition, the definitions of the terms “open space” and “water space” have been amended to reflect the different challenges that the two face and the specific policy approaches required to manage these in a sustainable manner and in line with regional and national policies.

The Green Grid Strategy update should be published on the Local Plan consultation website as a key evidence base document.

D.OWS3 Organisation The Green Grid Strategy Update has now been finalised and will be published together with other key evidence base studies on the council’s website during the regulation 19 consultation.

The requirement for D.OWS3 Developers A viability assessment has been


32

developments to deliver open space on site will affect development viability

conducted to ensure that the Local Plan policies are not putting too much burden on developers. The policy has now been amended to promote open space delivery on site, particularly for strategic development.

Environmental sustainability


Topic: Environmental sustainability (minus waste)




The plan needs to emphasise protection for wildlife, particularly in and around the River Thames and other water courses.

Environmental sustainability topic area

Residents and statutory consultees

Protection for wildlife has been incorporated into policies ES3 and OS4 (in relation to waterspace).

Include updated climate change allowances in flood modelling.

Environmental sustainability topic Area

Statutory consultees

These have been incorporated into the draft Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

Climate change considerations need to be balanced against the need to provide new homes.


Developer It is considered that the approach outlined in policy ES6 strikes the correct balance. This has been tested in the Carbon Policy Evidence Base (2016).

The plan should focus on improving air quality in the borough, especially near major roads.


Residents Policy ES2 outlines a comprehensive approach to ensuring development improves air quality.

Increase urban greening and street trees.



Policy ES3.4 is a specific policy seeking to protect and increase street tree provision.

Need improved policies on wind and other micro-climate effects.


Residents Policy DH5 includes requirements for developments which include tall buildings to consider wind and other microclimate effects. This also includes specific details on how the wind assessment should be undertaken.

Ensure adequate and sustainable clean and waste water capacities, especially on the Isle of Dogs. Recommendation that there should be a Policy dealing with water and sewerage infrastructure within the Local Plan


Residents and statutory consultee (Thames Water)

A specific policy ES5 has been included to address water consumption and sewer infrastructure.

Ensure a sequential approach is applied to the growth strategy to steer development to areas of lowest risk of flooding. This requires applying the sequential test and where applicable the exceptions


Statutory consultee (Environment Agency)

This will be undertaken following consultation on the draft Strategic Flood Risk Assessment alongside the regulation 18 consultation document and will be published alongside the regulation 19 document.


33

test to any sites proposed in flood zones 2 or 3.


Topic: Environmental sustainability (minus waste)




Further consideration needs to be given to the scale and type of development the air quality policy applies to.

ES2 Developer It is considered that the scale and type of development the policy applies to is proportionate with the policy objectives, the borough's local context of poor air quality and the health evidence regarding vulnerable uses. The policy approach has been maintained in policy D.ES2.

Flood risk - concern that it wasn’t adequately worded to reduce flood risk.

ES4 Statutory consultee (Environment Agency)

Policy D.ES4 has been strengthened, with guidance from the Environment Agency.

Need to clarify how the zero carbon policy will respond to new building regulations.

ES6 Developers Policy D.ES7 has been updated to provide guidance on how the policy will be implemented following any change to building regulations.

Zero carbon policy requirements for a 60% CO2 reduction with 45% to be achieved on site is too onerous and will not be deliverable on some sites

ES6 Developers It is considered that the approach outlined in policy D.ES7 is deliverable. This has been tested in the Carbon Policy Evidence Base (2016).

Need to be more ambitious with supporting environmental improvements including only allowing electric delivery vehicles, more electric charging points, solar panels on buildings etc.

ES1 Neighbourhood forum

Both the transport and environmental sustainability policies require ambitious environmental improvements, where they are evidence based and deliverable. This has resulted in more restrictive parking standards and requiring onsite servicing. Policy D.ES7 requires interventions which reduce carbon emissions to be included on all major developments, including making onsite reductions. Where viable, this may result in use of photovoltaic cells (solar panels) on roofs.

Community gardens are very important for neighbourhoods community cohesion, air quality and physical and mental health.

ES3 Neighbourhood forum

The supporting text to policy OWS1 highlights support for the delivery of community gardens.

Support policy and focus on environmental sustainability, in particular the commitments around air quality improvements and carbon reduction.

ES1 Community Group (Friends of the Earth)

Policy support is noted.

Air quality policy ES2 Statutory Policy D.ES2 has been altered


34

requirements shouldn’t apply to infrastructure projects and specific legislation and guidance for infrastructure projects should be referenced.

consultee (Transport for London)

accordingly and references the specific guidance for infrastructure projects.

Land contamination also needs to ensure developments consider groundwater protection and source protection zones

ES7 Statutory consultee (Environment Agency)

Policy D.ES8 has been amended to include references to source protection zones.

Waste


Topic: Managing waste (formerly part of the “environmental sustainability” chapter)




Ensure adequate and sustainable clean and waste water capacities, especially on the Isle of Dogs.


Strengthen waste policy, including waste management and waste water disposal.

Strongly support the potential for integrated waste management systems and innovative ways to reduce waste


Community group

This has been encouraged in policy ES.8.

Object to the safeguarding of Ailsa street waste site as it conflicts with the identified housing objectives.


Developer The evidence base has recommended that the site no longer be safeguarded and this is reflected in the regulation 18 document.

Welcomes the review of the council’s safeguarded waste sites and there is the possibility of shared evidence gathering.


Neighbouring borough

Evidence base review undertaken

Policies should manage the borough’s waste in line with the London Plan


Statutory consultee

The policy aim to achieve net-set sufficiency which is what the London Plan seeks to do.

Concerns regarding rubbish and overflowing bins.


Other The policy requires adequate waste storage facilities for refuse and recycling and supports the use of innovative waste management systems.

The plan only sets out to meet apportioned waste which fails to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

Replacement waste management capacity will be a requirement if existing


Statutory consultee

Evidence was procured to address waste, but three waste streams were omitted. Replacement capacity is addressed in the policy as when referring to releasing waste sites it ensures that the transfer of capacity does not undermine strategic policy and its objectives.


35

waste sites are redeveloped and the plan should make reference to this

Green waste collection and food recycling and there should be large recycling bins on every street not just for individual household collection


Resident The policy requires developments to incorporate appropriate waste storage facilities that enable the segregation of materials for residual waste, recycling and organic waste (where appropriate).

Waste and litter and change people ambition and attitude towards recycling



More focus on providing waste facilities in flats and put pressure on businesses to recycle



Improve current waste management facilities


Resident A policy has been included that supports the increase in capacity at waste facilities and includes a number of criteria that ensures environmental and other amenity impacts are adequately mitigated.


Topic: Managing waste (formerly part of the “environmental sustainability” chapter)

Number of responses: 58 (part of environmental sustainability)



Support the intensions of the strategic policy in terms of protecting and enhancing the environment. Support the plan following the waste management hierarchy.

ES1: Protect and enhance our environment

Environment Agency

Continue to include the waste management hierarch in the Local Plan

Tables need clarifying and possibly merging

ES8: Waste management

GLA The approach to waste sites has now been amended and we will continue to have 3 tables in order to differentiate the existing safeguarded sites as well as areas of search within the borough and areas of search within the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). Both the GLA and the LLDC have seen the proposed tables and have not raised any objections regarding this approach.

The overall approach to identifying safeguarded sites and a schedule of sites where a waste use, is broadly acceptable in


GLA The approach to safeguarding and identifying sites has changed and now involves safeguarding sites that were previously proposed to be released and also identifying areas of search rather


36

terms of the London Plan. than specific sites to meet our apportionment target.

Policy ES8 should be amended to show what progress Tower Hamlets is making in terms of recycling.


Policy S.MW1 ‘Managing our Waste’ addresses recycling construction, demolition and excavation waste and policy D.MW3 ‘Waste collection facilities in new development’ addresses recycling household and commercial waste

The plan only plans for apportioned waste and the tonnages are not clear and it is not clear how the borough intends on meeting the capacity gap.


North London Waste Plan

The plan now takes into account all waste streams in either the policy and/or the supporting text. Policy S.MW1 addressed apportioned waste and construction demolition and excavation waste. The supporting text refers to our evidence which confirms that hazardous waste, waste water and agricultural waste are produced in small quantities and therefore we do not have to plan for new facilities and/or they are managed at specialist facilities. The supporting text also includes details of the capacity gaps for apportioned waste and the land required to meet that gap, as well as the land that we have identified that could potentially accommodate waste facilities to address the capacity gaps.

Not all waste streams have been planned for


North London Waste Plan GLA

Procured additional evidence to consider outstanding waste streams and addressed them in the supporting text of the policy.

Maps and grid references should be provided for the sites as they are not identifiable


Environment Agency

The maps of the each waste site are shown on the policies map.

Details of Environment Agency permitted thresholds on the waste sites provided


Environment Agency

No action necessary.

Tower Hamlets should continue to work with the LLDC to seek to meet their apportionment within the area. Also work with the GLA and London Waste Planning Forum members to identify suitable sites elsewhere in London to meet any shortfall. Consideration should be given to planning for construction, demolition and excavation waste

City of London We have worked closely with the LLDC and continue to do so on matters regarding waste. Various meetings, telephone discussions and email correspondence have taken place to ensure that we can identify sufficient land to meet our apportionment target. With regards to construction, demolition and excavation waste, this has been addressed on policy S.MW1 which expects new developments to reuse and recycling construction, demolition and excavation materials on


37

which is generated in the borough.

site or close to where it arises.

Development that supports waste management should not include incineration or any waste management that has an impact on air quality


Individual Friends of the Earth

Policy D.MW2 ensures that air quality impacts are adequately mitigated.

Note: the capacity land identified to meet the capacity gap, including safeguarding sites. Support the removal of Ailsa Street as a waste site as it is in the South Poplar Housing Zone due to conflict with housing. The de-designation of the site will help deliver housing.


Ailsa Wharf Developments

The evidence has been updated and has been concluded that Ailsa Street needs to be safeguarded in order to demonstrate that we can meet our apportionment target. Ailsa Street is now going to continue to be safeguarded under policy S.MW1.

Support the release of Ailsa Street but do not understand the introduction of Empson Street for waste uses


Polar HARCA Ailsa Street is now being safeguarded for reasons detailed above. Empson Street has been identified as an area of search due to its GLA Strategic Industrial Location designation, which, in principle supports waste uses.

The policy does not justify the release of waste sites or identify replacement capacity



The loss of waste sites and replacement capacity is addressed under policy S.MW1. The Waste Management Evidence Base Review (2017) also explains the rationale regarding the loss of waste sites.

An old version of the waste hierarchy has been shown


The waste hierarchy has been updated

Wording missing at the end of part 3


GLA Wording of policies reviewed and amended.

The policy effectively sets out how the council will support development that manages its waste effectively. Transport for London will work strategically with the council to support this policy.


TfL No amendments necessary as the policy is supported

Methods for calculating waste capacity is flawed.


Environment Agency

A review of the evidence base was undertaken and the assumptions have been revised accordingly both in the policy and evidence base.

Waste facilities should be enclosed

ES9: Waste management in development

Environment Agency

Policy D.MW2 requires waste facilities to be enclosed.

Find ways to avoid rubbish being dumped for

ES9: Waste management in

Neighbourhood planning

Policy D.MW3 ensures that all developments include adequate


38

collection in the streets. Need designated areas for storage. It’s creating noise and pollution

development workshop provisions for the storage of refuse and recycling. In addition major developments are required to include mass waste collection systems.

Transport:


Topic: Transport and connectivity




Priority to sustainable transport modes, walking, cycling and public transport. Particular emphasis on safer routes, health benefits and breaking down barriers to movement.

Residents, statutory consultees, community groups

Development of policy TR1 emphasising the promotion of sustainable patterns of development, minimising the need to travel and reducing dependence on the private car.

Concerns of congestion and its impact to air pollution

Residents, statutory consultees, developers

Development of policy TR1, prioritising walking, cycling and public transport to help reduce congestion and poor air quality.

Stricter parking policies are required to limit the number of private cars.

Residents Development of policy TR3 to ensure that parking levels are effectively controlled and managed both on-street and off-street to facilitate sustainable travel patterns and address congestion.

Consider promotion of river based transport options to further improve transport and connectivity and to promote sustainable travel.

Statutory consultees Amendment of policy to further promote the use of the river as a strategic transport route for passengers and freight.


Topic: Transport and connectivity




Sustainable travel is essential - development must prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and access to public transport, including river services.

Policy TR1 Residents, statutory consultees

Review and refinement of policy S.TR1 to ensure priority to sustainable travel modes and the promotion of active travel to and from the site.

Concerns over private car ownership and congestion issues, with general support for ‘car free’ development.

Policy TR1

Policy TR3

Residents, statutory consultees, developers

Review and refinement of policies S.TR1 and D.TR3 in order to effectively prioritise sustainable travel and facilitate modal shift.

Need for significant infrastructure improvement, including

Policy TR1 Statutory consultees, developers,

Review and refinement of policy S.TR1 to ensure that it fully reflects local and strategic infrastructure requirements set


39

river crossings, capacity enhancement and the need to address severance issues.

community groups

out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and TfL’s business plan. Also further policy alignment to the Mayor of London’s strategic objectives, such as the Mayor of London’s emerging Transport Strategy and healthy streets approach.

Clarity on development contributions towards transport infrastructure, particularly towards wider walking and cycling networks to promote active travel.

Policy TR1

Policy TR2

Policy TR3

Policy TR4

Policy DC1

Developers, landowners, residents

More clarity provided on developer contributions throughout the transport chapter, cross-referencing to developer contributions policy (see policy D.SG4).

Further reference to policy objectives regarding safeguarded wharves.

Policy TR4 Statutory consultees

Amendment to policy D.TR4 to reflect comments.

There is a need to take account of service traffic generated by new homes and retail

Policy TR4 Residents, community groups

Amendment to policy D.TR4 to reflect comments.

Monitoring and delivery


Topic: Infrastructure, delivery and monitoring




Strong support for community infrastructure levy review as part of the local plan process to ensure that the necessary infrastructure to support the level of growth.

Developers, landowners

Comments noted and considered in the formulation of developer contributions policy (see policy DC.1).

Strong support for the increased emphasis on development viability – there is a need to incorporate sufficient flexibility to ensure that specific individual site circumstances can be considered.

Developers, landowners

Comments noted and considered in the formulation of developer contributions policy (see policy DC.1).

More clarity on how community infrastructure levy funding will be allocated.

Landowners Comments noted and addressed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Development must ensure that the facilities to support that are in place and the right time.

Residents Comments noted.

Consultation: Regulation 18 part 2 (November 2016 – February 2017)

Topic: Developer contributions



40



Need to ensure that developer contributions and land for infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate increase in demand through growth.

Policy DC1 Businesses, developers, landowners

Comments noted and considered in the development of policy D.SG4 (developer contributions). Developer contributions. Further details of contributions set out in the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

Further clarify needed in council’s approach to dealing with vacant building credit.


Policy D.SG4 updated to include clear explanation of why it considers the credit should not apply to development across the Borough area.

Further clarity required around the relationship between community infrastructure levy contributions and section 106 so as to ensure that development viability is not threatened.


Policy D.SG4 amended to provide further clarity on relationship between community infrastructure levy and section 106 contributions.

Site allocations


Topic: Site allocations




Continue to undertake the site allocations exercise to identify suitable strategic sites for new homes and jobs

Identify the boroughs key growth areas and ensure that development is planned for in a sustainable manner. Also, consider the suitability of the submitted sites, review the existing site allocations and identify other potential sites for allocation in the new Local Plan

Committed to the regeneration agenda for Whitechapel and is supportive of the wider vision for the area.

Vision Landowner Whitechapel South site allocation contributes to the redevelopment of the area and reinforces aspects of the masterplan for the area.

Infrastructure required to support housing

Vision Developer The site allocations provide relevant infrastructure to support housing and growth within the borough.

Welcomes early and continuous engagement on the identification and assessment of sites and their capacity to accommodate growth, where heritage interests are likely to be impacted, especially when Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment is being prepared.

Infrastructure Statutory consultee

Statutory consultees will be engaged in the development of the plan

We propose to submit Infrastructure Developer The sites mentioned have been included


41

representations in response to the overall approach to the new Local Plan and to make specific reference to the following sites:

Marian Place Gas Works, Bethnal Green

Bow Common Gas Works, Bow Common

Leven Road Gas Works, Poplar

Support the proposed approach and commitment that the necessary social infrastructure is in place and highlights that the development of these sites provide the opportunity to significantly contribute to regeneration in the borough.

as site allocations in the plan.

Recognises the critical importance of the necessary infrastructure to support development on the Isle of Dogs and throughout Tower Hamlets, not least to ensuring the acceptability of development to local residents.

Infrastructure RSL Infrastructure requirements are set out in the site allocations and reflect the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Site allocations proposed Infrastructure Developer Site were considered and allocated following assessment.

Concerned to ensure that sites for health facilities are identified and secured in areas of anticipated high growth where existing facilities will have insufficient capacity

Infrastructure Statutory consultee

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identified the infrastructure requirements, and these have been allocated within site allocations.

Work with Tower Hamlets on the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar

Statutory consultee

Officers worked closely with statutory consultees during the development of site allocations.

The identification of new facilities such as schools and health centres is certainly crucial, but the Local Plan needs to be explicit that the opportunity areas will not be a means for the demolition and non-replacement of council housing.

Infrastructure Resident Site allocations propose infrastructure requirements as per the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.



42

Topic: Delivering sustainable places




Supportive of opportunity areas to facilitate growth. This should be expanded to include more details.

Chapter 5 Poplar HARCA (housing association)

Each of the sub-areas has detailed principles , many of which facilitate growth, and the site allocations also include details of land use requirements and infrastructure to support growth

The images no longer truly representative of the ‘24 places’

Chapter 5 Neighbourhood planning workshop

All images in the Local Plan have been updated to reflect appropriate changes

Better development area proposals / management structures required such as urban development corporations like Park Royal)

City Fringe Neighbourhood planning workshop

The council cannot designate or create a development corporation, however in order to address the specific requirements and characteristics of the borough, four sub-areas have been created that have development principles that should be incorporated into developments.

Maps shown incorrectly Figure 5.3 Various Map corrected

Significant concern that the sequential test for the site allocations has not been undertaken

Chapter 5 Environment Agency

Sequential and exceptions tests have been undertaken

Use the term ‘flood zones’ rather than ‘flood risks’


The term flood zone has been incorporated into the site allocations

Biodiversity protection and betterment need to be incorporated into the design principles and site allocations


The design principles and the site allocations refer to protecting and improving biodiversity.

Information regarding estuary edges and setbacks provided


The Environment Agency will be consulted on appropriate developments and the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment also addresses setbacks.

Support the provision of potential schools to meet identified need. Recommends the provision of a school site within the relevant site allocation unless it can be demonstrated that the need for school places and/or a school site generated by the development has been secured through alternative means.

Chapter 5 Department for education and skills

Various discussions have taken place with our education and employment teams to better understand the population and school role projections. A number of the sites have also been viability tested. Further refinement has also been undertaken on the sites in terms of their deliverability, amongst other things. The above information has enabled relevant sites to be allocated for a primary or secondary school. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies that 3-4 primary schools are required and we have allocated 9. 4 secondary schools are required and we have allocated 5.

Viability testing report not available

Chapter 5 Canary Wharf Group Plc

Viability testing report available on the website and it has now been updated.


43

Information regarding the scale and phasing should be provided to assess the impact on the water and treatment network.

Chapter 5 Thames Water Details of the infrastructure and land use requirements have been provided but phasing and scale of development will be determined at the application stage, and Thames Water will be consulted.

Emphasise the role and importance of heritage assets and the delivery of conservation led regeneration. Include spatial layers for key heritage designations on the site allocations maps.

Chapter 5 Historic England Conservation and Heritage assets have been addressed both in the sub-area principles as well as the design principles for the site allocations where appropriate. The importance of heritage and conservation is also addressed within the design and heritage policies. Heritage assets have not been shown on the site allocations map but can be viewed on the policies map.

The Site Allocations Methodology Note requires clarification with regards to capacity

Chapter 5 Historic England The site allocations methodology note has been updated and includes details on how the capacity on sites has been calculated.

The Conservation Strategy is good but it does not appear to have informed the document

Chapter 5 Historic England Conservation, heritage and design matters have been included in the design principles and the site allocations.

Implications for the areas marked ‘opportunities for regeneration’, particularly housing estates.

Chapter 5 Various

Requests to include/remove sites from site allocations

Chapter 5 Various Boundaries amended as appropriate.

Additional requirements for schools that fall outside of the site allocations

Chapter 5 Department for Education and Skills

The site allocations have addressed the needs arising from additional school places in the borough in accordance with the recommendations of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Protection of heritage assets and conservation areas, and include reference to them in the site allocations and sub-areas

Chapter 5 Various Reference has been made to the heritage and conservation aspects of site, both in the development principles for each sub-area as well as the site allocation. The approach to the protection of such assets is also reinforced in the design and heritage policies.

Canary Wharf should not be considered separate to Millwall and Cubitt Town

No change required: Millwall, Cubitt and Canary Wharf fall with the Isle of Dogs sub area which considers the whole area in its entirety, to ensure strategic links and movements are seamless to support access to opportunities across the area.

Failure to identify sports facilities required to support growth.

Chapter 5 Sport England The site allocations reflect the requirements identified with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.


44

Where existing leisure facilities exist they will be re-provided. This is also supported by the community facilities policies.

Welcome the recognition of Isle of Dogs and South Poplar as its own sub-area

Chapter 5 One Housing Group

No amendments required

Clarification of definitions (e.g. activity areas)

Chapter 5 Transport for London

Throughout the document definitions have been provided in the main body of the text or in the glossary.

Should be eco-friendly City Fringe Sub-area

Neighbourhood Planning Workshop

Environmental impacts have been addressed in the development principles for each sub-area

The characteristics of Spitalfields should be recognised

City Fringe Sub-area

Not stated The development principles for each sub-area have been outlined and the importance of the characteristics of each place is also addressed in the design policies, particularly policy S.DH1.

There must be a balance between housing and commercial growth in Aldgate

City Fringe City of London Housing and economic growth are addressed in the development principles and do not focus on Aldgate. Policy S.EMP1 ensures that employment uses are protected.

Provide small floorplates for new businesses /shops /start-ups and boutiques

City Fringe Neighbourhood Planning Workshop

Small-to-medium enterprises are one of the requirements within the development principles for the sub-area. The employment policies in the ‘delivering economic growth’ chapter also support start-ups.

Improve connectivity between various places within the borough

Chapter 5 Various Connectivity has been addressed within the development principles for each sub-area as well as in the site allocations. There is also a chapter within the plan - improving connectivity and travel choice - which also seeks to ensure places are well linked.

Support the recognition of 1,900 new homes in the City Fringe , however clarity is required on how the council will seek to deliver the proposed 10,600 new homes within the opportunity area.

Various Details of how the homes will be delivered are explained within the Housing Delivery Strategy (2017).

City Fringe principles supported, and there is an opportunity to rebalance the mix of uses, providing an increased focus on employment uses. Policies should enable the continued regeneration of

City Fringe Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners

The development principles along with the employment policies support the role of employment uses within the area, including creating a sustainable mix of uses.


45

the area

Support the inclusion of Oban Street for a mixed use development

Chapter 5 TfL Oban Street was removed from the site allocations during the stages following the regulation 18 consultation. Details of the rationale for removing the site can be found in the Site Allocations Methodology (2017)

Reference to the medical research cluster should be strengthened.

Queen Mary, University of London

Med City is referred to in the development principles and life sciences are referred to in the Whitechapel South site allocation

Green Grid Strategy is referred to but is not published

Montagu Evans LLP

The strategy is going to be published along with the other evidence base documents.

The implications on landowners in terms of viability and deliverability of site and community infrastructure levy contributions

Various Site allocations have been viability tested in accordance with the government’s Planning Policy Guidance and community infrastructure levy contributions will be made in accordance with the relevant policies. The deliverability of sites was also considered during the site allocation selection process as outlined in the Site Allocations Methodology (2017)

Lack for provisions for young people who work in the area, as well as tourists. Whitechapel Market needs to be improved. Old Royal London Hospital could be used as a civic centre and the area could have restaurants and coffee shops.

Individual The development principles for the City Fringe sub-area and the Whitechapel site allocation have been site out in the Plan. The site allocation refers to the creation of a civic centre. The market is not included within the site allocation. The sub-area development principles do address how town centres can remain their vitality, including Whitechapel.

The Local Plan should promote higher density developments

Goods Yard Regeneration Ltd

Densities have been based on the density matrix as well as other site specific characteristics

Protect heritage assets and start-up business

Individual Heritage assets have been protected through the sub-area development principles, site allocations and the design and heritage policies. Various employment types area addressed in the employment policies.

Support the inclusion of this site for allocation, but details of densities should be provided. There should be flexibility in terms of the capacity in order to meet the housing demand.

Bishopsgate Goods Yard

Goods Yard Regeneration Ltd

Details of the capacity are not provided for the site allocations. Developments will be considered on their merits at the planning application stage.

Should prioritise key Bishopsgate Individual The land use and infrastructure


46

worker housing, family housing for permanent London residents. Maximise open space, provide flexible workspaces and cultural and various other proposed uses.

Goods Yard requirements have been outlined in the site allocations and the vision for the sub-area is outlined in the development principles. Further details regarding what is on site will be assessed at the planning application stage.

Contaminated land should be considered.


Contaminated land has been highlighted as a consideration within a number of site allocations, however where it has not, contaminated land matters will be addressed as the planning application stage.

No requirement to re-provide the existing health facility

Whitechapel South

Montagu Evans LLP

The health facility is required to be re-provided within the site allocation. The council’s public health team considers that the service needs to remain in the borough.

Support the inclusion of the Whitechapel Estate within the Whitechapel South allocation, but it should include housing as a land use requirement to create a mix of uses and also be in line with the Whitechapel Masterplan.

Whitechapel South

London Newcastle

Housing has been included within the Whitechapel South site allocation.

Local Industrial Location designation will limit or preclude development

City Fringe Bellway Homes Draft allocation of being a LIL is incorrect and has been removed

Activation and use of water spaces should be considered and encouraged

Chapter 5 Various The use of water spaces has been addressed within the site allocations and is also addressed within the enhancing open spaces and water spaces chapter.

Identify and designate new areas of open space, in particular green spaces


Site allocations require some form of open space, whether it is small (0.4 hectares) or strategic (1 hectare).

Make better use of inefficient sites


The site allocations make use of sites, some of which are not currently operating efficiently, and outlines requirements for land uses and infrastructure requirements.

Low number of site allocations within the Central sub-area

Central sub-area Not stated The site selection process is outlined in the Site Allocations Methodology (2017)

Devons Road should be included as one of the centres where improvements could be focused

Central sub-area Poplar HARCA Reference has been made to Devons Road in the development principles for the sub-area in terms of enhancing the green grid network.

Link open space to cemetery

Bow Common Gas Works

Not stated The indicative map links the open space to the cemetery

Retain the Gas holders Bow Common Gas Works

Not stated An application for their removal was issued under the Prior Approval process. The gas holders have now been


47

removed.

Various comments about the design and use of the site

Docklands Delivery Office

Canal and River Trust

The site is no longer a site allocation and was removed from the list, as per the Site Allocations Methodology (2017)

Impact of development in the water space

Chapter 5 Various The impact of development on the water space has been considered in the sub-area development principles and the site allocations as well as polices relating to water spaces.

Reference should be made to the regional park in the Lower lea Valley sub-area.

Lower Lea alley sub-area

Lee Valley Regional Park Authority

Reference has been made to the Lea river park in the introduction and in the development principles for the sub-area

Teviot Estate should be included as one of the key regeneration areas. Limehouse cut should be included as a place where additional footbridges are sought.

Not stated Key regeneration areas have not been identified. Footbridges have been identified in areas that are considered appropriate.

Empson Street should be a site allocation for a mix of uses


Poplar HARCA Empson Street is a Strategic Industrial Location designated by the GLA and is not appropriate for housing.

A pedestrian bridge over the Lea should be essential rather than potential


Poplar HARCA We have identified aspirational locations for bridges but are not in a position to make them an essential requirement.

No.1 gasholder should be locally listed and should be protected

Leven Road Gas Works

Planning Liaison MEOTRA

In order to locally list the gasholder it would need to go to the formal process. The site allocation design principles strongly encourage the retention of the gasholders.

The viability of the site given the land use requirements. Reference to the footbridge cannot be a requirement

Leven Road Gas Works

St. William Homes LLP

The site has been viability tested. The footbridge is not required, but an area of land for the bridge needs to be retained/safeguarded.

Support the designation of Oban street as a site allocation

Oban street Savills This site has now been removed from the site allocation. Further details are in the Site Allocations Methodology (2017).

Lack of details regarding how the area will feel and function, how utilities will be provided and waste disposed of. Infrastructure to support the population growth has not been fully considered.

Isle of Dogs and South Poplar

Details of the vision for the area and how it will function are provided within the sub area vision, development principles and site allocations. The sub-area and site allocations also provide details of the infrastructure requirements based on the Infrastructure delivery Plan (2017)

Docks should not be treated the same as open space


Canal & River Trust

This has been addressed in the water space policies. Water space has a separate definition from open space in the plan which reflects the different challenges and approaches facing this


48

valuable asset.

School to go on a site allocation such as Billingsgate or North Quay


Billingsgate now includes a school.

Homes should be affordable and for key workers as well as those on the council’s waiting list (amongst others). Education and training should be provided for people. Wildlife should be sustained and enhanced


The proposed housing mix is set out in the chapter on meeting housing needs. Education and training and access to employment are covered in the chapter on supporting community facilities. Biodiversity and wildlife are addressed in the sub-area development principles, site allocations as well as the enhancing open spaces and water spaces policies.

South Poplar is being treated as an afterthought to the Isle of Dogs. It has a different heritage to the Isle of Dogs and is in danger of being forgotten and blocked off by nearby developments. Tall buildings should be limited to certain areas


The nature of South Poplar has been considered in the sub-area development principles and the site allocations. Heritage and design have also been considered in chapter 3 (creating attractive and distractive places) . With regards to tall buildings, an evidence base has been provided and identifies areas that are appropriate for tall buildings – and it takes the surrounding areas into account.

The role of Cross harbour District Centre should be mentioned in the supporting text.


Transport for London

Crossharbour District Centre is emphasised in the development principles.

Figures in the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar should be consistent with the Isle for Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework


Transport for London

The Isle for Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework has not yet been published and we are working closely with the GLA to ensure that the framework is in conformity with statutory planning policies.

Suggestions for the vision of the Clove Crescent Site Allocations

Clove Crescent Savills UK Ltd This site has been removed from the site allocations as per the Site Allocations Methodology (2017)

Development should be stepped back from the water edge

Marsh Wall East The Canal and River Trust

The design principles in the site allocation emphasise the need to provide active frontages and access along the dockside which will require buildings to be stepped back.

Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating incorrect Various comments regarding the uses on site

North Quay Canary Wharf Group Plc

The site allocations have been updated and the sites have been viability tested and the uses outlined in the site allocation are considered to be appropriate.

The proposed land use requirements should have regard to the existing operational needs of the site. Caution the council

Reuters Savills UK Ltd The existing use and infrastructure requirements have been taken into account as detailed in the Site Allocations Methodology (2017).


49

with any reliance on the open space, primary school and district heating facility which are unlikely to be suitable for neighbours.

Concern regarding the inclusion of the Tiller leisure centre due to the viability implications. Requirement for a district heating facility is over prescriptive.

Westferry Printworks

Northern & Shell Investments No.2 Ltd

The leisure centre is required to be re-provided The district heating facility is no longer a requirement.

Workshop note 1. Introductions

Present: Limehouse Neighbourhood Forum:

Robert Meyrick

Inti Van Ritchie Spitalfields Neighbourhood Forum:

David Donoghue

Santokh Kaulder

Mhairi Weir East Shoreditch Neighbourhood Forum:

Charlotte Christiansen

Rebecca Collings Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Forum:

Ralph Hardwick

Sarah Castro

Richard Horwood

Cllr Andrew Wood Tower Hamlets:

Cllr Rachel Blake, Cabinet Member for Strategic Development

Adele Maher, Strategic Planning Manager

Hong Chen, Plan Making Team Leader

Ellie Kuper Thomas, Planner

Simone Williams, Planning Principle

Tom Clarke, Planner

Matthew Pullen, Infrastructure Planning Team Leader


50

Lorraine Hart, Facilitator

2. Welcome Cllr Blake

3. The Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans Lorraine provided an introduction to the relationship between the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Planning, in which it was stressed that: The key issue for Neighbourhood Plans to consider when collecting evidence and then developing policy is the fine grain of an area and its very specific and detailed characteristics. For example to think about a Local Plan policy developed to cover the whole borough and think why does this not work for our neighbourhood? What would work better? Why? It is also worth thinking about strategic development proposals in terms of if we said yes to the policy what “only if’s” would be attach? That might result in helpful conditions or acceptance of policies that would be in “conformity” addressed by Forums when they submit a Basic Conditions Statement about their plan saying why is supports the strategic development needs in the local plan). This has to be because they do not conflict with the borough wide, but take into account local distinctiveness in a neighbourhood

Discussion regarding development control decisions which don’t meet policy aspirations. However reiteration that good development control rests on good policy making. Also stressed that the relationship between the Mayor of London and Boroughs is key, due to call-in powers and that this is at a transitional moment.

The type and nature of developments will result in changes to population demographics and their needs for infrastructure. This needs to be addressed in planning.

Concern that London Plan densities are not adhered to. Confirmation that these are not maximums, rather the policy requires density optimisation. Local Plan team is actively lobbying London Plan team for further guidance on this policy and greater clarity on appropriate densities.

The need to look beyond the borough’s boundaries was also emphasised and agreed.

1. New Local Plan

Hong presented an overview of the new emerging Local Plan and the group was invited to look at the emerging Local Plan in more detail and provide comments. The following comments were provided: Spatial Portrait Overview:

I’m not sure these ‘jelly-beans’ reflect neighbourhoods anymore Central Area:


51

Great – v necessary, but how??? Also the Rotherhithe Tunnel is a health risk and creates traffic build up – Good Luck!

Limehouse Town Centre – Agreed/ Work more with larger stake holders to provide new town centre i.e. Royal Foundation St. Katharine’s.

Stepney Green Park - Despite population increase (Apologies if this is an inaccurate representation – further clarification gratefully received if this was your comment!)

City Fringe:

Stick to small floorplate new business / shops for start-ups and independent boutiques

Should be far more eco-friendly / green air quality considerations. E.g. all roofs should be green (á la Paris)

Central line stop by Shoreditch High Street (part of the Goodsyard Development).

Please do not miss out what is already in situ – re green spaces. Allen Gardens and Spitalfields City Farm are being ignored.

Find ways to avoid rubbish being dumped for collection in the streets. Need designated areas for storage. It’s creating noise and pollution

Brick Lanes should be pedestrianised

Whitechapel Market should be re-engineered to enhance. Currently a health threat

More open space designation.

SNPF to advise? Through evidence base?

Access: great – better signage / update road maps / signs. Need to tell people where things / venues are.

There needs to be radical traffic management proposals – commercial street, great eastern street, Bethnal green road will not cope with increases planned

We need better development area proposals / management structures. Urban Development Corporation (like Park Royal)?

Isle of Dogs:

Where can it grow??

Ensure needs will be met before allowing excessively dense development

Transport too focused on bringing people from outside CW into CW, not getting around.

Westferry DLR – respect to more immediate context, not necessarily scale

Turn Morgan Stanley Site into a School

Don’t build to boundaries – creates overshadowing / enclosure

School site allocation at Billingsgate / North Quay

Consider transport connections from outside Isle of Dogs in infrastructure planning

Ensure river walkway is prioritised as a pedestrian / cycleway and improve accordingly

What happened to Island Gardens (why no characterisation study??). Policies Crosscutting Themes:

Community Impact Assessment?


52

Promote ‘liveability’ (i.e. quality of life for existing and future resident and workers. Avoid over development without sufficient infrastructure of all kinds to support it).

Environmental Sustainability:

Excellent – but support and recognition for what is already available is required – allow them to grow.

Noise issues! Today it is not possible to complain when the equipment is older than 4 years.

Only allow electric delivery vehicles

It is not all about trees – gardens and gardening improve community cohesion, air quality, physical and mental health

Electric vehicle charging points

Thames Tideway Tunnel?

Where are the solar panels on new builds?

Communicate with other boroughs but don’t collide

Enderby Wharf Cruise ships massive new NO2 Housing:

Public Land (e.g. NHS, network rail) – should have a requirement of minimum 50% affordable housing.

Quantify this figure [expected supply] and plan for infrastructure

What about all the empty ground floor units (retail) that no-one wants?

Social rent? % of family housing? % of affordable?

Query regenerate ‘empty’ housing estates? When are estates empty?

Transport and Connectivity:

Cross river connections?

Access to, and moving around in, and parking in, the Isle of Dogs

Take account of service traffic generated by new homes and retail

Moderate the density of large new residential towers to reduce their adverse impact

Electric charging points everywhere

Improving the river walkways around the Isle of Dogs

Promote car free

Infra to improve PTAL (Apologies if this is an inaccurate representation – further clarification gratefully received if this was your comment!)

Pedestrianise Brick Lane

Design and the Historic Environment:

Massing and height in relation to existing context

Loss of light!

Open Spaces and Green Grid:

Not ‘protect’ but ‘enhance’

Improve infrastructure and make open space / green space focal points


53

Community Facilities:

Identify need

D1 use to be provided outside if lost! Catchment area lost? (Apologies if this is an inaccurate representation – further clarification gratefully received if this was your comment!)

Loss of pubs is very sad Town Centres and Retail:

Office to resi?

2. Neighbourhood Plans: info share and joint work Key potential areas of collaboration could be both sites that are too small to be considered as part of the Local Plan and evidence at very local level being collated by Forums Limehouse:

Vision: Building a greater community and a more inclusive environment

Key Policy Areas: o Blue and Green Grid – optimising what is already available by creating better

connections. Requiring developers to provide and maintain green infrastructure

o Making better use of inefficient sites o Employment / Retail (improving the town centre)

Isle of Dogs:

Vision: To promote ‘liveability’ and is supported by a number of objectives.

Key Policy Areas: o Density o Infrastructure

East Shoreditch:

Vision: TBC

Key Policy Areas: o Housing (social) o Community play space and space for NEETs o Public realm (walkability, improve legibility/coherence, reduce barriers) o Green spaces o Community gardening

Spitalfields:

Vision: TBC

Key Policy Areas: o Identify and designate new areas of open space, in particular green spaces o Requiring green roofs and encouraging green walls but accept there may be

viability issues o Protect and provide affordable workspace that works for local people


54

o More affordable housing, and housing that meets need

3. Community Infrastructure Levy Summary: Lorraine and Matthew Pullen presented and the following points were raised:

The Current Infrastructure Development Plan attached to the 2010 Core strategy was the best place to start to get an idea of what could be considered for inclusion as priorities in Neighbourhood Plans.

This could then influence the IDP for the new Local plan and inform both LBTH CIL spending and the neighbourhood portion in the future.

Questions:

Discussion regarding Neighbourhood Portion – emphasised that this can be allocated more flexibly than the rest of CIL.

Discussion regarding the vital importance of evidence to underpin infrastructure requests. Resulting request to provide and share data. Confirmed that Local Plan evidence base can be used by Forums.

Discussion regarding funding expectations and where funding has been spent. Confirmation that spending of sec106 and CIL is public information. However highlighted difficulties with forecasting expected CIL, due to uncertainties regarding developments coming forward. Emphasised that Forums prioritising spend, was a crucial first step.

4. Additional Information:

Introductory Presentation

Policy Presentation

Infrastructure Cabinet Report (January 2016)

Data sources

Web links to documents – infrastructure development plan, CIL schedule

Glossary


55

Appendix 4: Public Notice – East London Advertiser


56

Appendix 5: Article – Eastlondonlines Planning the future of Tower Hamlets: what do local people think?

by Aisha Majid/ December 12, 2016/ EMPLOYMENT, ENVIRONMENT, HOUSING, LOCAL NEWS, NEWS, POLITICS, TOWER HAMLETS/ No Comments

Brick Lane, Tower Hamlets. Pic: Aisha Majid

The latest in a series of public consultations on Tower Hamlets’ new local plan will take place this Wednesday at the Ideas Store in Whitechapel. The plan will set out the Borough’s vision and framework for the next ten to fifteen years, addressing needs and opportunities in relation to housing, the economy, community facilities, infrastructure and environment. The borough has continued to see major changes. The local population has increased 13 per cent in the last five years. Despite some affordable housing efforts, median rents increased 8 per cent from the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2016. The chart below shows the borough’s population and job projections to 2031 based on data from the Greater London Authority.

The draft plan under the consultation emphasises quality of life, families and affordable housing.

Some of the key proposals include prioritising genuinely affordable homes through council-backed initiatives and private developments. Developments should contribute towards infrastructure provision in the borough, which is at or near capacity.

Improving air quality is a priority, as is encouraging workspaces that meet the needs of different occupiers. The consultation plans to support new sports facilities and help stop the loss of existing pitches.

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/author/madj16majid/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/news/employment/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/news/environment/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/news/housing/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/news/local-news/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/news/local-news/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/news/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/news/politics/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/category/tower-hamlets/

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2016/12/planning-the-future-of-tower-hamlets-what-do-local-people-think/#respond

http://towerhamlets-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/planning/newlp/nlpr18/reg18

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2016/11/extending-the-low-emission-zone-to-polluted-tower-hamlets-what-do-local-people-think/

http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/property/tower-hamlets-delivers-more-affordable-9523899

https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/average-private-rents-borough


57

ELL took to the streets to ask those living or working in the borough their opinion on the key local challenges.

Carlotta Loi, 32, designer

“There is a lack of green space in Tower Hamlets – it’s not like the other areas in London. The roads here are also dirtier than other places, even though Tower Hamlets is in a central zone.”

Raj Chawla, 71, small business owner

The council has got to support small businesses. I’m not against minimum wage but if the businesses don’t make enough money how can we pay workers? The council needs to encourage small businesses in the area. A lot of the independent ones are already closing. Some make money, but not all. Unless the council has a plan to wipe out small businesses, they need to do something!

Kemville Brown, 35, hospitality worker

“Housing and employment. That’s standard in any borough. Here, specifically, the council needs to address the homelessness in the borough. It’s known for drugs and drink. More affordable housing and better counselling could help alleviate the homelessness issue.”

Jamie Ashton, 30, design technologist “The main issue here is housing. There is a mass housing shortage in all of London. I haven’t lived in Tower Hamlets for a while, but I lived before in Bromley-by-Bow. Housing issues are probably going to get worse. Brexit is going to affect it, but I’m not sure how.”

The draft will be open to comments until January 2. Anyone living, working or studying in Tower Hamlets can also join the local plan consultations online. The final plan will be ready in Autumn 2017.

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/consultations/Local_Plan.aspx


58

Appendix 6: Article – The Wharf Future of Canary Wharf revealed in draft Tower Hamlets Local Plan

The council consults the public on its vision for the future development of the Docklands estate and the surrounding areas of south Poplar and the Isle Of Dogs

COMMENTS

BYALEX MCINTYRE 18:07, 7 DEC 2016

Canary Wharf from Greenwich (Photo: I-Wei Huang) The future of Canary Wharf has been presented by Tower Hamlets Council as they aim to bring 110,000 more jobs and more than 20,000 new homes to the area by 2031. The vision has been outlined in the authority’s draft local plan, a document required by the Government to set out how boroughs will meet its need for housing, employment, health, educational and amenities over the next 15 years.

The wider London Plan identifies a minimum of 10,000 new homes and 110,000 jobs to be created on the Isle of Dogs and in south Poplar.

But the council goes further, believing there’s a potential for 26,350 units, although that figure is still under discussion.

The summary of the emerging vision said: “Canary Wharf will be integrated with neighbouring areas in south Poplar and Isle of Dogs and will continue its global economic function as a business district.

“Canary Wharf will also be a place for mixed, vibrant and resilient commercial, retail and leisure hubs, supported by additional employment space in south Poplar and Isle of Dogs.

http://www.wharf.co.uk/news/local-news/future-canary-wharf-revealed-draft-12288576#comments-section

http://www.wharf.co.uk/authors/alex-mcintyre/

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/Home.aspx


59

“Development will be of a high quality and successfully accommodate densities and tall buildings in appropriate locations.

“New homes will provide high quality internal living environments and maximise the amenity opportunities of the waterways.

"River crossings and services will enhance connectivity together with improvements to walking and cycling.

“Communities will be supported by social and transport infrastructure to ensure they are well integrated places for working, living and playing.”

The council has identified 15 key sites on which to focus the areas development.

Aspen Way

The site requires any development to provide housing, open space and employment as well as a potential for a district heating facility, subject to further assessment.

Billingsgate Market


60

The site surrounding the beloved and historical fish market is slated for a comprehensive redevelopment but the council points out the importance of respecting the Grade II listed Accumulator Tower and the market.

It is seen as a site for housing, open space, wholesale market, employment with potential capacity for a heating facility and a primary or secondary school.

Clove Crescent, East India

The site close to the East India DLR station comprises of three buildings, two filled with offices and one vacant.

The council is hoping it will become an employment-led development with open space, possibly providing capacity for a secondary school and housing.

Crossharbour Town Centre

The area, already home to a health facility, DLR station and offices has already got planning permission to provide 30,445sqm of retail, office and leisure floor space and up to 850 homes.


61

Other uses being looked at by the council include a primary school and idea store.

Hercules Wharf

To the east of East India Dock Basin and Orchard Wharf, planning permission has been granted to develop 834 homes along with retail, employment and education space.

Limeharbour

Lying to the south of Marsh Wall and consisting of office and industrial buildings including the Harbour Exchange Square and Skylines Industrial Estate.

It is thought the land can be used for housing as well as open space and employment and could be home to a primary school.


62

Marsh Wall East

As part of the redevelopment of the site, which already comprises of office, housing and retail uses, the council believes more capacity exists for housing, open space, employment, a primary school and a health facility.

Marsh Wall West

An application has been approved to turn 50 Marsh Wall and 63-69 and 68-70 into 634 new homes, a 231-room hotel, a health centre, primary school and ground floor retail and open space.


63

Millharbour South

The site currently includes residential, retail and vacant land and the council wishes to open it up for more housing, employment and open space opportunities.

Planning permission has already been granted for 132 new homes to be built at 45 Millharbour as well as 880sqm of office and retail space.

Millharbour

Home to a vacant car sales centre, offices private primary school and nursery, the land has been slated for more housing, open space, employment and community uses as well as a possible health facility and additional primary school.

More than 2,000 homes are being built at 1,2 and 3 Millharbour as well as a primary school and nursery and provisions for employment, retail and community uses.North Quay


64

One of Canary Wharf’s expansions and planning permission has already been granted for more than 372,000sqm of offices, 5,324sqm of retail space as well as a pedestrian bridge across West India Dock North.

Reuters Car Park

Used by the adjacent Reuters offices, it contains a Grade II listed dock with a small pump house.

The council wishes to use the site for housing and open space with possible provision of a primary or secondary school.


65

Riverside South

The council earmarked the site south of Westferry Circus for office-led employment and permissions was granted to create two buildings with more than 340,000 of office space, car parking, access roads, public open space and a riverside walkway.

Westferry Printworks

Bounded by the Millwall Outer Docks, the former printing site is currently being developed into 722 homes together with a secondary school and retail, office, community and leisure spaces.


66

Wood Wharf

The second phase of Canary Wharf currently under construction will provide up to 4,500 new homes, a hotel, primary school and office/retail space.

The public consultation on the draft local plan runs until January 2, 2017. Comments can be made online. Follow The Wharf on Twitter @the_wharf

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/council_and_democracy/consultations/Local_Plan.aspx

https://twitter.com/


67

Appendix 7: Article – Roman Road Trust Plan public consultation workshop by Admin | posted in: Planning & development | 0 An upcoming workshop organised by the Council will allow you to have an input in the new Local Plan that will set out the strategy for our region of Tower Hamlets for the next 15 years.

In line with Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, the Council is inviting local residents and businesses to have their say on the second stage of consultation for a new Local Plan.

The Council will be holding a public consultation workshop regarding the Local Plan for the area that includes our neighbourhood of Roman Road and Bow. This workshop will take place at 6pm on Tuesday 13 December at Mulberry & Bigland Green Centre, Bigland Street, Commercial Road, London, E1 2JP.

> Book a place at the Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan ‘Central’ Area Workshop on Eventbrite here. Booking is recommended as numbers for the workshops are limited.

This consultation seeks views on the proposed draft vision, objectives and policies in the Draft Local Plan which will inform a revised version of the document to be published as the Proposed Submission Local Plan in summer 2017 before it is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for examination in public. The new Local Plan will set out a vision, strategic priorities and a planning policy framework to guide and manage development in the borough for the next 15 years, in line with the planning policy requirements set out by national and regional government.

Additionally, hard copies of the documents can be viewed at the Council’s Town Hall, libraries and Idea Stores.

If you can’t attend the workshop, comments can be made to the Council in the following ways:

Online: (Local Plan Only) http://towerhamlets-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/planning/newlp/nlpr18/ Email: (Local Plan and SCI) : [email protected] By post: (Local Plan and SCI): FREEPOST, Planning Policy Consultation , D&R Strategic Planning, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, PO BOX 55739, London, E14 1BY

For those who are unable to attend the events, all information will be made available on the Council’s website.

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)

The Council also invites your comments on the Draft Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) Refresh.

The SCI sets out how the community can get involved in the preparation of local planning policy documents and decisions on planning applications. This is Phase 1 of updating the SCI and brings the document up to date with changes in legislation, planning terminology and the greater use of electronic communication since the last SCI was produced in 2012. Phase 2 of the update will look more closely at engagement around the Development Management process and is anticipated to take place once the Local Plan has been adopted in 2018. 1. Download the Statement of Community Involvement Refresh here. 2. Either email your comments to [email protected], putting “Statement of Community Involvement Consultation” in the subject line. 3. Or telephone: 020 7364 5009 4. Or comment via Twitter @TowerHamletsNow

If you would like any further information or assistance, please contact the Plan Making team by email [email protected] or on 0207 364 5009.

Please note

If you’re interested in this, you may like to know that the Roman Road Trust has started the process for developing a Neighbourhood Plan for Bow. This helps local communities get together and set their own planning policies to reflect the unique needs of their neighbourhood. For more information, please visit Roman Road Neighbourhood Plan website and to become a voting member join the Neighbourhood Forum here.

http://romanroadtrust.co.uk/author/k3yh0ld3r/

http://romanroadtrust.co.uk/planning-development/


https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tower-hamlets-draft-local-plan-central-area-workshop-tickets-29072271948





http://www.romanroadneighbourhoodplan.org/

http://romanroadneighbourhoodplan.org/join-forum


68

Appendix 8: An example of an advert placed in Eventbrite


69

Appendix 9: Adverts placed in Bengali newspapers


70


71


72


73

Appendix 10: An example of a community information panel and a map showing where community information panel were located across the borough


74


75

Appendix 11: Advert - Tower Hamlets newsletter


76

Appendix 12: Feedback from the workshops

Feedback from the City Fringe and Central area workshop

Event: City Fringe and Central Area workshop

Date: 13 December 2016

Key issues Feedback

Public spaces Support for green spaces in Central area (and whole borough) – valued resource.

Concern about the increased use of small public open spaces delivered by housing associations and paid for via leasehold service charge. Equity concern about who pays for their maintenance.

Transport Need to improve access to underground stations (in particular Mile End and Bethnal Green) for disabled residents – could development contributions be used?

Need more capacity for cycle parking at Bethnal Green Station

LBTH should lobby for bigger stations, with car parks on the edge of London to prevent people driving into London.

In general more bike provision is required

Reduce car use but need to be aware of unintended consequences of traffic calming i.e dangerous driving / manoeuvres on Mile End Road to circumvent measures.

Tall buildings Concern about emerging tall buildings in Mile End and the risk they could establish a precedent for future buildings.

Old town centre first tall building hierarchy supported but concern it wasn’t always applied.

Tall buildings should be limited within the central area – not considered suitable.

Air quality improvements

Support for reduced parking standards

Need for improvements on Mile End Road

Concern about air quality impacts of new river crossings

Should explore radical solutions including shutting the road for 1 or 2 days a week.

Public realm/walking routes

On the whole more information is needed on the strategic pedestrian / cyclist improvements.

Mile End to Roman Road Link – agreed it could be improved but some concern as to what exactly was being proposed. Don’t want to cause unnecessary disruption for limited improvement.

Need to better protect and deliver Green Grid and Blue Grid – currently delivery is haphazard and opportunities missed. e.g. Hamlets Way and Southern Grove.

Residents need more information on these open space strategies and what should be delivered.

How can these projects be delivered? More information needed.

Old Ford Road – good idea to improve link, but again more details needed. Unclear how this can be achieved as it is so constrained.

Community facilities Need more general purpose facilities – too many are for worship only

Need a better definition of what a community building is and the activities it should support. Should be affordable. Need to better monitor what is being delivered and how it is used.


77

General comments regarding the consultation

Be clearer on scope/remit of planning policy and the Local Plan from the outset.

Be clearer on link to London Plan / National policy and what constraints it sets.

Materials/reading should have been sent out before hand

Too much paper on the tables

Number of attendees very low and therefore not very representative – more could have been done to engage and encourage people to attend. Council should improve methods used to engage people.

Questioned how much work was put in and in what ways the Plan Making Team reached out to people. One attendee notes that the council no longer had a Community Engagement Team who may have been better at engaging people. Planners may not be best trained to find ways of engaging with the community. Were posted/leaflets left with local business and placed in GP surgeries? health centres? etc

The council need to find new ways of improving consultation/community engagement to make it ‘real’ and focus on real issues.

Two people at the table wanted a hard copy of the Local Plan. One of them offered to buy a copy – they made a point that LP’s were not available for sale.

Area vision Dislike the name ‘City Fringe’ - lacks identity.

The vision lacks recognition of the existing character and the need to enhance it e.g. small independent businesses. Tourism as a key to growth.

Too much jargon and not enough clarification and context

The vision is very ‘top down’

Not focused enough

Define/clarification on: (a) Flexible/affordable workspace (b) Opportunity for regeneration (c) Tower Hamlets Activity Area

Provide clarification on section 6 (Area Priorities and Development Principles) where it says ‘Extend the activity from Watney Market town centre to Commercial Road’….. etc

Provide clarification on section 8 (Open Space and Water) where it says ‘introduce second green spine between Shadwell Station, through St George’s Gardens/Swimming Pool to Wapping Woods’

Clarification of the relationship between the Local Plan and the Whitechapel 2020 Vision

Conflict between residential vs commercial/night time/visitor/ tourist and managing the relationship effectively

Does not address highway/pedestrian safety

Needs to address connectivity north/south and east/west and prioritise pedestrian safety. There was also discussion regarding the footpath around the Tower Bridge/Tower Gateway and site allocation not being about to accommodate pedestrian footfall.


78

Feedback from the Isle of Dogs and Lower Lea Valley workshop

Event: Isle of Dogs and Lower Lea Valley workshop

Date: 19 December 2016

Key issues Feedback

General Unsafe

Poor amenities

Poor air quality

Open space - quality and management link standard to this rather than quantity

Opportunity for regeneration’ - the word ‘regeneration’ needs to be replaced with something more appropriate because it implies demolition of estates. It needs to be defined in the place making section.

Clarify whether ‘Opportunity for regeneration’ areas are imposed by LBTH or the GLA.

Communicating the key messages of the Local Plan needs to be in an accessible format and ensure that the message are real, understandable, relevant and measurable

The planners should lead the developers/development rather than developers leading the planners.

How much power do planners have over details e.g. room sizes etc.

Property prices are not affordable, particularly to local people.

Needs a brief description of each evidence base document.

SMART approach should be used at each stage of the Local Plan to define and give credibility and effectiveness to it. Monitoring and reporting on delivery.

Design The areas character can be better coordinated to manage change. Not much character to preserve/maintain

Acknowledge the historical population that characterises the borough

Heights/density greater density

Technical merits of a scheme at a lower level – urban design and character

Housing and community Fully support housing zone, but need infrastructure

Release waste facility

Empson Street SIL released

Allocate sites for schools/health (social infrastructure)

Requirements for infrastructure should not delay or stifle development

Delivery of infrastructure in a timely manner to match development

Employment What will be the impact on local businesses (e.g. in site allocations) – can affordable rents be secured?

Where employment is protected (e.g. in site allocations) the existing businesses are not protected and it is not necessarily the same types of employment that are replaced. Can a policy be incorporated to retain/incorporate the existing units in the new development?

Not enough employment space – need to protect specific types of industrial uses e.g. small industrial uses, repairs, ‘dirty spaces’.

Infrastructure Define infrastructure in detail.

Details regarding growth need to be provided such as population, numbers, jobs etc and information on how the


79

infrastructure needs will be met to support the growth.

Density in the borough may not have the capacity to accommodate infrastructure.

The location of infrastructure should be shown on the map.

Where will the cumulative impact of development on infrastructure be considered in chaper5?

Not keen on schools with playground on the roof. Shows density is too high.

Idea of ‘floating schools’ as a possibility.

Would neighbourhood planning assist with the delivery of infrastructure?

Transport Petrol stations – not enough of them to support transport infrastructure.

Protect petrol stations - details provided by monitoring and reporting.

Area vision Community set around open space – they are set around retail centres etc.

How will the vision be delivered?

Community cohesion - stronger

Documents

London Borough of Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan … Borough of Tower Hamlets Draft Local Plan 2031: Managing growth and sharing the benefits Regulation 18 consultation summary report