Agenda item

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment drawing attention to the main changes that have been made to the draft policies within the new Local Plan since they were originally considered by Members and seeking approval for the draft Plan in its entirety to go forward to the Grand Committee for consideration later this month.

 

Members were informed that a key diagram setting out all of the areas referred to within the Plan spatially would accompany the draft submitted to Grand Committee.

 

The Director of Built Environment proceeded to talk Members through each of the substantive changes as follows:

 

·         Strengthening of Policy Wording across the Plan

The Director of the Built Environment reported that the tone of the Plan had been strengthened where appropriate with references to ‘should’ changed to ‘must’ and ‘could’ to ‘should’ throughout.

 

·         Alignment with new Corporate Plan

The draft vision and strategic objectives had been updated to dovetail more effectively with the Corporate Plan. A Member requested that Officers check that any figures quoted within the to Plans were consistent across these and various other relevant policies.

 

·         Noise and Light Pollution Policy

Officers reported that, in response to comments previously made by the Sub-Committee, the Noise and Light Pollution Policy had been amended to cover both aspects adequately. In response to a Member who questioned if the Plan was clear enough in terms of what would be taken into account on daylight and sunlight, the Director of the Built Environment reported that this had been worked in to the design policies and highlighted that ideal daylight and sunlight conditions may not be practical in densely-developed city centre locations.

 

·         Protecting Social, Community and Sporting Facilities in situ

The Director of Built Environment reported that a cascade approach was to be adopted whereby the start point would be to protect the existing use of such a facility before considering (and giving preference to) a similar use and then only considering alternative uses if this was not possible.

 

A Member questioned if social rent for some units could be taken in to account. Officers undertook to look further in to the affordability and cost implications of this and to look to reflect this aspiration in so far as possible going forward.

 

·         Collective Security Measures for Major Developments

Officers highlighted that the suggested approach to security was a collaborative one with security features for individual buildings being a last approach.

 

·         On-Site Affordable Housing

Officers highlighted that the policy emphasised the need for affordable housing to be provided on-site and only exceptionally off-site. This was in line with concerns raised previously by Members and was also consistent with the message in both the National Planning Policy Framework and London Plan.

 

A Member referred to the discussion that had taken place around this at the last meeting of the Sub-Committee and the possibility of changing the relevant Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Officers reported that they had discussed this matter further with colleagues in Community and Children’s Services and any changes to the SPD would require public consultation. Members suggested that this process should be instigated sooner rather than later.

 

A Member requested that points 2. a. and b. of the Housing Policy be put in bold type.

 

·         Review of existing Residential Areas

Maps of existing residential areas depicting housing units that were either completed or in the pipeline were tabled for discussion. Members asked that the number of units in each area be clearly highlighted within the map key and that the types of housing were also specified.

 

In response to questions, Officers highlighted that the ‘pink’ areas depicted existing residential clusters and that the ‘blue’ areas were suggestions of other areas which it might be suitable to include subject to the views of Members.

 

Members were firmly of the view that the areas in which residential development was encouraged should be clearly identified and kept to a minimum.

 

In response to further questions, the Director of the Built Environment confirmed that residential amenity was already protected within existing policies. The Deputy Chairman asked that it be made explicit that, whilst housing may be outside of these specified zones, residential amenity would still be safeguarded. Officers undertook to verify this.

 

·         Proposed Phasing Profile to the increase in Office Stock

Officers reported that it would be made clear in the Policy that this was ‘indicative’ phasing. Members were informed that the increase of 750,000 square metres referred to for 2016-2021 was largely made up of schemes that were already in the pipeline.

 

·         Principal Shopping Centres

Members were informed that the Policy had been amended to encourage more diversity in terms of the retail offer and unit sizes/frontage.

 

In response to a question, it was reported that an impact assessment would be necessary if a number of units were amalgamated above a certain floorspace.

 

·         Specialist Retail Uses and Markets

Members were informed that these were now treated as separate issues and sub-divided into separate policies.

 

·         Pedestrian Routes through Buildings and Development Sites

Officers reported that the Policy now clarified the need to seek to provide new pedestrian routes through buildings and development sites as well as protecting existing routes. This also ‘reads across’ well to the draft Transport Strategy.

 

The Deputy Chairman highlighted the need to link both this and the New Development Policy within the Plan. He referred to the point raised by a Member at Grand Committee earlier this week stating that any new development should look to enhance or at least consider how any building becomes part of the public realm. A Member spoke about the possibility of providing developers with a non-exclusive list of things that it was felt would benefit the City and would therefore be in their interests to include (for example, public viewing galleries). Another Member clarified that the point made at Grand Committee had been more specifically around the provision of more publicly accessible ground floor space by developers. 

 

The Deputy Chairman added that consideration should also be given to the metrics of how an assessment impact of a new development might be undertaken and what the expectations around mitigation then were.

 

Officers undertook to look at how they might strengthen the Policy along these lines.

 

·         On-Site Servicing Provision

Greater emphasis had been placed on the need for on-site servicing provision within development schemes.

 

Members suggested that paragraph 3 of the policy be amended to replace ‘Developments should…’ with ‘Developments must’.

 

The Deputy Chairman spoke on paragraph 2 of the Policy and freight consolidation. He added that this was something that would be a huge change going forward and that developers could therefore be asked, in the interim, to produce Transport Management Plans with reference to this in recognition of the proposed shift towards this approach and to ensure that it remained a live issue. The Chairman concurred with this point and suggested that, going forward, there would be a presumption in favour of consolidation.

 

A Member suggested that paragraph 1 of the Policy be amended to read ‘Applicants are required to consult with the City Corporation and agree all matters relating to servicing at an early design concept stage’. She went on to state that, where deliveries on site were necessary, there should be strict conditions around these and this should be flagged with developers at the very outset.

 

·         Alignment with the draft Transport Strategy

Language within the plan would be amended to remove reference to ‘super blocks’ and replace with reference to healthy planned street areas.

 

A Member went on to discuss outside spaces more generally, with particular reference to tables and chairs on public highways and drinking in the street which could prove costly in terms of cleansing and maintenance. She questioned how Officers could look to ensure that developers were not looking to utilise public highways for this purpose going forward. She referred to Westminster City Council who had a policy in terms of tables and chairs and required separate trading licences for these.

 

The Chairman reiterated this point and questioned how this might be tackled in design terms. He wanted to be clear that any widening of pavements, for example, was for safety purposes and should not be viewed as additional space for developers. The Director of the Built Environment stated that the Local Plan did not deal with public highways but that this led back to previous issues raised around pedestrian permeability. It was suggested that reference to these points might usefully be included within the policy on ‘Advertisements’.

 

Another Member suggested that, if these kind of issues could be predicted from the use of the Unit, developers could be asked to contribute financially to pavement improvements/cleansing going forward. Officers stated that further views could be sought around this at consultation.

 

·         Use of the River Thames

Members were informed that there was now a stronger policy requirement for developers to consider the use of the River Thames for the movement of construction materials and waste and the servicing of development.

 

The Deputy Chairman suggested that this might be strengthen further still by suggesting that the River also be used more generally for deliveries and the like going forward.

 

·         Facilities for Public Cycle Parking

Officers highlighted that paragraph 1 of the Cycle Parking policy had been amended to require developments to provide on-site cycle parking for both occupiers, visitors and, where feasible, the general public.

 

A Member stated that, in terms of future-proofing such provisions, developers needed to be aware that e-bikes required wifi signal access and so either wifi access needed to be improved in certain areas or additional thought would need to be given to the placement of cycle parking in basements, for example.

 

Members requested that the wording ‘where feasible’ be removed from paragraph 1 so as to strengthen the requirements around public cycle parking.

 

·         Potential Public Facilities within Tall Buildings

Members requested that ‘must’ replace ‘should’ in paragraph 4 of the Policy.

 

In response to questions, Officers stated that they were in discussion with the GLA to ensure that this Policy aligned with the London Plan around the need for more publicly accessible spaces.

 

·         Key Areas of Change

Maps of the individual key areas were tabled at the meeting.

 

Pool of London

In response to a question around whether there would be more public toilets provided along the Riverside Walkway, Officers clarified that the onus would be on new developments to provide public access to toilets, water and defibrillators within buildings.

 

Aldgate and Tower

A Member asked that Portsoken also be included in this Key Area.

 

Smithfield and Barbican

A Member referred to the ‘Smithfield and Barbican Key Area of Change’ policy wording and highlighted sensitivity around the suggestion that pedestrian permeability and connectivity through the Barbican Estate might be anywhere other than the existing highwalks. Officers noted this viewpoint but suggested that, at planning stage, it would be their preference to keep options around permeability and connectivity open and to seek specific views around  this at consultation.

 

A Member commented that they felt that Officers had produced a good contextual write up of each Key Area of Change. He went on to state that the area linking Liverpool Street and the Smithfield/Barbican Area would become increasingly important going forward with the introduction of Crossrail and the Cultural Mile, marking an important shift in City Policy, He was therefore keen that reference to this should feature throughout the relevant documents.

 

Members went on to raise questions around other aspects of the draft Plan. With regard to the ‘Air Quality’ policy, a Member questioned if it would be better to install the best available technology as opposed to being quite specific around ‘biomass or biofuel boilers’.

 

With regard to the ‘Pipe Subways’ policy, a Member questioned what thought could be given to the future proofing of infrastructure such as this.

 

With reference to the ‘Housing’ policy a Member questioned whether there would be any circumstances whereby a proposal for a scheme offering 100% intermediate housing would be acceptable. Officers reported that this would be considered on a case by case basis and highlighted that there would be new Government requirements around this coming forward. It was generally accepted that if such a proposal were to meet priority need in the City, it would be acceptable despite the 70%/30% reference in paragraph 2.c.

 

A Member commented that he felt that any reference to area viability was lacking in the Plan. Officers confirmed that the whole Plan would be subject to viability assessment after consultation. The Member asked that this be referred to within the draft Plan.

 

Officers concluded by stating that the draft Plan would now be submitted to the Planning and Transportation Committee for approval later this month before going out for public consultation, the results of which would be reported to this Sub-Committee in Spring 2019.

 

RESOLVED – That, Members agree the proposed draft Local Plan set out at Appendix 1 and authorise the Director of the Built Environment to make further minor editorial changes and non-material additions to the draft Plan prior to its consideration by the Planning and Transportation Committee.