Local Development Framework: Update

Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:27:23 +0100

The LDF - THE COUNCIL'S TEN YEAR PLAN FOR TOWER HAMLETS
UPDATE FOR RESIDENTS DECEMBER 2006

The LDF is a new set of planning documents that will direct what is built in Tower Hamlets in the next ten years. The Council approved the LDF on September 13th and submitted it to the Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly. The closing date for public consultation is DECEMBER 21st. An ‘Examination in Public’ will follow and if the LDF is passed it will become law. Every borough must produce a Local Development Framework.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Council has accepted the Mayor of London’s building targets:

+++31,500 NEW HOMES IN TOWER HAMLETS OVER TEN YEARS+++
This is 10% of the whole London target. Tower Hamlets occupies 8 sq miles of London’s 609 sq miles. It would bring an additional 80,000 people to the borough. The current population is around 200,000.

+++NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS TO ACCOMODATE 100,000 PEOPLE+++
including 30,000 in the ‘City Fringe’ area where the residential population is 43,000.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As residents and local groups we are opposed to the ‘awesome’ scale of development planned for our borough by Mayor Ken Livingstone - via the London Plan - and Tower Hamlets Council. It is said by the Council to be one third of total development in London.

We believe that its effects on green space, amenity space, small businesses, historic buildings and the environment are unacceptable. The LDF states that there will be irreversible negative impacts and that many other effects are uncertain. Tower Hamlets is already one of the most densely populated areas of London.

We want the LDF to be changed so that its policies properly protect and benefit the communities in our borough. The Corporation of London's drive for expansion and the building industry’s agenda should not come before the needs and expectations of people living here. We see no policies in the LDF to deal with problems such as youth provision, training and access to employment. We see little recognition of the importance of current established communities and how they are the basis of new ‘sustainable communities’. If its goal is to improve the quality of life for everyone, the LDF needs to be connected into local concerns.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Our detailed comments on Local Development Framework policies will be submitted to the Secretary of State on behalf of CTRA (Columbia Tenants and Residents Association) and JHERA (Jesus Hospital Estate Residents Association) in Weavers Ward, along with other groups of Tower Hamlets residents. See below for detailed concerns.

IF YOU SUPPORT CHANGES TO THE LDF, SIGN UP
Send an email with your name and address to: theresidentsfirst@yahoo.co.uk

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CONCERNS ABOUT THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
These direct our written response:

IN GENERAL
- The policies have been made ‘flexible’ to meet the building targets. Policies that could produce beneficial results for residents could equally be ignored by developers claiming to be ‘meeting the targets in the plan’. After consultation last year many policies considered ‘onerous’ by the development industry were altered.
- The Council did not present any alternative development scenarios to the public.
- The scale of development will be backed up with infrastructure but this does not address existing problems.

OPEN SPACE, TREES, ALLOTMENTS
The open space provision will remain very low (1.2 hectares per 1000 people) and no major new spaces are planned in the west of the borough. ‘Because of meeting targets the Council cannot guarantee the 15 minutes walking access to a major park for all residents’. Play space is already being grabbed. ‘The new working community will put further pressure on open space sites’. Lawns, shrubs and flower beds are now ‘unsuitable’. If a new site is constrained, open space can be provided ‘off-site’. Changes to Metropolitan Open Land boundaries are permitted. Trees ‘contribute to a sense of community’ but if they are in the way of new buildings they do not have to be replaced. The policy to protect allotments has vanished.

HOUSING and DENSITY
New density guidelines are in some places four times the current figure of 247 habitable rooms per hectare (1ha = 100sqm) - so buildings will have to go higher. Definition of ‘affordable’ is not clear and many ‘affordable’ homes are bought for investment - not solving the problem of overcrowded social housing. Large areas of buy-to-let housing (eg 40% in Docklands) do not encourage established communities. Established residents on estates can be moved if their homes or the land are needed for other uses in ‘estate regeneration’ programmes. ‘Economic viability’ of providing social housing gives developers a get-out clause. Planners say the 50% social housing quota from new developments is unachievable and that the likely figure is 35% at the most.

TOWER BLOCK HAMLETS
Tall buildings must satisfy a number of criteria to be allowed. However, they can be built outside designated areas by negotiation. There would be no straightforward zoning.

CONSERVATION of BUILDINGS
Consultation shows widespread appreciation of historic buildings and local landmarks but developers state that conservation ‘frustrates growth’ and the Council agrees. Policy for ‘restriction of development rights’ are no longer in the Plan. Demolition of conservation area and listed buildings is allowed based on ‘merits’ of a proposal but no mention of any independent group to make specialist judgements. The council believes that historic buildings cause inequality.

OFFICE DEVELOPMENT and EMPLOYMENT
Major office building is now planned in Tower Gateway, Aldgate and at Bishopsgate Goodsyard. 30,000 additional jobs must be accommodated in areas near the City to support ‘regional employment growth’. (The Corporation of London wants more land for its turf war with Docklands and this is fully supported by the Council.) These areas ‘will not be appropriate for housing’. Mismatch between high unemployment and proximity of the City is not addressed in policies. Local businesses are subject to relocation for house-building. There is no analysis of the effects of large office areas (eg privatised public spaces) on local populations, as there was in the previous plan.

COMMUNITY PLACES, SPORT, YOUNG PEOPLE
Weak policies for provision of community facilities. Permission could be given to relocate current facilities, if necessary for development. Very high number of young people in borough who need places to go but no specific land is allocated. No new sports fields planned in spite of recognised benefits to health. The importance of local community facilities is not acknowledged even though they are vital for integration of existing and future residents.

‘CITY FRINGE’
The ‘City Fringe’ is made up of the wards of Weavers, Spitalfields and Banglatown, two thirds Whitechapel and almost all St Katherine’s and Wapping. It includes some of London’s ‘Central Area Zone’. Its population is 43,000 and it is one of the densest areas with the least open space. ‘The City Fringe has been identified as an area of change’ (City Fringe Area Action Plan introduction). It is under pressure from ‘competing land uses’ and ‘affected by property market cycles’. There is no clear justification in the LDF for this scale of new office-building.
Major developments planned are Bishopsgate Goodsyard and Aldgate, the London Hospital area, Truman’s Brewery, Goodman’s Fields.
++++Consultation on masterplans for Whitechapel and Aldgate begins January+++++

POLICIES for a GREENER ENVIRONMENT
Commercial and domestic buildings create 73% of carbon emissions in London (GLA press release). The LDF contains no predicted emissions from combined new development, though the Council wants to reduce energy consumption. LDF states that carbon emissions are only a ‘perceived’ threat to the environment. Developers are meant to use ‘sustainable building materials’ and should show they have ‘sought to incorporate renewable energy’ but there are no clear ways to check or enforce this. Refurbishment instead of demolition is not acknowledged as contribution to energy conservation. Instead, old buildings are said to create more heat loss and not benefit the environment.

STATEMENT of COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
We will say that the ‘SCI’ needs the Council to set out more effective ways to link in with local communities and that the Community Strategy and Local Area Agreements should be central to the Council's future plans.

Comments

residents first

Local Development Framework: Update