Build Up Programme / University of Westminster
London Borough of Haringey Final Presentation 1 March 2010
Build Up Programme / University of Westminster
Alan Mace
Build Up Final Presentation Today we are presenting the final output from our 3 months with Haringey Borough Council Thank you for the opportunity and the challenge. We hope that our outputs are of value and will progress your objectives
The Agenda •
Planning & Regeneration Centre
Chris Dudley
•
Tottenham Hotspur Planning Application
Olumide Obasemo, Maria Tomolova
•
Tottenham Green Urban Design and Development Framework Trevor Bendell Reza Shafaei
•
Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
•
Haringey Sustainable Design and Construction Guidance
Alison Minto
Olumide Obasemo Maria Tomolova •
North London Main Land Use and Development Plan Alain Chiaradia Yatwan Hui
About Build Up - Retaining professionals - Importance for the future - Scale of task - spatial, functional, sectoral - Complexity of local governance
- Projects & participants - LB Haringey
Planning and Regeneration Center Chris Dudley
Final Build-Up Presentation on Planning Application Maria TOMALOVA & Olumide M. K. OBASEMO 01 March 2010
Presentation Outline • Project Task • Details of the Proposal • Outline of Work Done • Analysis of Work Done • Input to Draft Report • Personal Cogitation • Appreciation
Project Task
To produce, in collaboration with the dedicated Haringey Council Team, the first draft of Planning Committee report on the proposed scheme.
Outline of Work Done Updated all the submissions / responses from the public and stakeholders—from which to synthesise the key issues that would be in the report:
• •
In total, about 900 public responses in the form of letters, e-mails and web portal entries were received. Formal stakeholders’ submissions were also received from: Environment Agency Metropolitan Police SAVE Britain’s Heritage & The English Heritage Tottenham Conservation Area Advisory Committee, The FA & England’s Manager North London Chamber of Commerce CABE Surrounding Boroughs, e.g. Waltham Forest, Camden, Barnet, etc. Greater London Authority Utilities companies: Network Rail, ThamesWater, LEFPA, etc.
Inputs on assigned section of the Draft Report
Analysis of Work Done
Analysis of Work Done (cont’d) Highlights of Concern from Public Submissions • Traffic congestion & parking problems are likely to be exacerbated • Proposed supermarket could lead to net loss of jobs and businesses • Demolition of listed buildings deemed unjustifiable, and could lead to bad precedence
Highlights of Concern from Stakeholders’ Submissions • Network Rail & Thames Water made compelling cases for improvement measures to rail & water supply facilities • Conservation groups & NGOs firmly insisted on the incorporation of listed buildings into the scheme
• Several issues yet to be resolved with the Police, despite extensive • Inadequate & ineffective disabled consultations already! facilities. • CABE still unsatisfied with the • Insufficient infrastructural proposed stadium design and capacity for 56,000+ people some other aspects of the scheme.
Input to the Draft Report • The sections of the Draft Report in general include: Site and Surroundings The proposal Relevant History Consultations Policies Assessment Conclusion & Recommendations
• The synthesised key issues are used in the consultation section of the Report
Personal Cogitation • Tottenham, Haringey, is the best option of THFC, else they would have chosen another; so the Council should not be intimidated by the threat of the club moving somewhere else and should be firm in the inevitable negotiation process leading to the approval of the scheme! • Having said that, the Council has to be forward-looking and take into consideration the times we live in whilst deciding on this application.
Thank you for your time
Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor
Tottenham Green Urban Design Development Framework Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor
Final Progress Report 1 March 2010
Project Team Project Managers, Haringey Council: Marc Dorfman Asst. Director Planning and Regeneration Ismail Mohammed Group Manager Planning Policy Stefen Krupski Project Officer / Sites Team
Build up Consultants: Trevor Bendell Reza Shafaei
Reference Documents 1. A10 / A1010 Corridor Study, Potential Scope of Work: Draft Document 2. Mayor Great Spaces Initiative: Application Form to Join the Initiative 3. The Mayor’s Great Spaces: Haringey Policy 2009 4. Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter: Draft Issues and Options Discussion Paper 5. Haringey A10/A1010 Historic High Road Corridor / A Cultural Quarter for Tottenham Green: Draft Brief for Consultant 6. Tottenham High Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 7. A New Plan for Haringey 2011-2026 Core Strategy – Preferred Options:
Reference Documents 8. Statement of Community Involvement – 2008 9. Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor: Design for London, London Development Agency 10. Core Strategy – Summary of Issues and Options: Consultation Response
Council Documents Hierarchy
Area Description • Chain of connected high streets, main road London to Cambridge • High street shopping, residential, grander institutional building, greens
Project Aims 1- The regeneration proposals focusing on creating a chain and succession of linked great spaces: • • • • • •
South Tottenham Gateway Seven Sisters Tottenham Green Bruce Grove Tottenham Hotspur Area Northern Gateway
2- Coordination to tie all together 3- Improve neglected links; Tottenham Green & Bruce Grove
Project Methodology
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter Key Project Description •
Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter Key Project Description • •
Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter Key Project Description • • •
Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale intensification
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter Key Project Description • • • •
Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale intensification Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter Key Project Description • • • • •
Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale intensification Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter Key Project Description • • • • • •
Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale intensification Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green East and West sides divided by High Road
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter Key Project Description • • • • • • •
Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale intensification Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green East and West sides divided by High Road West includes historic Holy Trinity Church, its yard, Sunday School & vicarage
Key Project Objectives • Identifying the boundary
Key Project Objectives • Identifying the boundary • Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educational destination within the Borough to attracting people
Key Project Objectives • Identifying the boundary • Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educational destination within the Borough to attracting people • Have a look at lower admission and upper admission
Key Project Objectives • Identifying the boundary • Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educational destination within the Borough to attracting people • Have a look at lower admission and upper admission • Interview with land owners; what their development aspirations are; how they want to change the land use
Key Project Objectives • Identifying the boundary • Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educational destination within the Borough to attracting people • Have a look at lower admission and upper admission • Interview with land owners; what their development aspirations are; how they want to change the land use • Design brief and Specification for external consultant development
Key Project Objectives • Identifying the boundary • Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educational destination within the Borough to attracting people • Have a look at lower admission and upper admission • Interview with land owners; what their development aspirations are; how they want to change the land use • Design brief and Specification for external consultant development • Development opportunities and constraints
Site Map Tottenham Green land ownership Masterplan map showing designated boundaries for land ownership, 2009.
Site Map Revised land use map showing designated outline of boundaries for Tottenham Urban Development Plan
Site Map Tottenham Green
Main Stakeholders – Identification of Buildings Key Buildings
Land Use
The Bernie Grant Arts Centre The Marcus Garvey Library
Cultural
The Tottenham Green Leisure Centre The Tottenham Palace (community Church) The Women Community Centre The Holy Trinity Church, Philip Lane The High Cross United Reform Church, Clusterworth Rd The St. Mark’s Church, High Rd The Friends Meeting House
Religious
The Mary’s Church, Lansdowne Rd Tottenham Baptist Church, High Rd St. Francis de Sales Church, High Rd Brook St. Chapel
Main Stakeholders – Identification of Buildings Land Use
Educational Commercial
Key Buildings The college of North East London (CONEL) The Primary School Offices Specific Retails Tesco Pubs and Clubs The Tottenham Police Station
Civic Open Space
The Public Parking The Bus Garage Apex House Tottenham Green Edwardian Grade II Old Boys School 1908 Bernie Grant Arts Centre
Historic
Tottenham High Cross and Well (Monument) Tottenham Green East Georgian Terrace The Swan Public House Tottenham Town Hall
Identification of Land Owners
Identification of Land Owners
Identification of Land Owners
Identification of Land Owners
Sources of Financial Support Funding Body
Programme
Description
GLA
Mayor’s Great Spaces Initiative
A unique opportunity to revitalise and improve the quality of their public spaces
Level
Date 2009-
Tottenham Green Cultural Area Improvement YOF LDA and DCSF
to help provide more activities and services for young Londoners
£79m
Priority Parks Initiative grant for Lordship Recreation
To help Haringey council to carry out major regeneration of Tottenham’s largest green space
£400k
Community Grants programme
to small voluntary and community organisations to support their capacity to engage with local communities and deliver a range of skills and employment support activities
Up to £12,000
Mayor’s Youth Offer
YCF
2008-2010
PAYP
GLA
LDA and ESF Co-Funding Organisation programme (CFO)
to improve employability and skills in the capital with specific focus on providing greater employment opportunities for disadvantaged people
Closed 14 Sep 2009
2007-2013
Sources of Financial Support Funding Body
LDA and ERDF
English Heritage and GLA
Programme
Description
ERDF Operational Programme
to promote sustainable, environmentally efficient growth in , capitalising on ’s innovation and knowledge resources. It will focus on promoting social inclusion through extending economic opportunities to communities, in areas where this is most needed.
Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF)
To support projects that could help local organisations to share their stories to celebrate the Story of London this summer
Level
Date
2007-2013
£3,000 £10,000
Closed?
Heritage Lottery Funded Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI)
Completed in 2008
Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme (HERS)
Completed in 2007
Partnership Scheme in Conservation Areas (PSICA)
Began in 2008
Comparison of Aims Study Haringey’s proposed development projects and summarise the main points so that they are all under one Urban Design Framework.
Consider landowners/stakeholders intentions and look at any possible planning issues.
Compare stakeholders aims with that of the councils proposed development plans and indicate any differences. Seek to resolve any disputes/differences.
Suggest possible development options
Reassess design proposals
Implement Urban Design Development Framework.
Assessing The Design Proposals 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Usability Legibility Permeability and connectivity Walk-ability Viability Quality Coherence Character
Identified Constraints 1. Usability and functionality: • The open green spaces have no obvious function or purpose • There are lots of over-left and poor-used open spaces, especially in-between of the buildings. are they public or private? 2. Legibility: • The Bernie Grant Arts Centre is hidden by the facade of the listed building – Leisure Centre is hidden behind the car park 3. Permeability and connectivity: • Poor furniture acting as a barrier to new public realm – the High Rd and its physical elements creates a major barrier to pedestrian movement - e.g. high volume of traffic, bus lane contraflow, central reservation and lack of pedestrian crossing segregate its 2 sides. 4. Walk-ability: • lack of easy walk-able and friendly-bicycle path. Lack of acknowledgement of desire lines within the public realm 5. Viability: • Vacant new retail units in ground flour along east side of High Rd 6. Quality: • Recycling centre on main access to Bernie Grant Arts Centre –– rubbish dumping outside Bernie Grant Arts Centre – poor quality of street furniture 7. Coherence: • Isolated and fragmented spaces and a distinct lack of permeability and Coherence between sites e.g. retail, greens and cultural sites.
Identified Opportunities 1. Usability and functionality: • Maximise the potential of the green spaces as usable spaces • Increase use of the public realm at the rear of the Leisure centre • Split Leisure Centre and Library / Re-locate library expand Leisure Centre • New rear access to library 2. Legibility: • Decrease the dominance of the car park and improve the green space and links to Tottenham Green • Improve links to adjoining residential areas to the west 3. Permeability and connectivity: • Improve accessibility of the Green and the pedestrian access across the High Road to the Green 4. Walk-ability: • Formalise the desire lines; highlight borders and paths; enhance the landscaping 5. Viability: • Improve the links and the crossings between 2 sides of the High Rd.
Identified Opportunities 6. Quality: • Enhance the appeal of the Green • Make the green central to the community and urban realm • Use interventions to reflect the history of the green spaces and build on the historical importance of the Green • Better management and maintenance of public realm, planters and furniture 8. Character: • There many buildings – in particular Tottenham Green & Bruce Grove areas – that have good characteristics that can be emphasised and built upon
Ideas for Improving Development Framework 1. Providing Landscaping to Tottenham High Road 2. Linking The Fragmented Green/Public Spaces with improved pedestrian routes and enhanced visual links 3. Providing Urban Social Function for The Greens 4. Providing a Coherent Social and Commercial Chain to Link The Cultural Points
Creating an Overall Urban Design Framework Suggested methods for creating a means of linking together all the different Haringey projects so that they are all under one Urban Design Framework. Method 1. Produce a single linking document – a spreadsheet or database – that carries references for all the relevant, useful and current documents. With this will be a covering document to explain a basic planning process to be used by everyone: a basic set of procedures to follow when carrying out planning routines (assessment an implementation). All those involved in the planning processes, will made aware of this UDF document, and they will all be instructed to refer to it in carrying out urban design work. Urban Design Framework. Method 2. Create and instigate a new job post: ‘Urban Design Liaison Manager’. All planning staff – inc. planning staff, designers, developers, and other contractors – should be aware of, and liaise with this central pivoting key personnel.
Next Step 1. Send out survey documents to landowners/stakeholders. 2. Collate received landowners survey information. 3. Compare stakeholders aims with that of Haringey’s proposed Urban Design Developments. 4. Highlight any differences and seek to such differences. 5. Consider any design development options. 6. Produce a time schedule for the proposed projects. 7. Implement Urban Design Development Framework, beginning with proposed start dates for particular projects.
Alexandra Palace Initiation Project Alison Minto
Project Aims Heritage Building Projects: To support and work alongside the Physical Regeneration team in the progression of the Projects
Alexandra Palace: To work with the team in developing the Brief and PID documents and to look into funding opportunities
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Heritage Building Projects Myddleton Road N22
Remove these
Activity • Memo to the Council Leader • Situation at final presentation
Replace these
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Alexandra Palace The project will look to examine: •Current issues that face the palace and the park •Options for the future use •Options for managing existing resources •To increase benefits for the local community economy •To make it self sustaining
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Ways forward Close completely
Managed decline
Establish new vision and develop
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Current Provision and Facilities Ice rink
The Park:
Conference Facilities
Offices for the Trust
50% additional Space
Phoenix bar/ pub
BBC tower and original recording suites
Currently unused
Playground Pitch and putt Cricket club Two Cafes Skate park Boating Lake Deer Enclosure
Exhibition hall
Benefited from ÂŁ3.5m HLF funding
Theatre – derelict
All under one roof
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Governance Haringey Borough Council The Community Interest groups Government Commercial sector The Media
ÂŁ funding
Responsible for keeping the Palace open under the 1900 Act
Statutory Advisory committee Consultant Committee
Trustees Alexandra Palace and Park Charitable Trust
Alexandra Palace Trading Limited
Leaseholders
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
How to work together Haringey Borough Council
APTL
Haringey Borough Council
APTL
Project space
Project space
APPCT
APPCT
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Visioning Exercise APTL say it should be:
What about:
Pioneering
Profitable
Distinctively different
Distinctively good
Great Host
Great
Of the People
For the People
Brilliant Basics
Brilliant Or: Iconic Exciting Future proof Sustainable Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Funding Opportunities
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Funding Opportunities Most likely sources to explore: Heritage Lottery Fund For applications over £5m First-round applications: 30 September 2010 possible £10m Application Community Infrastructure Levy Use the planning gain system and set a Council wide standard charge for cultural facilities Population growth Haringey’s population is projected to grow by 10.2 % population increase of 20000 up to 2026 and assume that this is in 75 % new homes. 10000 population increase £141 contribution per person £14,100,000 Total over the 15 year period £940,000 per year
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Project Programme APTL
Haringey BC
APTL
Build up?
Unknown?
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Conclusions and Next Steps This is only just the beginning of this phase of the life of Alexandra Palace. My suggestions: Complex organisational issues need resolving Speed progress up Establish Council project leadership and delivery team Make this an opportunity not a problem Take control and ownership
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Thank you Working on this project has been both a pleasure and a complex puzzle
Alison Minto February 2010 Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Draft Haringey Sustainable Design and Construction Guidance Document Final Report 1 March
andi
Obasemo Olumide Maria Tomalova with a kind guidance of Sule Nisancioglu and Richard Truscott
The Output and Objectives o Collect set of best existing guidance, including relevant National Policy (PPSs), Regional Policy (The London Plan, 4B.6 Sustainable Design and construction) o Catalogue and compare in a matrix o Copy relevant sections o The Content of a Good Guide
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change:
While there may be economic cost to stabilising climate change, delay in doing so would be dangerous and more costly. Haringey produces 968 ktpa of CO2 emissions (49% are from dwellings, 33% non domestic and 18% from transport)
The key issues of GLA SDC Guidance: Re-use land and buildings Designs make the most of natural systems Reduce the impact of noise pollution flooding and micro-climate effects Conserve and enhance the natural environment (Biodiversity) Promote sustainable waste behaviour, recycling schemes, CHP schemes, pre-demolition audit Application for strategic dev should include a statement of sustainability Adapting to Climate Change - flexible use, ’urban heat island effect’
Sustainability Statement
Tackling Climate Change • Haringey Council signed the Nottingham Declaration in Dec.2006 • Haringey Council Carbon Reduction Scenarios • Sustainable Community Strategy • Haringey Green Fair (June2007) • SPG the Greenest Borough Strategy • Haringey’s Sustainable Procurement Policy and Strategy set out a systematic measured and continuous improvement approach
UDP Core Policies: UD1 Planning Statements UD2 Sustainable Design and Construction UD3 General Principles UD4 Quality Design UD6 Mixed Use Development UD7 Waste Storage UD8 Pl Obligations
LDF- Core Strategy- an important role in reducing Haringey environmental impact
London Plan relevant policies: 4A.1 4A.2 4A.3 4A.6 4A.7 4A.11 4A.12 4A.18 4A.21
Tackling Climate Changes Mitigating Climate Changes Sustainable Design and Construction Decentralised Energy Renewable Energy Living Roofs Flooding Water and Sewerage Infrastructure Waste Strategic Policy and Targets
The Content of a Good SDC Guide: • Sustainability in general, sustainable design, climate change with its effects • Why we need to change our attitude to the nature with striking examples of results of our activities • The government’s targets for energy efficiency, water supply and waste • Relevant policy and strategies with explanation (national, regional, local)
• Environmental assessment methods and their application • Location, re-use of buildings or sites • Sustainable materials in constructions • Sustainable waste management • Energy efficiency and renewable energy
Content
continuation
• Water conservation and management, SUDS, flood risk strategy • Nature conservation and biodiversity • Designing out of pollution • Mobility and transport • Principles of social sustainability • Sustainable design and construction checklist • The benefits of good design and construction (community, occupants, developers)
Content continuation • How much does sustainable design cost? • Adapting to climate change • Need for planning permission • Aspects which should be taken into account in development proposal • Case studies • Glossary
Any Comments? Thank you for your attention
North London Value Planning and Regeneration Benchmarking Programme 2009-2011
North London Main Land-use and Development Plan
UDP and LDF-CS similarity analysis Alain Chiaradia, Yatwan Hui
Final Report 1 March 2010 - Draft 02
Project / Output & Objectives • Composite UDP and LDF CS Proposals Map for North London • Similarity analysis of UDP and LDF CS policies in North London
North London Strategic Alliance Target = core boroughs: Barnet, Enfield, Haringey, Waltham Forest Extended target = fringe boroughs: Islington, Camden, Hackney
Executive Summary • How similar UDP and LDF CS policies are? • UDP policies • between 40% to 60% are similar • between 30% to 45% are unique
WF, B, H, E E, H, B, WF
• LDF CS policies • CS are compact , one third of UDP (DMP & IDP not available yet) • between 77% to 98% are similar E, WF, H, B • between 2% to 23% are unique B, H, WF, E
Executive Summary • Why are UDP & LDF-CS are so similar when places are unique? • Policy compliance • National policy • Regional policy (London Plan) • Ad hoc efficiency • Policy maker s make good re-use of what is already available • UDP as text, place shaping as interconnected • Policy redundancy
Progress / UDPs proposals map Themes • • • • • • • • • • •
43% completed
Town centre network including local centre Employment area boundaries Key development sites GLA opportunity areas and area of intensification (including schedule of development type/quantum, AAP) Conservation areas Metropolitan Open Land Key parks Green belt AONB/ecology Arterial, transport infrastructures, bus stop, tube and train stations Heat demand and supply
Progress / UDPs proposals map Obtained: Haringey, Waltham Forest, Hackney Pending: Barnet, Enfield, Islington, Camden
Progress / UDP + LDF Policies • Initial Target (extracting, matching, rating, analysis) 100% completed Haringey, Barnet, Enfield, Waltham Forest
• Extended Target Camden, Islington, Hackney - extracting: 100%
- matching, rating, analysis: 0%
50% completed
Methodology / UDP + LDF Policies Collecting, extracting, matching, coding
Similarities v. differences Similar e.g. Promote growth in town centre Unique e.g. Additional policies, Place specific e.g. Enfield Town
Detail specific e.g. Housing targets
Methodology / UDP + LDF Policies Rating similarity, uniqueness
0
Unique policy
2
3 Boroughs with similar policy
1
2 Boroughs with similar policy
3
3
4 Boroughs with similar policy
General findings / UDP Policies Focus by number of policy 2006 Haringey 2007 Waltham Forest 1994 Enfield 2006 Barnet
Total policy number
Policy number By theme
4
3 2 1
1. open space 2. transport 3. TC & retail 4. housing
General findings / UDP Policies Focus by word count 2006 Haringey 2007 Waltham Forest 1994 Enfield 2006 Barnet
Total word count
Word count by policy theme
4
3 2 1
1. open space 2. transport 3. TC & retail 4. housing
Similarity findings / UDP Policies Overall similarity
Total policy number (461)**
59%
46%
2006 Haringey
2007 Waltham Forest
95
154
150
98
70% 1994 Enfield
40% =
+
+
2006 Barnet
51
161
196
117
“missing� policy unique policy 2 similar
Matched policies*
27%
44%
17%
40%
20%
16%
10%
14%
3 similar
32% 17%
19% 11%
27% 33%
17% 10%
4 similar
** Does not include area specific policy section * One policy can be matched by several policies
Similarity findings / UDP Policies by theme similarity % = ((similar to 3 + similar to 2 + similar to 1) / policy number by theme )) x 100 2006 Haringey 2007 Waltham Forest 1994 Enfield 2006 Barnet
similarity
%
Does not include Enforcement | Implementation
Findings / LDF Policies
Date
Stage Word Count No of Core Policies
Haringey
Waltham Forest
Enfield
Barnet
May 2009
Jan 2010
Dec 2009
Nov 2009
Preferred Options
Preferred Options
Proposed Submission
Direction of Travel
1322
3453
13286
3445
12
11
46
14
Findings / LDF Policies Policy Theme Managing Growth Housing Environment
Similarity 0-3 2 3 3
Haringey
Waltham Forest
Enfield
Barnet
1 1 1
0 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
Movement
2
1
1
0
1
Employment Town Centres Design Conservation Green Infrastructure Health and Well Being Culture and Leisure Visitors and Tourism Community Infrastructure Regeneration Places
3 3 2 3 3 2 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0
3
1
1
1
1
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
1 0
Findings / LDF Policies Score %
Policy
Sub-theme
Rating HAR WAL ENF BAR
Supply Delivery Quality and choice Affordable housing Affordable housing contributions Working with external partners Social and intermediate homes Working with external partners Particular housing needs Family housing High quality dsign Lifetime homes Guidance and standards Housing density London Plan Density Matrix Gypsy and travellers
3 3 1 1 3 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 1 2
24/51 47% Housing
1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1
1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
Findings / LDF Policies Score Max Score 3 3 24 51 26 51
%
Policy
Rating
HAR WAL ENF BAR
100% Managing Growth 47% Housing 51% Environment
2 3 3
1 1 1
0 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
30
60
50% Movement
2
1
1
0
1
20 26 22 8 18 38 5 0 14 3 0
33 48 48 24 39 105 18 3 30 15 0
61% 54% 46% 33% 46% 36% 28% 0% 47% 20% 0%
3 3 2 3 3 2 1 0 3 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1
1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0
Employment Town Centres Design Conservation Green Infrastructure Health and Well Being Culture and Leisure Visitors and Tourism Community Infrastructure Regeneration Places
Next Steps / Suggestions Towards shared services – doing more with less – medium to long term • Core policy team for sub-region, shared and better evidence base • Policies bank (regional, national, international) • Implementation | delivery bank (what work, why – demonstrated ROI) • More focus on prevention, outcomes and monitoring – total place • More place | people specific i.e. spatial plan led geo-market research pervasive in industry since 40 years, not so in LA
Next Steps / Suggestions Towards shared services – doing more with less – easy win • Sub region, systematic policy bank (london councils) • Coordination template across sub-region (informal group + lead & owner) – – – –
vocabulary wording style policy classification policy “missing”
• Take the big 5 to their own game, commission one study, reuse, reuse... • Use of research LARCI and university collaboration + structured KT • Use of small, experienced, innovative and caring consultancy
Next Steps / Outcomes & Outputs • Composite UDP and LDF Proposal Maps for North London • Matrix analysis of key UDP and LDF policies in North London • Benchmarking standard types of work and costs • Evidence base for Bid Preparation to make it happens • A different type of “Planning, Regeneration and Building Control Service for North London”
Discussions /
“Policy needs to be a great deal more place specific, which is difficult as policy planners and DC planners tend to like generically applicable policy statements. Building consensus will be key to boroughs working together, and forming joint-evidence as key part of that buy-in.� Strategic Policy Planner LBTH - 2010
Thank you