Precedents

Explanation of approach

The use of precedents is an approach this SPD will take in order to better inform our proposals in Section 2. We seek to first analyse how applicable the precedents are as tools, how they compare with Woolwich Town Centre in terms of similarity of context and objectives, how successful they have been and if modifications would need to be made to be more applicable to Woolwich. Precedents refer to proposals such as “PR1.1 Public Realm and Open Space Aims for Woolwich.” These proposals will be explained in more detail in “Section 2, Proposals.”

Proposal

Precedent Name

MC1 To create connectivity to Woolwich Town Centre from peripheral residential areas.

Greater Manchester wayfinding MC2 To create high quality connectivity into and through Woolwich town centre.

Love your laneway and Green your laneway projects, Melbourne Australia Movement and Connectivity MC3 To create high quality MC4 To improve and prioritise sustainable connectivity between the riverside and integrated modes of transport. and Woolwich Town Centre.

City of London Riverside Walk enhancement strategy London Borough of Enfield, “Cycle Enfield”, Cycle Hubs MC5 To prevent and reduce severance within Woolwich Town Centre, in particular from the A205 and A206.

Southwark / Elephant and Castle

Image

Similarity of Context

Similarity of Objectives

Success?

Improvements/ challenges to applying?

40% - wayfinding strategy implemented by Transport for Greater Manchester, focused on major transport nodes and key cultural and social destinations and aimed at visitors.

80% - to improve transport by sustinable means through and into the city centre.

Yes

40% - precedent focused on rejuvinating the city centre rather than enhancing permeability, but many of the opportunities and urban context are similar.

Yes, extremely successful. More than 30 laneways transformed into culutral and social hotspots and now there is a movement towards greening laneways as part of climate resilience.

Yes, extremely successful. More than 30 laneways transformed into culutral and social hotspots and now there is a movement towards greening laneways as part of climate resilience. 40% - City of London riverside has a very different demographic of users and use patterns, however faced similar issues to Woolwich such as connecting the riverside to further inland and creating a permeable and pleasant environment.

40% - the scale of projects and change in Enflied is much larger than may be possible in Woolwich, oweing to the amount of funding made available for Enfield. However, the aspiration is the same and many elements of the Cycle Enfield Mini Holland Project are transferable to Woolwich context.

60% - sought to improve the user environment and ensure that the route was continuous, well used and accessible. 80% - Objectives are the same, though the scale of funding required to deliver the same outcomes as Enfield may not be possible. 50% - The roads being addressed are TfL red routes - busy, high movement roads. Elephant and Castle are central locations with higher levels of pedestrian, cycle and vehicle movements. Woolwich routes have high levels of vehicle movements but at present has less multi modal conflict.

70% - Elephant and Castle rounadabout project and Southwark Colourful Crossings were each seeking to address severance and rebalance the importance of “place value” against “movement value”.

The strategy was a success, although is could be seen that much of the riverside environment was already at a high quality and changes were mostly superficial. Key successes were ensuring continuity of the riverside walking route and increasing legibility. The strategy is still ongoing but appears successful. Two awards have been given to Enfield Council for their projects. The Cycle Hubs they have delivered are successful. Colourful crossings appear to be successful, attracting users to cross at these locations, reducing collisions. Anecdotal evidence suggests users think they enhance the built environment. The Elephant and Castle roundabout project has been immensely contraversial, but appears to have delivered some improvements in environemtn to pedestrians and cyclists. The issues of severance still exists but is reduced.

This was focused on the Manchester region, applying this in the Woolwich context means looking at a different geographic scale. Project success was aided by strong community contribution and ownership, which would need to be replicated for Woolwich. More of a focus on linking the riverside with Woolwich town centre, rather than improving riverside environment. Delivery of funding is a challenge in applying this intervention to Woolwich, though creative thinking and public-privte partnerships mean delivery is still viable. Ensuring that bold steps are taken to reduce the severance, and firmly delivering on the aspiration that streets should be for people as well as vehicles.

Precedents

Precedent Name

PR1.1 Public Realm and Open Space Aims for Woolwich

City of London Public Realm Design Guide SPD (July 2016) 50% - Some riverside areas - Less residential - Much more business use - Lots of heritage - More investment opportunity - Wealthier 75% - Public Realm - Movement - Social Infrastructure - Functional Mix Yes Much easier to attract investment in City of London PR1.2 Public Realm PR1.3 Biodiversity and Open Space Quality Net-Gain Audit

Lambeth Council, Commonplace.com website, for public realm consultation in West Norwood (2018) 70% Smaller scale 100% involve and respond to local needs in shaping public realm Yes Not all community suggestions will be actionable and difficult to engage with all users Lichfield County Council Biodiversity SPD (2016) 30% Lichfield has many more protected environments 100% improve biodiversity of area within development process Yes- award winning Need to identify which species to recommend and which areas should be promoted for biodiversity PR2.1 DLR Interchange as Social Hub - SPD

Battle Bridge Place, Kings Cross Central Limited Partnership and Townshend Landscape architects (2015) 75% connecting an interchange with a riverside (or canal-side area) 100% Creating a welcoming point of arrival Yes Emulate public private partnership Public Realm PR2.2 “Our Riverside” Landscape Brief PR2.3 Public Realm Site Briefs PR3.1 Hare Square PR3.2. Public Realm Design Competi- Character Areas with tion Design Codes

Yangpu Riverside project, Shanghai, Original Design Studio (2016) 80% - much longer stretch of riverside 100% bringing new use and open space to ex-industrial riverside Yes Van Gogh Walk, Stockwell, Streets Ahead and Lambeth Council (2013) 70%, similar focus on residential but not leading to an urban core 80%, focus on pedestrian permeability and quality of public realm Yes, award winning Low_Line_ Commons, RIBA design award, Southwark (2019) 100% People focussed project including green infrastructure TBC Challenge in reaching consensus Vauxhall Nine Elms On the Southbank,Public Realm Strategy (2015) 60% Less emphasis on bridging divides and connecting places No More focus on pedestrian links and connections between character area PR3.3. Partnership to broaden heritage trail

Royal Greenwich Heritage Partnership

Image

Similarity of Context

Similarity of Objectives

Success?

Improvements/ challenges to applying?

(2008) 75% - Larger Scale, but similar public realm and public space context 75% - Riverside area with new residential - specific sites require different types of attention

100% (Same context) 50% The route is focussed on military heritage so quite

Funding will be Decision on more challenging where- community in Woolwich involvement key

narrow No

Include oral history, workers history, wayfinding, event programmes

Precedents

Proposal LU1.1 Develop character areas and intergrate existing building pattern

Precedent Name

Old Oak and Park Royal 60% Addresses character areas from the perspective of considering new development which is relevant to the ongoing development in Woolwich however Old Oak Park Royal is a larger site in comparison 60% Old Oak Park Royal highlights how important character areas in responding to future development much like how Woolwich should intergrate with new projects whilst defining key character areas. Yes, work has been developed in auditing and assessing the specific character areas of OPDC Preventing a zoning approach which could potentially segregate the area. Important to approach through the vision of intergrating character areas to become a cohesive Woolwich LU1.2 Manage expected housing growth Land use LU2.1 Introduce range of mix use buildings through partnership working LU2.2 New Wine Church as flexible mixed use space LU3.1 Design frontages for existing businesses

Armourers Court 30% Relatable in terms of development around DLR station box in increase activity however the use of tall buildings is misplaced 30% Meets objectives in terms of delivering new affordable homes however compromising existing character The project had been approved in 2014 and scheduled works to start 2018 however due to Crossrail there have been delays progressing this. Could be considered unsuccessful due to the response from the public expressing the development will look “odd” against Royal Arsenal Gaining the correct funding to ensure development does not compromise the character and is not investment driven Woolwich Works 40% Concept of flexible mix use spaces in Woolwich and includes partnership working with theatre company however concentrated to one area 80% Objectives similar in regards to introduces flexible spaces and co working spaces to Woolwich as well as increasing job opportunities a new night time economy Currently undergoing works however progress made so far in the area has proved successful in promotion it has recieved Addressing how to introduce an additional range of uses which can co-exist alongside Woolwich Works and how not to detract footfall from one to the other. Funding could also present an issue East Street Exchange 80% Utilses existing building uses whilst creating opportunity for more uses. The location of East Street Exchange is also situated in a busy junction similar to New Wine Church. Looks at correctly managing movement 80% East Street Exchange shows clearly how flexible a space can be within a busy area and also how it can be appreciated by the local and wider community Successful and continued to be used as library and event space. Well loved by the community, and is and aesthically fits to the area. Maintenance and management of space

Image

Similarity of Context

Similarity of Objectives

Success?

Merton Council 90% Very relevant in showing a detailed design guide for shop frontages and how to maintain and enhance existing character

90% Merton council’s document aims to tackle high street activity through preserving the distinctive character

and proving employment opportunities Yes, example images show success in transforming a familar building for most high streets to a more attractive version with improved design quality. The document also carries a fair bit of weight as it must be considered alongside Merton’s character study and

Improvements/ challenges to applying?

other planning policy documents Old businesses showing unwillingness to change shop front and lack of understanding in how to carry out changes

Precedents

Intervention SI1.1 Best code of conduct for community consultation

Precedent Name

Sidewalk Toronto (ongoing)

Image

SI2.2 Encourage a mix of uses and meanwhile uses

Social Infrastructure SI2.3. North of Spray Street Meanwhile Spaces

Campus Maritus Park (1999-2013)

Model Project House of Statistics (2015- ongoing)

SI2.4. New Leisure Centre development brief

Places Leisure Eastleigh

SI2.5. Royal Arsenal Play Design Competition

Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and informal recreation SPD (2012)

Similarity of Context

40% - was also by the riverside but was much larger in scale and to create a smart area 50% - had similar open spaces that needed better use but was more rundown and facing economic hardship 30% the area was larger in context and had been derlict for some time with historical meaning. The proposal was created from resistance to development 70% the area was similar in size but the context was a little more Yes - has many examples that can be applied to the area

Similarity of Objectives

Success?

100% - to engage the community in a meaningful way and get active participation 90% get people and businesses involved (more business minded), create a mix of uses that can be enjoyed yearly and through all times of the day 70% The objective was to create meaningful development and think alternatively to traditional resi/commercial uses 100% The objective was to create meaningful development that was well designed and incoporated the community

yes and no - gained criticisms and praise Yes Ongoing but so far yes Yes (and gained a 2019 RIBA award) 80% providing additional play space that isn’t always traditional but more long term and fixed

Yes

Improvements/ challenges to applying?

very focused on urban data to engage residents involved greater partnership and financial backing through fundraising but with woolwich being more on the small scale these challenges don’t have to apply It requires strong community minded engagement and participation as well as a strong shared vision between partners Splits up awards into different categories but needs more site specific incentives to applying funding, patnership with landowners