EXAMINATION of the LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM
DETAILED SITES AND POLICIES DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT
Inspector
Programme Officer
Ms Christine Newmarch BA(Hons)
MRICS MRTPI
Ian Kemp
16 Cross Furlong
Wychbold
Droitwich Spa
Worcestershire WR9 7TA
[email protected]
01527 861 711 (office)
07723 009 166 (mobile)
19TH APRIL 2016
MATTERS, QUESTIONS & FINAL PROGRAMME
The Inspector has identified the following main matters, issues and questions,
which will form the basis of the programme for the hearing sessions.
Participants are reminded that the examination of the DSP DPD relates
principally to its soundness. The hearing sessions are an opportunity for the
Inspector to examine only those matters relating to soundness which have been
raised previously during the statutory consultation period.
The following Matters, and Questions will form the basis of the discussions
during the Hearing Sessions.
1
MATTERS, ISSUES AND QUESTIONS
MATTER 1 – LEGAL MATTERS INCLUDING THE DUTY TO CO-OPERATE,
GENERAL CONFORMITY WITH THE LONDON PLAN, THE CORE STRATEGY
AND THE PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY.
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; the London Gypsy & Traveller
Unit (r19); Tracie Giles (r34).
Legal matters including the Duty to Cooperate, general conformity with the
London Plan and the Core Strategy, and the Public Sector Equality Duty
•
•
•
Has the Council discharged its duty to cooperate with specified
organisations as set out in Part 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012?
Is the Detailed sites and Policies Development Plan document (DSP DPD)
in general conformity to the London Plan?
Is the DSP DPD (page 38) in general conformity with the Council’s Core
Strategy, with particular regard to pitch provision for the Gypsy and
Traveller community?
MATTER 2 – OTHER HOUSING MATTERS
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; Paul Malhi (r29); Vikesh Tailor
(r36); David Kosdruy (r5); CGMS for Hyde New Build Ltd (r13).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Does the DSP DPD, as submitted, effectively allocate the housing sites
listed in Figure 16?
What is the relationship between the strategic spatial sites identified in
the Core Strategy and the sites in the DSP DPD?
For clarification, does this plan to supplement or change the strategic
spatial sites identified in the CS?
Is there any necessity for the strategic housing sites to be included in the
DPD? Would this assist with short term delivery, and if so, how?
Representor Crossrail seeks a change to the DPD for Spatial Site 18
(Limmo) to bring forward high density development. Is this a matter
which affects the soundness of the DPD, and if so, how?
Representor Paul Malhi submits that Housing Site 12 is not suitable solely
for residential, and seeks a change to a mixed use allocation to include
housing and Class D2 leisure use. Does the proposed housing allocation
preclude mixed use development, and if so, how does this affect the
soundness of the DPD?
Would the DPD be effective in controlling the development of Houses in
Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in the Borough?
2
•
•
•
•
Can the total number be controlled?
Can the occupancy of HMOs and Class C2 be controlled?
Would policy H5 be effective or justified?
What amendment is required to address the lack of spatial cohesion in
the street scene at housing site HSG4? Would this be necessary for the
soundness of the plan?
MATTER 3 – BUILDING STANDARDS
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; East Ham Regeneration Ltd
(r6); David Kosdruy (r5).
•
•
•
Policy SC5 includes building standards for both residential and nonresidential new building and refurbishments. Following the changes to
the policy proposed by the Council, would the policy accord with national
policy and the London Plan?
Are the proposed standards justified, and would they be effective in
delivering development in the Borough?
Is the plan effective in regard to the use of front gardens? Would the
inclusion of incentives to reinstate gardens be effective, and does their
absence affect the soundness of the plan?
MATTER 4 – LOCAL INDUSTRIAL LAND, LOCAL MIXED USE AREAS
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; DP9 for MM Properties (r21);
Oceanwave Estates (r25); Sergo (r31); Quod for Travis Perkins (r35);
•
•
•
•
•
Does the DSP DPD as submitted effectively allocate or designate the Local
Industrial Land (LIL), Local Mixed Use Areas (LMUA), Micro Business
Opportunity Areas (MBOA) sites listed in Figures 13, 14 and 15?
Are the designations following sound?
LIL 8 Canning Road, E18: What is the justification for this site being a
LIL? Would a change to a LMUA be justified, and what would be effect on
the soundness of the plan?
Land at site WE5b, south of HSG 25: what is the address of this site?
What is the proposed allocation, how is this justified, and does it make
the plan unsound? Is there evidence to support the requested change to
a residential mixed use, and what would be the effect on the soundness
of the plan?
LIL10 at Grantham Road: how is this justified, and does it make the plan
unsound? Is there evidence to support the requested change to a
residential mixed use, and what would be the effect on the soundness of
the plan?
3
•
•
LIL7 at Beckton Gateway: is the threshold of 100sqm threshold for
supporting uses justified and sound? What is increase is the representor
seeking, how is this justified, and is it necessary for the soundness of the
plan?
Representor seeks designation of Wickes Building Supplies, Manor Road,
and Keyline Building Materials, Cody Business Centre as LMUA. Why
would this be necessary for the protection of the sites, and how does this
affect the soundness of the plan?
MATTER 5 – SUCCESSFUL PLACES
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; Rosh Jamal (r30); Liam
Geraghty (r16).
•
•
On what basis does the Council’s Convergence Framework make the plan
unsound, and is the suggested change in wording necessary for the
soundness of the DSP DPD? (R Jamal).
Representors submit that financial incentives should be made available to
improve drainage of and environmentally friendly gardens. Is it a matter
which could be addressed in this plan, and is this a matter which goes to
the heart of the soundness of the plan? (V Tailor, L Geraghty).
MATTER 6 – LOCAL CENTRES
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; Vickesh Tailor (r36); Liam
Geraghty (16); David Kosdruy (r5); Planning Potential for Power Leisure
Bookmakers (r28)
•
•
•
•
Does East Ham market accord with the definition of a Primary Shopping
Area, and if so, how? How was this matter considered in preparing
evidence base report EB04?
Does its omission from the Primary
Shopping Area affect the soundness of the plan? (East ham Regeneration
Lts).
It is submitted (David Kosdruy) that the buildings between Francis Road
and Manbey Grove should be included in the LC2, Maryland centre for
consistency. On what basis is this necessary for the soundness of the
plan?
On what basis does representor Vikesh Tailor submit that Maryland
should be redefined as a District Centre rather than local centre? Does
this go to the soundness of the plan?
Policy SP10 – Managing Cumulative Impacts
4
MATTER 7 – FLOOD RISK, WATER QUALITY & DRAINAGE
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; the Environment Agency
•
•
•
•
•
Taking account of the minor amendments proposed by the Council, does
the policy SC8 accord with paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) in relation to flood risk?
Is further detail required to strengthen the policy, or is sufficient detail to
be found in the Core Strategy and/or the London Plan?
Taking account of the minor amendments proposed by the Council, does
policy SC9 (2) accord with paragraph 165 of the NPPF in relation to the
Water framework directive and relevant River Basin Management Plans?
Is policy SC9 (3) consistent with policy 5.13 of the London Plan?
Taking account of the minor amendments proposed by the Council, does
policy SC5 require strengthening to safeguard developments in flood
zones 2 and 3 for the lifetime of the development taking climate change
into account?
MATTER 8 – GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; Savills for Kennet Properties
Ltd (Thames Water) (r14); Sport England (r32)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Does the DSP DPD as submitted effectively designate the Green Spaces
sites listed in appendix 5, Figure 18?
What is the extent of the operational land at Beckton Sewage Works, and
how does this relate to the proposed Green Space designations: GS178,
183, 218, 241? Does the proposed designation accord with the purposes
of Green Space?
What is the current position with regard to public access to land at
Beckton Alps – GS228? Does this affect its suitability to be a designated
Green Space?
Taking account of the Council’s acceptance that the land at Beckton Gas
Works – GS 212 – is not a SINC, but remains Metropolitan Open Land,
does this affect its identification as a Green Space?
What is the rationale for the designation of the linear open space, Ref
GS330? Is this potential brownfield development land which should not
be identified as Green Space? Does this affect the soundness of the
plan?
Have all playing fields and sports pitches been included within the
identified Green Spaces, and if not is this necessary for the soundness of
the plan?
5
MATTER 9 – COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council; London City Airport (r17);
London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority (r18); Sport England (r32); Paul
Malhi (r29);
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Does the DSP DPD as submitted effectively designate the Community
Facilities Opportunity Areas (CFOA) listed in appendix 7, Figure 20?
Representor Crossrail seeks greater flexibility for the provision of facilities
in policy INFO10. What is the specific change which is sought, and does
this go to the soundness of the plan?
Is reference to the protection of sports facilities required in policy INFO10
for the effectiveness of the plan?
Is the designation of a site for an additional Crossrail station at
Silvertown necessary for the soundness of the DSP DPD? (London City
Airport).
How has the Council assessed the supply and demand for playing fields,
and is this sufficiently robust for the soundness of the soundness of the
DSP DPDR32?
Is a reference to playing fields necessary in paragraph (f) of policy SP8
for the soundness of the plan?
Does the identification of land at 236-242 Barking Road, East Ham as
CF01 conflict with the use of the site for a gym? What is the basis of this
designation and does this go to the soundness of the plan?(Paul Mahlh);
How does policy INFO10 conflict between the planning of fire and
emergency services in the Borough and the provision of community
services, and does this affect the soundness of the plan?
MATTER 10 – MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Invited participants: Inspector; the Council.
•
•
What arrangements does the Council propose for monitoring the delivery
and implementation of the plan?
How will significant shortcomings in the delivery of the plan be
addressed?
6
FINAL PROGRAMME
Week1
Matter
26/4/1610.00am
26/4/162.00pm
27/4/1610.00am
27/4/162.00pm
28/4/1611.30am
28/4/161.30pm
29/4/1610.00am
Week2
4/5/1610.00am
4/5/1610.30am
5/5/1610.00am
5/5/1612.15pm
5/5/162.00pm
1.LegalMatters
3.BuildingStandards
2.OtherHousingMatters
6.LocalCentres
5.SuccessfulPlaces
4.LocalIndustrialLand,LocalMixedUseAreas
Reserve
7.FloodRisk,WaterQuality,Drainage
8.GreenInfrastructure
9.CommunityFacilitiesandInfrastructure
10.MonitoringandImplementation
Reserve
AMENDMENTS FROM INITIAL PROGRAMME:
27.04.16 – MATTER 2 NOW HALF DAY SESSION & MATTER 6
RESCHEDULED TO 2PM
28.04.16 – MATTER 5 NOW COMMENCING AT 11.30AM & MATTER 4
RESCHEDULED TO 1.30PM
29.04.16 – NOW RESERVE
04.05.16 – MATTER 8 BROUGHT FORWARD TO 10.30AM START
05.05.16 – MATTER 10 BROUGHT FORWARD TO 12.15PM START
7