planning report PDU/LDF33/LDD08/01
Westminster City Council
Core Strategy Development Plan Document
Preferred Options Consultation
9 September 2008
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London
Authority Act 1999; Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Town and Country Planning (Local
Development) (England) Regulations 2004
Recommendation
That the Mayor agrees that the comments set out in this report and attached as Appendix One
should be submitted to Westminster City Council as the GLA response to the Core Strategy
Preferred Options consultation.
Purpose
1 To assist the Mayor in making his representations to Westminster City Council’s
consultation on the Preferred Options for the Core Strategy Development Plan Document
(DPD), which form part of Westminster’s Local Development Framework.
2 The Mayor of London’s comments on this document will be made available on the GLA
website www.london.gov.uk.
Background
3 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the Act”) introduced a new system
of preparing development plans. This requires councils to progressively replace existing Unitary
Development Plans with a portfolio of Local Development Documents (LDDs) that will
collectively form the Local Development Framework (LDF) for each of the boroughs. The LDF
together with the London Plan provides the essential framework for planning at the borough
level. The “development plan” in London for the purposes of section 38(6) of the Act is:
• The London Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy), and
• DPDs produced by the Boroughs (and saved UDP policies in transitional period).
4 There are two types of Local Development Documents: firstly, Development Plan
Documents, those spatial planning documents that are subject to a statutory adoption process
and Examinations in Public and have development plan status. Examples of DPDs include Core
Strategies, Site Allocations, Proposals Map and Development Control Policies, and Area Action
Plans.
1
5 Secondly, there are Supplementary Planning Documents. These provide supplementary
guidance on policies and proposals in DPDs. They do not form part of the development plan
and are not subject to Examinations.
The Mayor’s role
6 All LDDs must be in general conformity with the London Plan, in accordance with
Section 24(1)(b) of the Act. This requirement is also a key test of the soundness of the plan.
The Mayor welcomes early engagement with boroughs as LDDs progress through production
stages and will formally issue his opinion on general conformity at the submission stage in line
with Regulation 30(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England)
Regulations 2004 (“the Regulations”) and Section 24(4)(a) of the Act.
7 Regulation 26 of the Regulations requires consultation at the Preferred Options stage
of LDD production. The Mayoral representations made to Westminster City Council at this
stage will not go forward to the Examination. It is envisaged that the City Council and GLA
officers will meet to take forward the issues raised by the Mayor before the next formal
consultation stage, (Submission to the Secretary of State) so that general conformity with the
London Plan can be achieved and the DPDs are sound before the examination commences.
Strategic issues
8 Many of the comments that the GLA made at the issues and options stage have been
incorporated into the preferred options document, which is welcomed and a number of policy
areas are supported. In particular, the commitment to maintaining and enhancing the retail
functions of the West End and Knightsbridge and the removal of the staircasing arrangement to
affordable housing provision. Westminster City Council’s approach to the identification and
support for opportunities for decentralised energy is also welcomed. There are however, several
areas which require changing to bring the document into general conformity with the London
Plan.
Spatial vision
9 The vision clearly resonates closely with that of the London Plan, indeed it appears to
be almost identical to that for London as a whole. The one explicit departure is the recognition
of the importance of Westminster’s heritage, which is a justifiable local refinement. The core
strategy rightly highlights Westminster City Council’s strategic economic importance. This
importance is strongly underscored in the London Plan which explicitly states the balance to be
struck within the Central Activities Zone between local and strategic considerations and
provides a finely tuned emphasis on promoting the strategic while protecting and enhancing
more local uses, and in particular, residential neighbourhoods. The core strategy takes a
significantly different approach, the overall result of which is to place greater emphasis on local
issues. Whilst the London Plan does give predominance to strategic functions in the Central
Activities Zone, this is not at the cost of housing and other local uses. The London Plan
anticipates that with careful planning the two can co-exist; they are not mutually exclusive as
one of the options which flows from the vision implies.
Key diagram
10 The overall boundary of the Central Activities Zone in the preferred option reflects the
indicative boundary set out in the London Plan and is supported. However, the internal
structure appears to be designed more to reflect the borough’s historic and local objectives,
whereas the London Plan defines the zone as a coherent whole, spanning relevant parts of ten
2
London boroughs. It is based on its strategic functions and character so as ‘to ensure adequate
capacity to sustain future growth, to harness the opportunities that this offers for London and
the country as a whole and to secure and enhance its unique environment and attractions’.
Central Activities Zone
11 Westminster City Council’s core strategy divides the Central Activities Zone in a two-tier
zone with a ‘core’ and a ‘wider’ Central Activities Zone. Whilst this division is not identified in
the London Plan, it is not necessarily inconsistent with the London Plan approach to
development within the Central Activities Zone, which allows for local interpretation of policies
5G.1 – 5G.5. However, it is important that the core strategy acknowledges the suitability of
mixed-use development throughout the entire Central Activities Zone.
12 Preferred option 7 should also set out the overall strategic direction for the Central
Activities Zone as the heart of London’s world city functions and put sufficient weight on the
importance of the commercial, retail, entertainment and culture world city functions.
13 Whilst the recognition of local distinctiveness and variation within the Central Activities
Zone is supported, preferred option 7 should set out the different approaches to managing
development. The distinct approaches to managing development in these locations should be
made explicit in the preferred option taking into account London Plan policies 5G.1 – 5G.5.
14 Preferred option 40 should seek to sustain and enhance the Central Activities Zone as
the country’s most important strategic office location to ensure there is adequate capacity to
meet future demand with supporting policies to enhance the zone as a globally attractive
business location.
15 As a general principle the approach taken by Westminster City Council to require the
equivalent provision of housing when increases in commercial floorspace are proposed in the
core Central Activities Zone is supported, but not where this will stifle quantitative and
qualitative improvements to the strategic retail and leisure offer of the Central Activities Zone.
Opportunity areas
16 The opportunity areas are identified as exceptions to the mixed-use policy (preferred
option 7), which raises concern regarding the minimum new homes targets for these areas. The
exceptions as currently worded, could stifle the development of homes as part of an integrated
approach to development in the opportunity areas to meet the minimum homes target as set
out in the London Plan. To overcome this concern, the preferred option should set out the
London Plan minimum targets for homes in opportunity areas.
17 The Victoria Opportunity Area boundary shown in map PO11 is not supported. It
appears to cover 21 hectares of land, compared to the London Plan indicative area of 52
hectares and excludes a number of important sites which are either contributing or have the
potential to contribute to the overall development capacity of the Victoria Opportunity Area.
The core strategy should recognise that in the longer term airspace above the railway tracks
could provide development capacity to relieve pressure for commercial and other uses in the
western part of the Central Activities Zone, strategically the most attractive and expensive tract
of real estate in Europe and, arguably, the world. Planning for this must exploit potential
linkages across the river with the adjacent Vauxhall Nine Elms/Battersea Opportunity Area.
18 The Paddington Opportunity Area boundary shown in map PO12 is supported in part.
However, there is potential future capacity associated with land over and adjacent to the
3
railway lines and sidings and associated potential capacity at Royal Oak tube station. The
boundary should reflect that identified in the preferred option, but with an extension west
towards the tube station at Royal Oak as indicated in map A012-B.
19 The Tottenham Court Road Opportunity Area boundary shown in map PO13 appears to
identify sites rather than a broader area. The boundary should reflect the emerging indicative
boundary identified in the Central London Sub Regional Development Framework.
20 The preferred options for all three opportunity areas should make explicit the increased
development potential of these locations in line with improvements to public transport
capacity. The other identified priorities for the opportunity areas are supported.
Housing
21 The London Plan sets a minimum target for additional homes for the City of
Westminster of 6,800 homes by 2016. Whilst preferred option 1of the core strategy repeats this
target it should explain that the 6,800 housing target is a minimum target, which the council
will seek to exceed. In addition preferred option 35 should outline how the core strategy will set
the housing targets in table 3A.1 of the London Plan and address the requirements of policy
3A.2 which requires councils to exceed these figures. How Westminster City Council will seek to
maximise the potential of individual sites in accordance with policy 3A.3 of the London Plan
should also be included.
22 Preferred option 37 seeks to require affordable housing on developments of 10 or more
additional units or 1000 sq.m. of additional residential floorspace. The intention to use
floorspace figures to determine the threshold for affordable housing is strongly supported.
However, it is not clear how Westminster City Council arrived at the 1000 sq.m. figure. The
London Plan gives an average unit size of 66 sq.m. (giving a threshold of 660 sq.m) and the
Westminster core strategy states an average unit size of 129 sq.m (giving a threshold of 1,290
sq.m). Justification for Westminster City Council’s decision to settle on 1000 sq.m should be
included in the policy. Rather than taking the mean dwelling size Westminster City Council
should consider using the mode dwelling size.
23 It is also unclear how the preferred option will allow Westminster City Council to
negotiate for affordable housing provision on individual schemes. Sub-section C of the
preferred option regarding off site affordable housing provision is supported. However,
Westminster City Council should set out the circumstances where off-site provision, or financial
contributions, may be acceptable in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.57 of the
London Plan.
24 Preferred option 3 states “ To encourage the provision of more homes by ensuring that
planning obligations and requirements facilitate rather than constrain housing delivery, for
example by cushioning the impact of affordable housing policies so not to discourage
development on existing residential sites or on sites where commercial use is an acceptable
alternative”. It is not clear what is intended by cushioning the impact of affordable housing
policies. This could be construed as raising tensions with the mixed-use policy proposed
elsewhere in the core strategy.
Views
25 Preferred option 21, which identifies and seeks to protect and enhance the protected
and strategically important views and vistas across, to, from and/or within the City of
Westminster as identified in the London Plan is supported.
4
26 Preferred option 22 seeks to identify and protect the views designated within
Westminster City Council’s Conservation Area Audits and the draft Metropolitan Views SPD.
The GLA has already formally responded to the draft SPD (see letter LDF33LDD10KH01), the
conclusion of which stated that the draft document was not in general conformity with the
London Plan. Whilst the text within the preferred option is acceptable the proposed views to
which it relates shown on map PO22 are not.
27 In particular the draft SPD
• does not relate to local views; it states that local views will be identified in the
Conservation Area Audits. This document identifies 45 metropolitan views,
which sit between the strategic views identified in the London Plan and the
City’s local views, many of which reach beyond the boundary of the City of
Westminster;
• is not in general conformity to London Plan policy 4B.17 as it suggests high
buildings in the background would be inappropriate in most views, and
highlights the importance of the ‘uninterrupted sky backdrop’ to most of the
selected views;
• suggests that only development which is of a similar scale and appearance to
the existing townscape would be acceptable. This is contrary to the policies in
the London Plan which do not specify an appropriate scale or design of new
development within a specific view. The London Plan seeks development that
ensures the ability to recognise and appreciate landmarks in the view is
maintained or enhanced;
• places emphasis on preserving the skyline and silhouette of existing structures.
The principles of view management in the London Plan policies do not identify
silhouettes of buildings or skylines as essential elements to the appreciation of
views.
28 The Mayor is committed to reviewing the London Plan policies relating to views and the
London View Management Framework SPG and would welcome the opportunity to meet with
Westminster City Council to discuss how the designation of their local views will relate to the
updated views policies. However at present, Westminster City Council draft Metropolitan Views
SPD is premature and not in general conformity with the London Plan.
Tall buildings
29 Preferred option 23 seeks to restrict the provision of tall buildings to the Victoria and
Paddington Opportunity Areas. The London Plan policy 4B.9 states, “boroughs may wish to
identify defined areas of specific character that could be sensitive to tall buildings within their
DPD. In doing so, they should clearly explain what aspects of local character could be affected
and why. They should not impose unsubstantiated borough-wide height restrictions”.
30 Whilst the policy is worded to direct tall buildings to the two opportunity areas, the
policy should not be used to refuse the provision tall buildings in the rest of the City. Whilst it is
accepted that there are areas within the City of Westminster where tall buildings will be
unacceptable, the exclusion of tall buildings should be measured against the criteria within
policy 4B.9 and 4B.10 of the London Plan.
5
31 The Mayor is also committed to reviewing the London Plan polices relating to tall
buildings and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the development of Westminster City
Council’s tall buildings policies further.
Energy
32 Preferred option 19 aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new developments.
Overall, the inclusion of a policy is supported, but the policy needs to more effectively reflect
the headline climate change policy 4A.1 in the London Plan by considering the
recommendations below.
33 Westminster City Council is encouraged to link its policy, perhaps by reference, to the
London Plan targets for carbon dioxide emissions reduction (policy 4A.2) in the core strategy.
There should also be a policy, or amendments to the proposed policy in which the council’s
explicitly requires energy efficient design to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions that
contribute to climate change. In addition, the council should consider an approach to secure
efficiency measures for existing buildings where they form part of a planning application.
34 Whilst the preferred option reflects to some extent policy 4A.1 of the London Plan, it
should explicitly require development to minimise, rather than just reduce, emissions to make
the fullest contribution to mitigation and adaptation to climate change. In addition, the London
Plan energy hierarchy is not clearly reflected, each component of the hierarchy should be
addressed and individually supported by specific policy. There should also be a specific
renewable energy policy. Westminster City Council should set out broad areas where the
development of stand alone renewable energy technologies are appropriate and refer to the
London Plan target for 20% of energy to be generated on-site by developments.
35 Westminster City Council has taken forward the London Plan requirement to identify
and support opportunities for decentralised energy and this is strongly supported. The council
is encouraged to go further in preferred option 24 by setting out how Westminster City Council
will facilitate significant opportunities in other location should opportunities arise. There is also
a need for some clarity with regard to the third point of preferred option 24, it should be clear
that this requirement refers to contribution from major development to facilitate a wider
network, and should not be an opportunity for developers to claim that onsite heat and power
in itself facilitates a network, i.e. providing some distinction between on-site heat network and
area-based heat network.
Waste
36 The core strategy does not clearly set out which documents, as part of the Local
Development Framework will cover waste management. It is not clear whether Westminster City
Council intend to produce a separate or joint waste management DPD. Where separate waste
DPD documents are being developed core strategies should include all the bullet points in
London Plan policy 4A.21.
37 Preferred option 28 does not comply with London Plan policy. It fails to identify how
Westminster City Council will meet its apportionment targets as set out in table 4A.6 of the
London Plan. Westminster City Council should also in its DPD’s identify a range of waste
management facilities to manage a capacity of 13 million tonnes of municipal and
industrial/commercial waste to be provided between 2005-2020. Sufficient information will
need to be submitted to support Westminster’s claim that there is currently no suitable waste
sites or waste facilities in the City. Alternative option 28-A to work with other boroughs to pool
waste apportionment is strongly supported.
6
38 The criteria used to assess applications and sites for future waste management facilities
are supported.
Transport
39 The transport section within the core strategy lacks a clear overarching transport policy
that guides the transport aspects of development. TfL would welcome further detailed
discussions on transport matters prior to the finalisation of the next stage of the LDF process
and has provided a model policy for guidance.
40 The approach to the use of the private motor car, cycling and servicing and deliveries is
welcomed. However, the core strategy should be expanded to include separate policies on car
parking, cycle parking standards and freight movement.
41 The core strategy should make reference to Westminster City Council’s commitment to
support proposal to upgrade mainline railway termini within the City, with particular reference
to the improvement of public open spaces.
Planning obligations
42 Preferred option is supported subject to recognition of the need to ensure contributions
to sub-regional and other strategic infrastructure which may be required in line with London
Plan policies 6A.4 and 6A.5, especially strategic priorities accorded to transport and affordable
housing. The preferred option is cast in general terms and has been read as subsuming the
more specific Alternative Option 2-c. which is described as a GLA group option. If that is not
the intention of the Council then the Preferred Option is not in general conformity with the
London Plan.
43 Westminster City Council should also include within the core strategy the intention to
maximise the development opportunities from Crossrail and acknowledge that planning
contributions towards Crossrail will be sought from such developments.
Transport for London and London Development Agency
44 The comments of TfL and the LDA are summarised in the body of this report and
detailed comments are included in the attached Table.
Conclusion
45 Many of the comments that the GLA made at issues and options stage have been
incorporated into the preferred options document, which is welcomed, and a number of policy
areas are supported. However, a number of changes are required to ensure that the submission
document is in general conformity with the London Plan, as set out above.
For further information, contact the Planning Decisions Unit
Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions
020 7983 4271 email giles.dolphin@london.gov.uk
Christine McGoldrick, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Plans)
020 7983 4309 email christine.mcgoldrick@london.gov.uk
Martin Scholar, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Plans)
020 7983 4895 email justin.carr@london.gov.uk
Kim Hoffman, Senior Strategic Planner
020 7983 6589 email kim.hoffman@london.gov.uk
7
Appendix A – Detailed comments table
Appendix B – Copy of preferred options referenced in report
8