Docstoc

LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

Document Sample
LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT Powered By Docstoc
					                   LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON
                 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
         Examination of the Merton Core Planning Strategy




                            HEARING SESSION 3
                       10 am Tuesday 15 February 2011



   1. Inspector
      Welcome; introductions; opening remarks


   2. Main matters (details on following pages):

      Design
          Tall buildings
          Residential space standards
          Public realm improvements

      Climate Change
          Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 – justification and viability
            considerations
          BREEAM requirements for non-domestic buildings 4 – justification
            and viability considerations
          Renewable Energy and PPS 22

      Flood Risk Management
          Delivery of flood risk mitigation measures

      Waste Management
         The South West London Waste Plan DPD

      The sub-areas
          Housing in the sub-areas
          Colliers Wood master plan
          Key housing sites in Mitcham
          New “planning frameworks” in Mitcham
          Rainbow Industrial Estate
          Wimbledon town centre; role, character and strategic sites


   4. Inspector
      The next steps


Participants:
London Borough of Merton
Indigo Planning representing Berkeley Homes (Urban Renaissance)
Rolfe Judd representing The Workspace Group
PRP Planning representing Crest Nicholson (South East) Limited
The Wimbledon Society
DESIGN

Chapter 22 Policy CS 14

Main Issues:

A. Is the Council’s approach to identifying areas where tall buildings
might be appropriate based on robust evidence which reflects national
guidance? In the absence of maximum building heights being specified in
Policy CS 14 c and relevant area-based policies, is it the Council’s
intention to support the Policy with supplementary guidance based on the
draft Tall Buildings background paper and the criteria for evaluating
proposals for tall buildings set out in the CABE/English Heritage guidance?
     The plan-led approach: appropriate, sensitive and inappropriate
       locations for tall buildings in the borough
     Translating analysis into policy (English Heritage concerns)
     The approach to tall buildings in Colliers Wood, Morden and
       Wimbledon (including The Wimbledon Society’s representation)
     Updating the adopted Design Guidance SPD to incorporate Tall
       Buildings guidance

B. Is the requirement for residential development and conversions to
comply with the most appropriate minimum space standards justified and
will be it be effective in the absence of guidance as to which is the
appropriate standard, or a pointer as to where such guidance can be
found?
     Minimum space standards and the Dwelling Conversions
       Background Paper
     Existing and future guidance on minimum space standards and
       selecting the most appropriate standard for a particular
       development

C. If not through the planning process, how will the Council help deliver
improvements to the public realm, including highway upgrades and street
furniture?
    Partnership/joined-up working with other agencies to deliver a
       consistent approach to highway and associated works

7. CLIMATE CHANGE

Chapter 23 Policy CS 15

A. What are the local circumstances that warrant and allow the
requirement in Policy CS 15 e for all new dwellings to achieve the Code for
Sustainable Homes Level 4 in advance of this becoming a national
mandatory requirement?
    Merton’s particular local circumstances (Berkeley Homes
      representation)

B. Has the effect of Policy CS 15 e requirements on the viability of
residential development, including affordable housing, been robustly
assessed and is the policy sufficiently flexible to accommodate proposals
for residential development on sites where there is evidence that the
ability to achieve the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 is limited by
individual characteristics and constraints?
     Viability of Code for Sustainable Homes in Merton
     Flexibility to take site specific circumstances into account
     Discussion of Berkeley Homes representation
C. Are the BREEAM requirements for non-domestic buildings underpinned
by a robust evidence base and have the effect of these requirements of
the viability of development schemes been assessed?
    Sustainable design and construction evidence base
    Viability assessment
    Proposed change to introduce a new sustainable building
       requirement for non-domestic buildings (BREEAM Excellent
       minimum energy credit requirement)

D. Is the Policy consistent with the advice in Planning Policy Statement 2
Renewable Energy (PPS 22) in relation to proposals for renewable energy?
    How does the Policy promote and encourage renewable and low-
      carbon energy generation and the infrastructure necessary to
      support the generation of such energy (PPS 1 Climate Change
      Supplement para 19)?
    Has the Council considered identifying areas suitable for such
      energy sources and supporting infrastructure (PPS 1 Climate
      Change Supplement para 20)?

8. FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT

Chapter 24 Policy 16

Main Issue:
A. As worded, will Policy CS 16 e effectively deliver the implementation of
measures to mitigate flood risk across the borough?
    Policy wording as submitted and as proposed to be changed
    Discussion of the Wimbledon Society’s representation

9. WASTE MANAGEMENT

Chapter 25 Policy 17

A. Is Policy 17 sufficiently clear about the significance and role of the
South London Waste Plan Development Plan Document (DPD) which is
being prepared jointly by the London Boroughs of Merton, Kingston-upon-
Thames, Sutton and Croydon?
    The relationship between the Core Strategy and the Waste DPD and
      their relative roles having regard to:
                  i. Which DPD deals with strategic decisions about the
                     spatial strategy for the future pattern of waste
                     management and policies for the sustainable
                     management of waste
                 ii. Avoiding duplication of material coming forward in the
                     joint Waste DPD which identifies what waste
                     management developments and facilities are required;
                     where they are to be located; when they will be
                     provided; how they will be delivered
                iii. Signalling where the requirements of PPS 10 and the
                     Waste Framework Directive can be found
                iv. Ensuring that the Council is committed to the spatial
                     strategy and policies in the joint Waste DPD
                 v. Assisting the examination of the joint Waste DPD by
                     clarifying the relationship between, and the respective
                     roles of, the Core Strategy and the DPD
    Discussion of the Wimbledon Society and Workspace Group’s
      representations
10. THE SUB-AREAS
Chapters 10-16 Policies CS 1- CS 6

Main Issues:
A. Is there robust evidence to demonstrate that housing numbers
specified in Policy CS 9 can be delivered in each of the sub-areas, and in
what sequence and over what period these will come forward?
    Housing Delivery Background Paper

B. How will the masterplan approach to the designation of Colliers Wood
as a district centre and definition of the AFI boundary embodied in Policy
CS 1 deliver the outcomes the Council is seeking to achieve? What is the
timetable for the preparation of the masterplan leading to its adoption in
2012? Why has a masterplan approach been selected in preference to an
Area Action Plan?
    Plan-led approach in the form of a DPD
    Coherent place-making
    Comprehensive approach to flood risk mitigation
    Timescale and priority

C. Mitcham is the only sub-area where key housing sites are identified on
the map and in the supporting text. Are these sites central to achieving
the housing element of the Core Strategy? If so, why not refer to these
strategic sites in Policy CS 2?
    Identified sites: housing capacity and deliverability
    Discussion of Crest Nicholson’s representations

D Is the purpose, status and timing of the “new planning frameworks”
and “specific planning document for Mitcham” referred to in chapter 12
under Delivery and Monitoring clearly set out in Policy CS 2 and the
supporting text?
    Proposed change (statement 10E para 2.9)

E. Is there any justification to make specific reference to the Rainbow
Industrial Estate in Policy CS 4 (Raynes Park)
     Discussion of The Workspace Group’s representations

F. Is there robust evidence to demonstrate that the development of
Wimbledon as a Major Centre in accordance with Policy CS 6 can be
achieved without undermining its role serving the local community, and
that the level of growth envisaged can be accommodated without harm to
the character of the centre itself and the residential surrounds?
    Discussion of The Wimbledon Society’s representations
    Proposed change to Table 17.2 Wimbledon town centre (retail)

G. Are the key development sites in Wimbledon town centre referred to in
paragraph 16.15 strategic sites which are central to the delivery of the
core strategy and, if so, should they be allocated as such?
    Designated mixed use sites on the adopted Proposals Map

				
DOCUMENT INFO