web view2.5105 people attended the consultation events held by the council during the statutory...

South Quay Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Consultation Statement

October 2015

Regulation 12(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Role of the Consultation Statement

1.1 In accordance with Regulation 12(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, this Consultation Statement has detailed:

the persons the local planning authority consulted when preparing the supplementary planning document;

a summary of the main issues raised how those issues have been addressed in the supplementary planning document

2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT APPROACH

Requirements of the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) (2012) and Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (“Regulation”)

2.1 The approach to developing and consulting on the SPD was in conformity with the Council’s SCI. The overarching aim for consultation was to provide an opportunity for involvement from a wide range of stakeholders including residents, local community groups, landowners/developers, statutory consultees, and any other individuals or organisations with an interest in the area. These groups were contacted and involved at different stages throughout the drafting and formal consultation stages. Table 1 outlines activities undertaken and persons consulted, which also satisfies Regulation 12(a.i.) which requires those persons consulted during preparation of the SPD to be set out.

Engaging the local community and stakeholders

2.2 In undertaking community involvement, the core principles which have governed the approach to consultation are provided below:

Appropriate to the level of planning issue and the type of document being consulted on

From the beginning, giving people the opportunity to shape the documents and make it their own

A continuous process and not just a one off event Clear and straightforward by using methods suitable to the communities

being consulted Planned as a central part of the planning and plan-making process.

How we involved the community and stakeholders

2.3 There are several distinct stages to consultation activities to progress SPDs and these are set out in Table 1 along with identification of how and where the community and key stakeholders had the opportunity to get involved.

2.4 Throughout the Masterplan SPD preparation process, a diverse range of consultation techniques and activities were carried out to ensure an effective and efficient engagement.

2

2.5 The Council engaged with a number of different audiences throughout the preliminary (informal) and statutory consultation periods, these are also set out in Table 1.

2.5 105 people attended the consultation events held by the Council during the statutory consultation between 5th January and 16th February 2015.

2.6 In addition, over 637 written representations were received from 63 local residents, businesses, faith and community organisations, statutory consultees, developers/landowners, and other interested parties.

4.0 REVIEW OF STAGES OF CONSULTATION & ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

Stage 1 – Preliminary (informal) consultation

4.1 A number of key messages emerged out of the preliminary (informal) consultation stage, including

Quality of the public realm Lack of public open space in the area Lack of clarity between what is public and private space Developments not meeting the needs of local people due to overseas purchasers Need for further social infrastructure (hospitals, doctors, schools and parks) to

address population increase More sports and social facilities required Pedestrian access through the area be difficult The bridge across South Dock needs to be improved Transport provision needs to be increased as already at capacity Development benefitting developers rather than local people Density of development Build tall buildings elsewhere and not just in the South Quay area Fear that the Masterplan would have no consideration for local people Need to consider how family and affordable housing can be successfully delivered

in a high density environment

4.2 The key issues and opportunities identified by this preliminary informal consultation, in addition to evidence base work, then shaped the Draft South Quay Masterplan SPD which was approved for formal consultation.

Stage 2 – Statutory (formal) consultation

4.3 A summary of key messages from representations received split by subject area is set out below:

SQ1 – Housing density

Concern about the impact of high density development on infrastructure Requesting that density be limited

SQ2 – Connections & public spaces

3

Need for greater open space Need for enhanced connectivity especially to the south Support for additional bridges/bridge capacity Reservations about the quality of space underneath the DLR

SQ3 – Massing & urban blocks

Concern about building heights Illustrative diagrams not being representative of consented schemes Concern that guidance could be used prescriptively Consistency with existing policy on height/design

SQ4 – The skyline

Guidance on respecting the Maritime Greenwich Grand axis welcomed Requests that the provided view diagram be expanded to show St Anne’s at Poplar

and All Saints at Blackheath

SQ5 – Infrastructure

Concern about lack of transport capacity Concern about water/sewerage capacity Evidence behind table of requirements questioned Questions as to whether guidance breaches CIL regulations

Introduction/contextual information and other miscellaneous comments

A number of clarifications and corrections were requested Requests to clarify the illustrative nature of diagrams

4.4 How the Council considered these comments and other representations made, and whether amendments were actioned, is set out in Table 2 (Representations received during statutory consultation and LBTH responses). It also provides information as to who made each representation.

4.5 The key amendments made to the final version of the SPD compared to the draft formal consultation version can be viewed in Table 3 (Key amendments to the supplementary policy guidance within the South Quay Masterplan SPD). These key changes relate to amendments to the wording of supplementary policy guidance for clarity to avoid the misinterpretation of guidance as introducing new policy, which is outside of the remit of a SPD.

4.6 The structure of the document was also reformatted for improved appearance and presentation of content.

Stage 3 – Adopting the Masterplan

4.5 An Adoption Statement has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 11.2 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

4.6 The final version of the SPD document along with supporting appendices including the Adoption Statement and this Consultation Statement will be made available to view on the Council’s website and at the following locations:

4

LBTH Planning Reception, Tower Hamlets Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG Monday - Friday 9am-5pm

Idea Store Canary Wharf, Churchill Place, London, E14 5RB Monday – Thursday 9am – 9pm, Friday 9am – 6pm, Saturday 9am – 5pm, Sunday 12pm – 6pm

Cubitt Town Library, Strattondale Street, London, E14 3HGMonday – Wednesday 10am – 6pm, Thursday 10am-8pm, Friday 10am – 6pm, Saturday 9am – 5pm, Sunday closed.

Local History & Archives Library, 277 Bancroft Road, E1 4DQMonday closed, Tuesday 10am-5pm, Wednesday 9am-5pm, Thursday 9am-8pm, Friday closed, Saturday (first and third Saturday of the month) 9am-5pm, Sunday closed.

5

Table 1 – South Quay Masterplan SPD key consultation activities and events

Method/Type of Consultation

Aim/details Target Groups Location and Date

Stage 1 – Preliminary (Informal) Consultation: March 2014 - September 2014Involvement and participation before developing a SPDMasterplan SPD media public notices and publication on LBTH website

Raising awareness amongst the community of development of the Masterplan project and inviting participation

Local community East End Life/LBTH website August 2014

E-Mail and letters Raising awareness amongst individuals and organisations in the area to inform of informal public consultation events.

Local community August 2014

Public Drop-in Sessions

To introduce and discuss the aims and objectives of the Masterplan SPD and seek comment.

The general public Jack Dash House August 28th 2014 September 4th 2014

Meeting with elected Members

Regular engagement with Mayor and Lead Member for Housing to ascertain community priorities and aspirations, and engagement with local ward councillors to ensure community issues were fed into the Masterplan SPD.

Elected Members LBTH Town Hall Between March and

December 2014

Internal staff engagement

Engagement with LBTH Council service departments including drop-in sessions and meetings throughout the process to obtain guidance and feedback on respective specialisms

LBTH staff LBTH Town Hall Between March and

October 2014

Stakeholder meetings To engage with some of the key stakeholders in the area, to ascertain key issues and aspirations for the Masterplan and obtain comment, direction and expertise on content

Key stakeholders including:Canal & River Trust, English Heritage, Environment Agency, Greater London Authority (GLA), Old Royal Naval College Greenwich, Transport for London (TfL),Registered Providers, London City Airport and Thames Water

LBTH Town Hall Between March and

October 2014

Landowner and developer meetings

To engage and update key landowners and developers. Separate focused meetings with key landowners to discuss specific issues relating to the Masterplan SPD and aspirations for their sites.

Key landowners and developers in the area.

LBTH Town Hall Informal surgeries in

April 2014 Pre-application

discussions throughout 2014

Professional forum(New London Architecture)

To engage expert opinion from a wide range of built environment professionals on future development of tall buildings in London

Professional advisors and bodies

Building Centre (Tottenham Court Road) 24 April 2014

One-to-one meetings The Masterplan project team has offered bespoke one to meetings throughout the informal consultation period

Interested individuals, groups and organisations

LBTH Town Hall March-December

2014

6

Stage 2 – Statutory (Formal) Consultation: 5 January 2015 – 16 January 2015 (6 weeks)Community involvement and participation before adopting a SPDMethod/Type of Consultation

Aim/details Target Groups Date and Location

Masterplan SPD media public notices and publication on LBTH website

Raising awareness amongst the community of statutory consultation and events, plus inviting participation

Local community East End Life/LBTH website December 22nd 2014

and January 19th 2015 (East End Life)

December - April 2015 (website)

E-mails and letters Raising awareness amongst the community and subscribers to the Council’s planning policy contact list of statutory consultation and events, plus inviting participation

Local community, statutory consultees, other interested parties

Letters and e-mails sent 2nd January 2015.

E-mails were also sent on 16th January

Public Drop-in Sessions

To discuss the content of the Masterplan SPD and invite comment

The general public Jack Dash House 22nd January 2015

Idea Store Canary Wharf 30th January 2015

Public Meeting/Presentation session

Presentation of draft Masterplan to the general public with Question and Answers session

The general public Alpha Grove Community Centre 5th February 2015

Landowner and developer forum

To engage with and update key landowners and developers

Key landowners and developers in the area.

LBTH Town Hall 13th February 2015

Strategic Environmental Assessment ScreeningDetermination notification email and scoping report consultation

It was identified that the Masterplan SPD required an SEA, in accordance with the requirements of regulation 9(1) of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004. The council was keen to understand whether consultees agreed with the proposed scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, or whether additional information/ assessment was required

Statutory environmental bodies (Environment Agency, English Heritage, Natural England) and other interested stakeholders

LBTH website 15th September –

October 20th 2014

One-to-one meetings The Masterplan project team has offered bespoke one to meetings throughout the informal consultation period

Interested individuals, groups and organisations

LBTH Town Hall March-December

2014

Stage 3 - Adopting the Masterplan: October 2015Final version of SPD with accompanying appendices

Briefing the elected Mayor and Lead Member for Housing on the Masterplan SPD

Council’s Mayor in Cabinet meeting

8th October 2015

7

Table 2: Representations received during statutory consultation and LBTH responses

Please note that this report aims to present a brief summary of every key point for consideration made within each written representation.

Reference Representor/Organisation Summary of the comments Council's response Action - Proposed

changes

SQFC1.01 Local resident

Believes there is an urgent need for a new major open space immediately south of Marsh Wall between Millharbour and Mastmaker Road down to Lightermans Road.

Part of Millennium Quarter site allocation and potential delivery through submitted application No action required

All the existing trees, landscaping and the sculpture at the junction of Marsh Wall and Millharbour should be retained.

Can be managed through Development Management process No action required

Also highlights need for education and doctors surgeries and the inadequacy of public transport in immediate area (DLR running at full capacity was cited).

Education and health facilities addressed by SQ1, SQ5 and existing adopted policy. Transport to be addressed by forthcoming Isle of Dogs OAPF

No action required


Welcomes a Masterplan but has several concerns. Concern noted No action requiredFound documents difficult to comprehend and suggests the Council produces more easily understandable and accessible information.

The document has been written in the clearest language possible and where technical terms are used they have in most cases been explained.

No action required

Building heights – Welcomes that buildings are to step down from One Canada Square. However, questions whether this will be adhered to and understands developments have been approved or are expected which exceed this height. Requests explanation as to how the Masterplan will reflect the true height of buildings.

Building heights are assessed in accordance with the Local Plan policies through development management process

No action required

Density – Concerned about creation of unpleasant urban environment from large density of buildings of 4+ stories. Does not want a non-British street scene containing a concentration of taller buildings as it will spoil Canary Wharf as an iconic and interesting development and the Isle of Dogs which is low rise. Discusses effects of wind and “canyon” effect of tall buildings, and requests consideration of reducing density of buildings over 10 stories in the Masterplan.


No action required

High street along Marsh Wall – Claims proposal is “ridiculous and ill thought”. Questions whether team have studied what makes successful UK high streets, suggesting they are pedestrianised and where traffic is allowed should be single file and slow moving. The latter makes Marsh Wall a terrible choice and any efforts to limit traffic will have a “catastrophic” impact on those using the island. Suggests an alternative route such as Mastmaker Terrace to the edge of South Dock.

There are many successful non-pedestrianised retail/high street environments across London and UK.

No action required

Public transport – Public transport is already stretched. Could not see sufficient modelling and planning for public transport provision. Questions whether the document can be called a Masterplan without adequate and detailed public transport planning within.

Transport to be addressed by forthcoming Isle of Dogs OAPF as a wider strategic consideration No action required

SQFC1.03 English Heritage

Considers area suitable for residential development subject to appropriate assessment for tall buildings. Supports the Council’s aim of producing the Masterplan.

Support noted No action required

While 19th Century Glengall Terrace is excluded from boundary, recommends further illustration/explanation of likely impacts on conservation area and setting from adjacent development and recommends guidance to mitigate harmful impacts.

Managed through adopted Local Plan policies No action required

South Dock although unlisted must be considered a heritage asset as “exceptional reminder” of London’s economic and historic development along with Millwall Inner Dock and West India Dock. Vital that new development draws on contribution made by these heritage assets to enhance the attractiveness of public realm and the leisure and health opportunities afforded by waterside locations.

Heritage assets acknowledged in Masterplan No action required

Pleased to note inclusion of guidance in respect of skyline and relationship in views towards Canary Wharf cluster from General Wolfe statue within the setting of Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. Also welcomes aim of seeking to define the Maritime Greenwich Grand Axis through the design of future development. Recommends reference to development also potentially appearing in River Prospect views from London Bridge (LVMF 11.B) and that development will need to demonstrate impact in relation to associated policies.

Assessed in accordance with adopted Local Plan policy No action required

Would encourage the Council to formally identify public house and warehouse at western end of Marsh Wall as making a positive contribution to local character.

Outside remit of Masterplan. No action required

Would recommend formal identification of Glen Terrace and the setting of Coldharbour Conservation Area, and undesignated pub/warehouse within Heritage section of Current Context.

Cannot allocate through SPD No action required

Recommend referring to docks as ‘heritage assets’ rather than ‘historic environments’ (better reflection of NPPF policies)

Text amended in final version Actioned

Recommend that wider traffic and transport infrastructure are coordinated over a wider area and that related strategies are signposted in the Masterplan.


Would recommend that design of new open space (p32) should state “sustain the significance of, and seek opportunities to enhance, designated and local heritage assets” rather than “acknowledge local heritage assets” as currently doesn’t imply a positive strategy for historic

Text amended in final version Actioned

8

environment.Recommend inclusion of a design requirement for new blocks to contribute positively to skyline and townscape through 360 degrees.

This is covered by existing adopted policy No action required

Suggest it may be beneficial for new development to model the impact on sunlight and demonstrate how massing will maximise the opportunity for sunlight and provision of open space (p35)

Already a requirement through the Development Management process No action required

Important to recognise pressure for development south of Masterplan area in context of impact on WHS buffer zone. Important to consider impact of wider pressure on visual layering. (p45)

To be considered in development of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Suggest an urban design strategy for ensuring a coordinated and cohesive approach to streets is prepared which could include a public realm strategy for enhancing appearance and quality of public realm at Marsh Wall and on docksides.

This is being developed by TfL in conjunction with LBTH No action required

SEA – Would draw attention to comments in respect of impact on Coldharbour Conservation Area and Glen Terrace.

Noted No action required

Would value opportunity to discuss further with the Council. The Masterplan team is keen to continue to engage with stakeholders No action required

SQFC1.04

Dr Pieter van der Merwe MBE DL on behalf of Royal Museum Greenwich

Incorrect spelling of separation and coherent One example of each word incorrect - text amended in final version Actioned

SQFC1.05 Local resident Would like to know details about regeneration on Barkantine Estate, which of four estates would start first

Managed through Development Management process No action required


More content about disabled facilities Managed through adopted Local Plan policies No action required

Some contents could be in plain English for consultation (official document being more sophisticated)


No action required

Cycling routes need to be improved Addressed through SQ2 No action required

More greenery along riverside Improved docksides are an aspiration of the Masterplan No action required


Feels planners not driving the developers when the Council has capacity and ability to insist on schools at the outset; not allowing more development until facilities are built and in place.

Addressed by SQ1, SQ5 and existing adopted policy No action required


Buildings are much too highBuilding heights are assessed in accordance with the Local Plan policies through development management process

No action required

Not enough open space or playspace This is a driver behind development of the Masterplan No action required

Planning permissions should not be granted until water and sewerage problems are resolved


Shouldn’t the Section 106 money be spent to mitigate impact on the Isle of Dogs

Section 106/CIL receipts are managed according to adopted procedures No action required

Roadways are not wide enough to take increased traffic; delivery vehicles park on double yellow lines outside Tesco Matter for enforcement No action required

South Quay DLR cannot cope with rise in users implied by development


Simpler or explanatory English should be used – example of ‘Pneumatic waste collection system’ given as example


No action required


Greater consideration should be given to high densities of development in excess of many forms of guidance. Risk going to appeal.

To be managed through Development Management process No action required

Should be more accountability of how S106 is spent locally The Council publishes details of spending quarterly on its website No action required

Underestimation and insufficient focus on education provision. More needs to be done in wider Isle of Dogs area to encourage all sorts of school providers.

Addressed by SQ1, SQ5 and existing adopted policy No action required


Draft is well written and structured Support noted No action requiredQuestions ability of developers to go outside of the plan and build as high and dense as possible, for example Ballymore at Lincoln Plaza


No action required

The three Millharbour sites should have no more than one high rise section of development on each and they should not be right next to existing ones (plans show a high rise section around 60ft from Pan Peninsula.

Diagrams are indicative only and this is being better reflected in final version

Actioned - text amended to emphasise indicative nature of diagrams

Supportive of green areas highlighted Support noted No action required

Transport and water are a concern for residents Concern noted. To be considered in development of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Plan looks scarce on detail for schools, health, transport etc., which requires serious planning as population could rise from 3,000 to 30-60,000 in fifteen years

Local infrastructure such as schools and health is addressed by SQ5. Wider strategic infrastructure such as transport to be addressed by the GLA's Isle of Dogs OAPF

No action required

The way Canary Wharf manage their estate should be replicated in terms of managing shop fronts and green spaces. Highlights issue of little around South Quay DLR and cleanliness improving quality of life.


SQFC1.11Greater London Authority

Strongly support the principles embedded in document. Support noted No action requiredPodium-plinth typology is sound and should be actively promoted. Support noted No action required

Massing allows for sufficient pragmatism by not being overly prescriptive Support noted No action required

Delivery of high quality public realm and active and legible Support noted No action required9

routes is critical and should remain a priority.SPD should be seen as a first step in production of an Opportunity Area Planning Framework for the wider Isle of Dogs

Council intends to progress on that basis No action required

Dock crossings are critical to improve connections and relieve pressure on the DLR; it is vital that the Council and GLA work together to secure their delivery as a priority.

Work being taken forward by TfL as part of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required


Concerned that plans to widen the road outside of Glen Terrace would result in it becoming a less safe area, increase traffic noise and impact on parking of which there is already a shortage.


Worried about pressure on existing facilities (GPs, dentists and shops) which are already at high capacity. Addressed by SQ1, SQ5 and existing adopted policy No action required


Concerned about the scale of the project with development creating a greater population density issue.

Concern noted. This is a driver for development of the SPD No action required

Does not want the A1206 widened as current levels of pollution are already too high, and will make it an even more dangerous and busy road.



Building heights – Podium and plinth components refined by relationship to streets, but there is no limit on the height of the taller elements.


No action required

Masterplan seems to suggest normal density limits can be exceeded with little justification.

SQ1 requires robust demonstration of mitigation of impacts No action required

Feels the guidance on stepping down from One Canada Square is too vague. Would like to see the Masterplan specify the maximum height of buildings at each development site and for those to conform to stepping-down guideline


No action required

Provision of high-speed broadband to residences and businesses – Limited mention of utilities infrastructure. Current broadband provision to South Quay is poor. Would like to see reference to encouraging BT to provide fibre-to-the-premises infrastructure and encourage developers to liaise with BT to include such infrastructure within their buildings.

To be addressed by Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required


Welcomes and supports the principles outlined in the Masterplan. Support noted No action required

A rebalancing of landuse with an emphasis on meeting housing demand is welcomed, but the Masterplan must allow for flexibility and avoid over-prescription in the event of changing market or social and economic conditions

Landuse principles for the area to include non-residential uses have been established through the Millennium Quarter and Marsh Wall East site allocations within the adopted Managing Development Document (2013)

No action required

Important to ensure estate management with public realm and facilities maintained; much of area currently suffers neglect.


Need for family accommodation and services are limited in South Quay, with current population statistics cited. Places emphasis on need for vibrant convenience shopping, eateries and service support.

Commercial uses are supported in Masterplan area. Tenure/dwelling mix in line with Local Plan policies. No action required

Crèche/primary school facilities are important but suggests evidence shows that affordable and family accommodation is better located in less dense environments. Suggests regeneration benefits should be extended into new and existing neighbouring communities.

Securing benefits for the wider community is already referenced No action required

Need for joint public/private partnership should be acknowledged and nurtured. Noted No action required

Need for improved connectivity, enhanced public realm and coherent hierarchy in built environment endorsed Support noted No action required

Masterplan must allow flexibility in density for good design and juxtaposition with Canary Wharf.

Managed in accordance with Local Plan policies and development management process No action required

Suggested that development consultancy advice be provided to Design Advisory Panel and RP Panel. Noted No action required

Developers should be encouraged to address need to integrate owner-occupier, private rent and social rented accommodation and look for new funding and cross-subsidy models with RPs.

Occupation of units not a planning matter No action required

Principles of enhancing connections from the south to Canary Wharf are endorsed. Support noted No action required

For non-residential frontages allowances should be made for innovative individual site design, internal connections and public spaces.


‘Blight’ of empty linear retail and service frontages should be avoided. Not all principle walkways will be suitable for such activities and demand may be limited.


Argues for café/retail courtyards or podiums woven into new developments. Active frontages are promoted in Masterplan No action required

Improvement to existing bridge capacity is welcomed. Support noted No action requiredMaximum public access should be made to dock frontages, but notes South Dock is less attractive for outdoor uses due to northerly aspect.

Activating docksides is an aspiration of the Masterplan No action required

Permanent moorings and water-borne business users must be controlled to avoid conflict and safeguard amenity and quality of the public realm.


NY link to DLR space is tenuous Text amended in final version Text amendedDevelopment blocks within the area are generally large – focus on creating meaningful public space within innovative development schemes.

Noted; this is the aspiration of the Masterplan and will be delivered on a site by site basis No action required

10

The Masterplan should not constrain good architecture, innovation and sound development practice through formulaic approach.


Site owners and developers should not be constrained in determining appropriate site content and mix meeting market demand – flexibility is required to enable inclusion of commercial uses.

Final version has put increased emphasis on indicative nature of diagrams

Text/diagram amendments

Admirals Way might be replaced by ‘Waterside Estate’ (current recognised name). Text amended in final version Actioned

Comprehensive redevelopment of Admirals Way wouldn’t require retention of existing access, so this should not be taken as a constraint as it appears in Figure 3.1



Maritime Greenwich grand axis should be taken into account only insofar as development proposals intrude above existing structures on alignment.

Heights assessed in accordance with adopted Local Plan policy No action required

Priority should be placed on footbridge link improvements to Canary Wharf. This is an aspiration of the Masterplan No action required

Marsh Wall is an ‘easy win’ for public realm action. Support noted No action requiredPotential to use the Council’s powers in land assembly will be welcomed (as last resort) Support noted No action required

Recommends a regular Masterplan development forum between site owners, representatives and developers.

The Masterplan team is keen to continue to engage with stakeholders No action required

SQFC1.16 Natural England

Given scale of proposed development would expect more proposals for the provision of accessible green and open spaces. Natural England considers the Masterplan area could benefit from enhanced green infrastructure provision and would encourage the incorporation of this into the plan.

Identified by Millennium Quarter Masterplan and can be further considered as part of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Supportive of inclusion of green roofs but advice some types such as sedum matting have limited biodiversity value. Encourage consideration of bespoke solutions based on needs of wildlife specific to sites and area.


Health benefits of natural green spaces are emphasised, which should be of at least 2ha in size and not more than 300m walk from home.

Provision can be managed through Development Management process No action required

SQFC1.17Friends of Greenwich Park

Welcome the inclusion of SQ4. Plan acknowledges and reflects issues made by Greenwich Amenity Societies. Support noted No action required

Figure 4.1 does not extend sufficiently far to the south to enable a sight “cone” to be shown from avenue’s intersection and ask that this be expanded to show All Saints Church from the extent of the view with that intersection.

Figure 4.1 amended for final version No action required

Would welcome specific guidance on ceiling height within cone, equating to between 10-15 stories depending on base height of floors.


Recommend the plan includes a transverse section St Anne’s – All Saints (also showing relative contours of Docklands and Greenwich Parks) of existing buildings on grand axis to set a framework limiting the height for any future tall buildings.

Figure 4.1 amended for final version No action required

Feel it would be helpful to provide an interpretation of building height recommended for each line along contour lines, giving a stepping down of building heights from east to west to east and north to south plus avoiding a ‘table-top’ block effect when seen from Wolfe.


Would be helpful to have the line of the Grand Axis on both Fig VI vision map and Fig 3.1. Amended for final version No action required

Would be helpful to have display showing all developments in the Masterplan as was shown at public events.

Not possible as document will be static whereas such a document would require updating No action required

SQFC1.18

Richard A. Cowan on behalf of Sof tware Systems & Services Limi ted

Feels Masterplan should be approved without delay Support noted No action requiredWelcomes holistic approach to height and massing; is desirable to allow some flexibility concerning exact placement of buildings at various sites.


Welcomes importance given to respecting the Grand Axis sight line. Support noted No action required

Would be useful to include development site map from Fig 1.2 of SEA.

Not possible as document will be static whereas such a document would require updating No action required

Boundary of Sites 12/13 not accurately represented – would be useful to treat as one area Site map will not be included in final document No action required

Admiral Estate more commonly referenced as ‘The Waterside Estate’ Text amended in final version Actioned

Believes the Council is right to hold as last resort exercise of powers for land assembly Support noted No action required

SQFC1.19 The Greenwich Society

Notes and welcomes Policy SQ4 Support noted No action requiredSuggest the line of the axis might be an advantage to diagrams shown on p19/34. Amended for final version No action required

Believe the Masterplan should make more positive statement on guidance as to how heights of tall buildings might be managed to fulfil the guidelines through firmer specific guidelines or ‘framing’ the Grand Axis ensuring all development in the frame remain lower so the Axis is marked by a ‘dip’ in the heights of buildings in the ‘frame’.


Suggested the graphic on p44 might include a narrow cone of vision representing the view from that point following the line of trees to either side of view towards General Wolfe statue – though noted this view is mentioned specifically on p43 of the document.

Additional diagram has been included in final version Diagram added

11

Suggest a graphic might be included to illustrate how Masterplan’s aims with respect to tall buildings might appear from the viewing points in the WHS.

Diagrams in Masterplan are indicative only, so would not accurately reflect schemes coming forward No action required

Would be helpful if a graphic showed montage of all developments consented and proposed across Isle of Dogs and this be used to inform building height policy.


No action required

SQFC1.20

DP9 on behalf of Meridian Property Holdings Ltd.

MPHL supports SQ2. Care should be taken to ensure conjoined spaces have a consistent language and palette of materials.


Strongly object to prescriptive nature of proposed policy SQ3 as does not necessarily result in most appropriate development form for a given site, citing Meridian Gate on which 70% of site provided as open space achieved through a design response tailored to individual site. Requests this section of SPD to be edited to allow for wide range of development forms to come forward that are most appropriate for the immediate site context.

Indicative nature of diagrams and text emphasised for final version Text amended


Inconsistency in level of detail between car parking and cycle parking – believes there should be consistent level of detail.

Parking provision managed through existing Local Plan policies No action required

No mention of unloading spaces which slows traffic considerably around Tesco stores. This is an enforcement issue No action required

Would be helpful to show land ownership on cross-sections on p29/30. Unclear how road could be widened to have traffic four across.



Is impossible to identify where Fig 2.6 would be. Crucial as significant footfall at Discovery Dock as forms key passage from DLR station to Canary Wharf which will remain a key thoroughfare.



SQFC1.22Greenwich Conservation Group

Welcomes document relying on Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Management Plan – Third Review – 2014 but regrets this not being referenced in list of production information on p5.

Support noted and amendment made to final version No action required

Would appreciate if the scope of Fig 4.1 could be extended to include the junction of Blackheath Avenue and Great Cross Avenue and extend as far south as All Saints Church Blackheath

Amended for final version No action required

Should be some corresponding explanation on contour lines and suggested height of development on Fig. 4.1


No action required

Would be helpful to include a similar viewing cone as 4.1 from Blackheath/Great Cross Avenue intersection. Additional diagram has been included in final version Diagram added

Believes a transverse section running north/south to cover Masterplan area and key viewing points in WHS would be useful and would relate to height of development as suggested in Fig 3.1


Essential that development in South Quay terminates no higher than 47m AOD for Wolfe statue to be read unobstructed against an open sky.


No action required

Would be useful to information in Fig 3.1 could be supplemented with an indication of how suggested massing might be read as seen from south. Would also be worthwhile including outlines of established developments in Canary Wharf area and consented/current applications.

Diagrams are indicative only, established/consented developments are subject to change No action required

SQFC1.23

GVA on behalf of client with interest in Ensign House

Client is supportive of ambition to activate the external edges of the site and supports improvement to dockside walkway and new pedestrian and cycle movement.


Client is not supportive of suggested restrictions on built form and considers the Masterplan should be amended to remove proposed restriction on development and ability of South Quay to respond to government’s growth agenda.

Built form is indicative only and this is being better reflected in final version


Believes the Masterplan does not meet brief of government guidance as introduces new policy and site allocations, duplicates existing policies and is inconsistent with adopted plans for growth.

No duplications, new policy or site allocations. Accords with existing adopted Local Plan No action required

Believes stakeholder engagement process has been flawed as LA has not had meaningful engagement with landowners in development of the Masterplan and has therefore ignored the extensive development experience of those upon whom the Council relies for delivery, and built little consensus.

The Council is satisfied it has undertaken sufficient detailed public consultation on the SPD in accordance with statutory regulations and as set out in the Councils Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). See accompanying Consultation Statement for full details of the consultation activities undertaken.

No action required

Document seeks to manage rather than facilitate growth.

The Masterplan recognises the unique opportunity to deliver growth; management relates to securing benefits for the community through coordinated development proposals and managing impacts. This is set out in the document

No action required

Placemaking principles are unnecessary as duplicate adopted policy. It is considered these provide useful context No action required

Vision map introduces arbitrary controls on building height without robust evidential base. These should be on site by site basis with consideration to particular attributes of given sites.

Final version has put increased emphasis on indicative nature of diagrams No action required

12

Massing in Masterplan is inconsistent with decisions of Strategic Development Committee. Suggests Masterplan is introducing policy ‘through the back door’ by seeking to constrain landowners ability to adopt a particular urban design approach that would have been acceptable in the context of the adopted plan.

Massing is illustrative only No action required

Building heights are unambitious in the context of adopted policy and physical setting of the site. Masterplan cannot introduce significant constraints on development without proper independent examination.


No action required

SQ2e is unduly prescriptive regarding set-back at dock edges and should be considered on site by site basis.

Will be managed through Development Management process No action required

Introduce tall building annotations on Ensign House site or make clear Vision Map V1 is illustrative


Remove references to specific building heights in key to Vision map


Amend SQ3 guidance to define in the supportive text the intended meaning of the word ‘reflecting’ to make clear that a scheme that adopts a different urban approach to that suggested in the Masterplan but is consistent with the ambition of the adopted plan, has regard to the broad principles of the masterplan and better delivers against the growth agenda, can expect to be supported by officers.

Can be managed on a site by site basis through Development Management process No action required

Adjust the wording of the ‘guidance notes’ to remove and reference to ‘requiring’ particular approaches which is tantamount to introducing new policy.

Amended for final draft No action required

Prescriptive guidance governing cross section of streets and composition of hybrid blocks should be removed or identified as ‘illustrative’.



Detailed guidance to SQ3. 2 and 3 should be removed as ‘hybrid’ block is unlikely to deliver an optimum townscape response in each case.

Content appropriate for SPD though some revision to text


SQ4 should not introduce new townscape considerations when assessing the view from Greenwich as sufficient guidelines exist in LVM framework.

Content appropriate for SPD though some revision to text No action required

Inappropriate for Masterplan to seek to introduce distinct materials palette along Grand Axis when majority are not in Masterplan area.

Relevant for sites in Masterplan area No action required

Definition of ‘Net Residential Developable Area’ is at odds with Mayor’s Housing SPG definition of ‘Net Residential Area’.

Amended in final draft No action required

References made to discounting site area in the context of land ownership, overlooking distances, the DLR and the provision of public open spaces should be removed, particularly given the significance attached by the Borough to the value of the spaces beneath the DLR through their intention to adopt many of these areas within Principal Public Open Spaces.


Believes the Masterplan should begin by defining the opportunity for infrastructure delivery and should then define capacity for growth based on maximum infrastructure option.

Point noted No action required

Further round of consultation on revised draft Masterplan should be allowed.

It is not considered that further consultation is required, as amendments made in response to formal consultation representations do not materially alter the document

No action required

SQFC1.24

GVA on behalf of CIT Developments Limited

CIT are supportive of ambition to activate the external edges of site, and the improvement of the dockside walkway and new pedestrian and cycle movement.


Client is not supportive of suggested restrictions on built form and considers the Masterplan should be amended to remove proposed restriction on development and ability of South Quay to respond to government’s growth agenda.

Content appropriate for SPD though some revision to text


Believes the Masterplan does not meet brief of government guidance as introduces new policy and site allocations, duplicates existing policies and is inconsistent with adopted plans for growth.


Believes stakeholder engagement process has been flawed as LA has not had meaningful engagement with landowners in development of the Masterplan and has therefore ignored the extensive development experience of those upon whom the Council relies for delivery, and built little consensus.


No action required

Document seeks to manage rather than facilitate growth.

The Masterplan recognises the unique opportunity to deliver growth; management relates to securing benefits for the community through coordinated development proposals and managing impacts. This is set out in the document

No action required

Placemaking principles are unnecessary as duplicate adopted policy. It is considered these provide useful context No action required

Massing in Masterplan is inconsistent with decisions of Strategic Development Committee. Suggests Masterplan is introducing policy ‘through the back door’ by seeking to constrain landowners ability to adopt a particular urban design approach that would have been acceptable in the context of the adopted plan.

No new policy introduced and can be managed on a site by site basis through Development Management process

No action required

13

Building heights are unambitious in the context of adopted policy and physical setting of the site. Masterplan cannot introduce significant constraints on development without proper independent examination.


No action required

SQ2e is unduly prescriptive regarding set-back at dock edges and should be considered on site by site basis.

Refers to SQ2.1f. Noted; will be managed through development management process No action required

Introduce tall building annotations on Quay House site or make clear Vision Map V1 is illustrative


Remove references to specific building heights in key to Vision map


Amend SQ3 guidance to define in the supportive text the intended meaning of the word ‘reflecting’ to make clear that a scheme that adopts a different urban approach to that suggested in the Masterplan but is consistent with the ambition of the adopted plan, has regard to the broad principles of the masterplan and better delivers against the growth agenda, can expect to be supported by officers.

Managed on site by site basis through Development Management process No action required

Adjust the wording of the ‘guidance notes’ to remove and reference to ‘requiring’ particular approaches which is tantamount to introducing new policy.

Amended for final draft Text/diagram amendments

Prescriptive guidance governing cross section of streets and composition of hybrid blocks should be removed or identified as ‘illustrative’.



Detailed guidance to SQ3. 2 and 3 should be removed as ‘hybrid’ block is unlikely to deliver an optimum townscape response in each case.

Indicative only and can be managed on a site by site basis through the development management process No action required

SQ4 should not introduce new townscape considerations when assessing the view from Greenwich as sufficient guidelines exist in LVM framework.

Provides further clarification No action required

Inappropriate for Masterplan to seek to introduce distinct materials palette along Grand Axis when majority are not in Masterplan area.

Relevant for sites in Masterplan area No action required

Definition of ‘Net Residential Developable Area’ is at odds with Mayor’s Housing SPG definition of ‘Net Residential Area’.


Believes the Masterplan should begin by defining the opportunity for infrastructure delivery and should then define capacity for growth based on maximum infrastructure option.

Point noted No action required

Further round of consultation on revised draft Masterplan should be allowed.


No action required

SQFC1.25

CGMS on behalf of Jemstock Properties Limited and Fedamore Limited

No objection to incorporating open space into general area of client’s sites but requirement to provide suitable vehicular movement to sites and neighbouring developments needs to be taken into account through Masterplan policies.

Diagrams are indicative only No action required

To bring Jemstock 2 back into beneficial use requires a new access road. Provision of open space further west than shown on Vision Map on p19 would not be supported.




Questions why the LUC scoping report was not amended to provide a more balanced view – 18 criteria to judge development were considered.

Masterplan was informed by SEA No action required

Wording of advice on density (London Plan) does not seem to support every building in a neighbourhood exceeding density levels

The London Plan does not reference that particular scenario No action required

Main concern is not enough weight in Masterplan given to guidance of LUC and two London Mayors. Are we planning for development to cease when average for neighbourhood hits 1,100? If not why does Table 1 not include options for higher levels of density?

Accompanying guidance to SQ5 sets out that Table 1 is illustrative of the amount of infrastructure required No action required

Concerned the Masterplan will become defunct before the approval process is even complete Concern noted No action required

Comment on lack of ‘local knowledge’ due to comparison with High Line for space under DLR. Text amended in final version Actioned

SQFC1.27 Local resident Writes in support of the Masterplan Support noted No action required

SQFC1.28 Local residents

Object to adoption of the Masterplan without significant revision and extended consultation. Objection noted No action required

Proposals breach London Plan density policy. London Plan states density guidance is not to be applied 'mechanistically' No action required

Tenure and bedroom size mix are not consistent with London or Local Plan policy and guidance.

Managed by Local Plan policy through development management process No action required

Unlikely that development will provide significant family sized housing or meet affordable housing targets given build form proposed.

Indicative only and can be managed on a site by site basis through the development management process No action required

LBTH can meet its ten year target without a new development on the scale proposed, based on SHLAA which does not include significant provision within Masterplan area.

Noted, though the SHLAA is not prescriptive No action required

Planning consents set precedent for future permissions. Managed through Development Management process No action required

Effectiveness of Masterplan queried as impact on/from neighbouring areas not evaluated.

Masterplan has guidance on impact on setting of World Heritage Site in Greenwich. Other impacts such as transport to be managed through GLA's Isle of Dogs OAPF

No action required

14

Masterplan is not fit for purpose as only piecemeal guidance

Masterplan forms part of a wider development plan for the area No action required

Inconsistencies between infrastructure and densities need to be reviewed.

Addressed by SQ1, SQ5, existing adopted policy with wider strategic considerations to be addressed by Isle of Dogs OAPF

No action required

Plan is inadequate and incomplete in many areas of infrastructure especially transport. Development should be designed with good public transport, cycleways and pedestrian routes including new pedestrian bridges

Transport to be addressed by forthcoming Isle of Dogs OAPF as a wider strategic consideration. Pedestrian/cycle routes and bridges addressed by SQ2

No action required

Impact on all services and utilities is not analysed or articulated.

Where not articulated within Masterplan to be considered in development of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Proposal for public open space and recreational areas is inadequate in the entire area Masterplan seeks to address this No action required

Traffic should be reduced across the Blue Bridge with speed restrictions to protect and enhance historic area and pedestrian safety.


Development should be limited to current capacity of Blue Bridge, which should remain an opening bridge.


Request positive and affirmative statements to ensure the whole of the conservation area is preserved and enhanced. Current proposals are detrimental.


Found no mention of additional flood risk assessment and impact of increased load on existing defences. Managed through adopted Local Plan policies No action required

Methodology does not pay attention to impact of adoption of this Masterplan on neighbours or further afield.


No action required

Requests an extension of two months for consultation due to complexity.


No action required


Believes proposed development of the printworks is a terrible idea.


Developments outside of Canary Wharf should not be so high. Ten floors should be maximum for residential developments.


No action required

Local infrastructure is already under excessive strain. Concern noted. This is a driver for development of the SPD No action required

Water pressure is affected when a new development is constructed. This must be addressed, and new developments should not be authorised if nothing can be done.

Conditions are already placed on development requiring developers to address water supply No action required

Hopes Council will be incorporating resident’s views into decision making process and act upon warnings given. This is outlined in the Consultation Statement No action required

By seeking to develop South Quay the Council is badly failing residents. Objection noted No action required


Can we confirm that the Masterplan will cover water in a substantive way, by specifying usage guidelines or targets? Worried it will get a superficial mention and no concrete metrics will mean it is a worthless gesture which will be ignored.

Conditions are already placed on development requiring developers to address water supply, but wider strategic implication of water supply means it is to be addressed by Isle of Dogs OAPF

No action required


Plan is incomplete as there is no analysis of a density less than 1,100

This was already considered within adopted Local Plan No action required

No examples of primary schools as part of residential buildings working satisfactorily. Can foresee there will be problems mixing schools and residents leading to embarrassment for the Council. Plan is incomplete without a proper evaluation of this idea.

Concern noted. No action required

How sensible is it to consider housing densities delivering all 10,000 new homes for the Isle of Dogs in South Quay?

SQ1 requires robust demonstration of mitigation of impacts should this scenario occur No action required

To what extent should plan be driven by developers and to what extent by the London Plan and the planning department/Council?

Developers are one of a number of stakeholders in the planning process No action required

Is the council relying on the profile of the current residents may be only 10% of the potential new inhabitants. Is the council relying on the current residents to determine the makeup of the new developments, or is it planning instead?

Development should comply with the adopted Local Plan policy requesting at least 35% of units to be affordable homes. How units are purchased or occupied is outside the remit of the planning system

No action required

There is a mistake under DLR Open Spaces. It compares the space underneath the DLR with New York’s High Line. Misleading as the High Line is now a park with no trains.

Amendment made to wording in final version No action required

Misprint under DLR Open Spaces. Should say “vibrating stretch”, not “vibrant stretch”. No misprint, correct wording presented No action required

SQFC1.32 Local resident Current Masterplan is positive as takes into account areas raised, but has some concerns. Support noted No action required

15

There would need to be three footbridges over South Dock. Third should be under current DLR. Masterplan seeks to secure additional footbridges No action required

Needs to be a direct pedestrian route not involving roads going straight from South Quay to new Crossrail station.


Marsh Wall needs to be redeveloped into a tunnel in the central South Quay area, or a series of underpasses but the former would be better for attractive urban landscaping.

Suggestion noted No action required

With more work on pedestrian movement and capacity the Masterplan is workable

To be further considered in development of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Please do not allow parameters for building development to be exceeded for the wellbeing of the future community.


SQFC1.33 Ballymore

Disappointed to learn that land interest at Cuba Street had been allocated largely as a ‘Principal Public Open Space’ thus constraining the development potential of the site.

Indicative only, can be managed through development management process No action required

There has been an absence of meaningful engagement as draft Masterplan developed despite requests to engage. Ballymore would be able to be more supportive of the Masterplan if the Masterplan is ‘as flexible as senior officers imply it is intended to be’.

The Council is satisfied it has undertaken sufficient detailed public consultation on the SPD in accordance with statutory regulations and as set out in the Councils Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). See accompanying Consultation Strategy and Consultation and Engagement Report for full details of the consultation activities undertaken.

No action required

Figure V1 suggests a development diagram that is inconsistent with the consented scheme. On that basis the Masterplan should not introduce new policy and the diagram should show the permitted massing at Arrowhead Quay and make it clear Figure V1 is illustrative in nature.

Fig V1 is indicative and this has been clarified in revised draft. Text amended

The Masterplan in its current form exceeds the legal limitations of the scope of SPDs by seeking to allocate land as open space. Also note there appears to be no supporting analysis for the identification of Cuba Street as PPOS.



Principal Public Open Space and Local Open Space should be clearly defined on p48 of the Masterplan. Open space referenced in SQ2 No action required

Supplementary text to SQ2 should provide more detail and clarity on SQ2.2b to clarify how development will be required to contribute to the delivery of the defined open spaces and that such contribution may take the form of payment in lieu. Masterplan should also make clear the provision of public open space and education infrastructure are to be prioritised against other infrastructure requirements for the Masterplan area, with text suggested.

Text amended in final version Text amended

Questions the ambition of the Council in allocating Cuba St site for buildings up to a maximum of ten stories as at odds with mayor’s foreword that South Quay should be an area of significant housing growth. Taller elements could be located within Cuba St site and consider Vision 1 diagram should be amended.



Ask for the vision for Cuba St to be adjusted to reflect the emerging diagram subject to pre-application discussions and note that Figure V1 is labelled as illustrative.


Ask that supporting text is added to follow guidance note SQ3.1a to make clear what is meant by ‘reflecting’ to ensure emerging proposals addressing adopted policy framework and that have broad regard for ambitions of the Masterplan and support growth targets will be supported.

Text amended in final version Text amended

SQ3 should recognise where there is potential for higher density development a commensurate uplift in infrastructure mitigation contributions will be sought, with a new paragraph suggested.

Managed on site by site basis through Development Management process No action required

Masterplan should make clear vision diagrams are illustrative and not prescriptive.


Definition of hybrid urban blocks should be revised, with suggestion given. Noted No action required

Ask that the Masterplan area is treated as one for the purpose of affordable housing, with amendment to bullet point 1 of page 11.

Would be in conflict with adopted policy No action required

SQFC1.34 Canal & River Trust

Spelling errors on p4 and p48 Text amended in final version ActionedProposal to locate new bridge in location indicated on Figure 2.1 presents a number of problems to Canal and River Trust and would impact the usability of the waterspace that the Trust owns and manages. Strategically important in London context as one of only four berths located above Thames Barrier where ships of around 176m in length can berth and is in use throughout the year. The location is not acceptable to the Canal & River Trust.

Identified by Millennium Quarter Masterplan and can be further considered as part of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Acknowledge current footbridge is not fit for purpose and options for upgrade/replacement need to be explored. Suggest consideration be given to relocating bridge to the west which would free space for deep water mooring which in turn would free space for a potential new bridge from South Quay Plaza.

Guidance is indicative only No action required

Request that the Council engage in dialogue regarding design of bridge across Millwall Cutting and how it could be operated.

The Masterplan team is keen to continue to engage with stakeholders

No action required

16

Would oppose any bridge from Wood Wharf to South Quay as would render dock unusable by large vessels. Objection noted No action required

It is noted the area of dockspace to the east of Millwall Cutting must be passed by all vessels entering the dock via the lock so additional bridges in that location are impractical due to navigational requirements.

Guidance is indicative only No action required

P31 should acknowledge the role South Dock plays as a berthing area for large vessels and amended wording for ninth para is supplied.

Current wording considered appropriate No action required

SQFC1.35

Dennis Defteros on behalf of Millennium Harbour Residents Association

Density must be at lower level proposed (650-1100hr) due to lack of wide roads and state of infrastructure.

London Plan states density guidance is not to be applied 'mechanistically' No action required

High density suggested will impact existing utility issues in area

Concern noted. To be considered in development of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Area on consultation impacts the two road access points to Isle of Dogs. Noted No action required

Aim to reduce car ownership greatly overlooks extreme rise in delivery vehicle traffic and use of taxis/mini cabs

Managed through the development management process No action required

Overdevelopment of area will result in reduced quality of life for existing and new taxpayers.


If Masterplan is approved it must be followed – no point to process if developers breach the limits set.

The Masterplan will be a material consideration in planning decisions. No action required

SQFC1.36 John Biggs AM

Draft Masterplan remains silent on a number of issues which will have important consequences for future of area; it is too generalist and does not offer a vision of the area to which developers can aspire.

Objection noted No action required

Repeatedly refers to importance of high quality design but not what would constitute it. Already outlined in existing adopted Local Plan policy No action required

General principles of SQ3 do not provide developers with sufficient guidance on the type of aesthetics which would be appropriate; further design guidance would help to string together the different developments and create a coherent sense of place.

Managed through existing Local Plan policies No action required

Masterplan should offer guidance on pavements, circulating spaces and access agreements.

Managed through the development management process No action required

Council may wish to consider a vision document as produced by GLA and LAs for Old Oak Common

This will be addressed by the forthcoming Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Masterplan should be clear that potential for tall buildings on some sites is not carte blanche acceptance of tall buildings across the whole area


No action required

Concerned siting of blocks envisioned by masterplan in Fig 3.1 does not represent the best possible configuration for tall buildings, for example clustering taller buildings in the centre of development and tapering down moving outwards which has been successful in Vancouver. Would also prevent tall buildings on edges being cited as precedents for taller buildings in neighbouring residential areas as would create a buffer zone making a transition to different character and context.



Final Masterplan should make clear that all proposals will be expected to undertake EIA with analyses of supporting infrastructure and consent only granted where there is sufficient infrastructure to support the development.

Guidance exists on trigger points for EIA. Infrastructure guided by SQ1, SQ5 and existing adopted policies

No action required

Concerned about potential funding sources for infrastructure in light of prohibit on pooling of more than five S106 contributions. Final document must be clearer about intentions to pool S106 and need for direct developer provision of certain infrastructure.

Section 106/CIL receipts are managed according to adopted procedures No action required

Cautiously welcomes proposal to use space under DLR to create linear stretch of open space but careful thinking required to make it welcoming. Work needs to be done on how suggested uses are delivered and managed.


Final Masterplan should make clear the Council expects new units to be lived in as homes. Not a planning concern No action required

Concerned draft SPD is silent on role of employment space which currently contains a number of employment sites. Unclear what role the new employment space will play. Risk is that approach is overly permissive of residential to detriment of other important functions.

The Current Context refers to businesses in South Quay complimenting and supporting Canary Wharf. Existing adopted policy (site allocations) sets out a requirement for commercial floorspace and SME floorspace as part of development. There are references to commercial/employment space throughout document

No action required

Council should conduct an employment capacity study for area with findings informing the final version of Masterplan to provide clarity on employment

This would be carried out for a review of the Council's Local Plan No action required

Marsh Wall retail stretch should support typical high street functions serving daily needs such as dry cleaners, supermarkets, affordable retail, leisure and service functions and should make clear it should serve new residents as well as existing residents on Isle of Dogs.

Point noted; the promotion of a 'high street' along Marsh Wall emphasises 'local shops and services' No action required

SQFC1.37 Café Forever

Believes the quality of life in the area will deteriorate because densities are too high creating increased demand on public services, infrastructure and social cohesion which are already over-stretched.


Masterplan assumes all tenants will behave in a socially acceptable manner. Not a planning concern No action required

Doesn’t assure that each development will have cultural diversity and without this developments can become pockets of religious segregation.

Not a planning concern No action required

17

Problems of young people sitting in stairwells smoking marijuana/cocaine and hiding from or joining dangerous gangs needs to be addressed before considering increasing density which will magnify the issues.

Not a planning concern No action required

Increase in density will be a social catastrophe and will exacerbate an already tenuous peace.

Concern noted. The Masterplan's objectives include securing benefits for the community from development

No action required

By persisting in these plans the Council appears to be encouraging a form of ‘ethnic cleansing’ as residents have indicated intentions to leave the area.


No action required


Tower blocks proposed are too dense and contrary to London Plan space guidelines and removes access to sunlight.

Masterplan gives guidance on development seeking to exceed London plan density guidelines No action required

Water, sewerage and road infrastructure is insufficient. No planning should be given until Environment Agency approves and has capacity.

Point noted. No action required

Cannot see any coherent link to the existing brick buildings on Isle of Dogs. In fact brick is being demolished by approved tower blocks.

Masterplan cannot provide guidance on materials No action required


Proposed population of 45-65,000 along Marsh Wall is too high a density

Development exceeding density guidance is required ton robustly demonstrate how it mitigates its impacts No action required

Masterplan gives licence for density rates that are too high for the area and could be devastating in long term. Suggests slower development strategy to see what population saturation looks like.

London Plan states density guidance is not to be applied 'mechanistically'. The Council cannot prevent proposals coming forward

No action required

Infrastructure for schools, transport, health services, shopping, roads and parking can’t support the scheme.

Education, health facilities, shopping, roads and parking addressed by Masterplan and existing adopted policy. Transport to be addressed by forthcoming Isle of Dogs OAPF

No action required

10-30 story buildings along Marsh Wall would create a more sustainable community than 40-60.


SQFC1.40

Quod on behalf of One Housing Group

Would strongly urge the Council and GLA to progress quickly with work on OAPF for wider area to ensure a comprehensive plan for growth.

This work is being progressed No action required

Consider it would be more appropriate to define Masterplan boundary based on key physical features/boundaries that exist such as roads and perimeter blocks to achieve a more satisfactory and coherent relationship between individual sites and surrounding area.

The Council considers the Masterplan boundary to be reflective of the developable sites in the area. No action required

Believes it would improve clarity of the SPD to provide further information on schemes now consented or resolved to be approved, as on vision diagram some taller buildings are only represented as suitable for ten stories.


Consider the Masterplan should recognise opportunity for positive links with development outside of its boundary.

Securing benefits for the wider community is already referenced No action required

Would be helpful for the Vision Map to provide some contextual mapping to show how Masterplan area relates to area around it.

Point noted, but it is considered that this may detract from the clarity of the illustrative diagrams No action required

Absence of reference to delivering high quality, high-rise, high-density homes is notable. This is outlined in Placemaking Principles No action required

SQ1 – May be appropriate to cross-refer to relevant Core Strategy evidence base documents which set benchmark for delivery of social infrastructure.

Contextual information amended for final draft Text amended

SQ2 – Would be useful for Masterplan to demonstrate how proposals in terms of routes and public realm/public spaces link into existing and emerging context as a result of already consented schemes. No detail on responsibility for open spaces or long term management is provided.

Diagrams are indicative only Text amended

Development of routes should consider needs of area as a whole and provide suitable capacity to accommodate growth in southern part of Isle of Dogs.

To be addressed by Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Use of footbridges by pedestrians and cyclists needs to be carefully considered particularly access requirements on and off for different modes.

Bridge design will consider this No action required

SQ3 – Consider some parts of policy would be better under different sections such as approach to social infrastructure within SQ5.

Relates to design considerations so considered appropriate for SQ3 No action required

Concerned that SQ3 has potential requires development to reflect illustrative massing in Fig 3.1 which has potential to artificially limit the potential to optimise development in the Opportunity Area and beyond.

Greater clarity can be provided through Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

More recognition should be given to role of on-street parking.

Parking provision managed through existing Local Plan policies No action required

SQ4 – Consider the principle reflects the way it is being implemented in practice. Support noted No action required

SQ5 – Believes wording on p18 does not go far enough and will not help to ensure sites are available for the physical delivery of the required social infrastructure. Suggests the wording is altered to specify that ‘contribute’ could be physically or financially.

Infrastructure is given greater detail in SQ5. It is considered the brief Placemaking Principles text on page 18 is sufficient

No action required

Would be helpful if SQ5 provided a separate heading for Social Infrastructure as likely to generate demand beyond school facilities. Supporting text to principle needs to provide commentary covering all the types of infrastructure required in Table 1.

Other social infrastructure also discussed in document such as open space No action required

SQFC1.41 Cllr Candida Ronald

Masterplan does not specify what varied levels of density means. Set out in Placemaking Principles No action required

Does not identify how conflicting designs will be judged. Managed on site by site basis through Development Management process

No action required

18

Masterplan does not define scale in transition in scale from surrounding areas. Danger of incoherent environment without a robust design framework.

Hybrid urban blocks address this, and heights guided in accordance with adopted Local Plan policy No action required

Masterplan says little on impact of development on SINC. Managed through adopted Local Plan policies No action required

Would welcome clarity on how these public spaces will be realised and how ongoing maintenance will be funded.

Secured/funded through development management process No action required

Replacement of Blue Bridge is not mentioned. No current plans, but to be addressed by Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Have infrastructure requirements been costed and what impact does this have on viability of developments and ability to provide social housing.

Section 106/CIL receipts are managed according to adopted procedures. Affordable housing is expected to be delivered in line with policy requirements

No action required

Is there a danger that when work is complete we will find that transport networks cannot be sufficiently upgraded?


Are we still in position where we are granting planning permission to developments that may be unsustainable?

The Council has always addressed developments in line with national, regional and local policy which has been scrutinised to ensure sustainable development

No action required

SQFC1.42

DP9 on behalf of Canary Wharf Group plc

Planning guidance brought forward needs to consider social, economic and environmental impact across the rest of Isle of Dogs, not just South Quay

This will be addressed by the Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

SPD should not be used to set new strategy or DM policies for the subject area, but the draft Masterplan appears to do just that. Review of current Local Plan and OAPF is appropriate forum

No new policy within Masterplan No action required

Lack of appropriately robust and sound evidence to inform the Masterplan Evidence available No action required

Residential development at South Quay should not place greater demands on existing and future infrastructure within Canary Wharf estate and at Wood Wharf, especially provision of open spaces, health facilities and school places

To be managed through Development Management process and developmemnt of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Masterplan often repeats or goes beyond scope of adopted policies for area set out within London/Local Plan

Masterplan accords with existing adopted London/Local Plan No action required

Flawed approach towards provision of education and other social/community facilities. Lacks a coordinated approach to identification of specific sites and locations

Concern noted. SPDs cannot allocate uses to specific sites; diagrams are indicative No action required

Should make clear CWG’s role in provision of new/improved bridge connections – as landowner on which they land, and should not be required to pay for new/improved connections (Table 1 p47, Table 2 p51)

Not considered necessary to revise document No action required

CWG would not support any proposal for delivery of an additional footbridge to Wood Wharf and has concerns as to feasibility. Provision already made for landing point on northern promenade between 50 Bank Street and 10 Upper Bank Street. Note needed to show routes through open spaces in Canary Wharf are cycle friendly, but not designated cycle routes.



Approach to new and existing employment floorspace and other services in Masterplan area are inappropriate. No reference is made to role in supporting Canary Wharf employers/occupiers or existing/future residents of South Quay/wider Isle of Dogs. Masterplan should mention more explicitly that a mix of uses needs to be accommodated.

The Current Context refers to businesses in South Quay complimenting and supporting Canary Wharf. Existing adopted policy (site allocations) sets out a requirement for commercial floorspace and SME floorspace as part of development. There are references to commercial/employment space throughout document

No action required

Proposals for new high street do not consider how it would relate to the existing retail and town centre hierarchy across the borough. Considers revision needs to be taken as part of Local Plan review and would require a Retail Impact Assessment as part of evidence base.

Existing adopted policy guides the nature of retail provision within Activity Areas and the relationship with other centres. The promotion of a 'high street' within the Masterplan emphasises 'local shops and services' and the aspiration reflects the desire for active frontages coming forward along Marsh Wall.

No action required

CWG do not consider an SPD the most appropriate planning policy document to properly plan the area – should be taken as part of Local Plan review alongside publication of OAPF for Isle of Dogs

The Masterplan is the first stage in the production of the Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

SPD not founded on robust evidence base Evidence available No action requiredLimitations of SPD mean it cannot deal with matters of landuse, infrastructure and delivery, so the Council should cease preparation of the SPD and work instead to address deficiencies in evidence base to then inform Local Plan/OAPF

No new policy/allocations have been introduced and diagrams are indicative though this has been clarified in final version.

No action required

Would welcome opportunity to discuss further with officers The Masterplan team is keen to continue to engage with stakeholders No action required

SQFC1.43Cherryman on behalf of Lycatel

Encourage the Council to ensure sufficient flexibility is built into the Masterplan to facilitate rather than constrain the opportunity to deliver a new future for Thames Quay.

Final version has put increased emphasis on indicative nature of diagrams/guidance


Support objective to ensure alongside housing growth there is a plan to ensure appropriate infrastructure can be provided.


South Quay remains home to a number of businesses and asks that the Masterplan acknowledges the economic contribution these businesses can bring.

Reference is made to mix of uses in area. No action required

Should be made clear the Masterplan is illustrative and that Diagrams are indicative only and this is being better Actioned - text amended 19

alternative massing diagrams might be more appropriate. reflected in final version to emphasise indicative nature of diagrams

It is premature to prescriptively define the form of development at Masterplan stage and fixed parameters should be deleted from the document. Amendments should feed through to the prescriptive 3D diagrams which seek to precisely define the form of the proposed blocks. Diagrams should be marked as ‘illustrative’.



A note should be added to the Vision Map that states that ‘This diagram represents one way in which the masterplan could be delivered’.


The bracketed heights in the key should be deleted or a note added to state that ‘Heights are not intended to be prescriptive but will be considered on a site by site basis in the context of adopted policy and overall planning benefit’



SQ3 be accompanied by a new paragraph in the accompanying text explaining the term ‘reflecting’ as used at SQ3 1 a in order to make clear that schemes that ‘reflect’ the masterplan may depart from the illustrative massing where the principle of enabling growth can be better served and where a proposed scheme can otherwise be demonstrated to be appropriate in massing terms.


In the interests of delivering optimum growth, where greater densities can be enabled, the masterplan should recognise that a pro rata’d increase in any contribution to infrastructure delivery will be expected.


Ask that the Council clarify its proposed basis for calculation of density as this appears to be inconsistent with the London Plan.


Ask that the masterplan makes clear that the detailed sections included are illustrative of broad principles and are not intended to be prescriptive

Clarified in final draft Text amended

SQFC1.44

JLL and Pilbrow & Partners on behalf of Far East Consortium International Limited (FEC)

Concerned the current draft is overly prescriptive in approach and does not fulfil the framework role a Masterplan should have

No new policy/allocations have been introduced and diagrams are indicative though this has been clarified in final version.

No action required

Argue use of the word ‘manual’ on p7 unhelpful and should revise to “provide framework supplementary planning and urban design guidance”.

It is considered that 'manual' is not inappropriate No action required

By failing to provide a robust analysis of local context as well as key plans and diagrams the Masterplan does not provide the necessary evidence base for proposed policies.

The Masterplan has been formed on robust evidence base which is available No action required

Document fails to acknowledge the correct national and strategic context within which South Quay should be placed – one that does not just manage growth (p10) but promotes and guides it to respond to local needs.

It is considered this is already represented within existing wording No action required

The Masterplan does not recognise the changing context of South Quay or its existing context, citing existing consents/resolutions which have an effect on area and way in which vision is implemented.

First paragraph of Current Context cites recent development with further reference throughout section

No action required

P10/15 refer to ‘recent development proposals’ but exclude a number of schemes. FEC argue these dramatically change the character and townscape of the area and the way the Masterplan will be implemented.

The draft only referenced schemes determined at the time of publication though this has been amended for final draft

Text amended

Definition of Net Residential Developable Area doesn’t accord with Mayor’s definition of Net Residential Site Area. Amended in final draft No action required

No workshops or consultation events organised with landowners and developers after publication of the Masterplan – process therefore not undertaken correctly or in line with principles of NPPF.


No action required

Masterplan does not reference the Core Strategy (placemaking) as introduction. Contextual information amended for final draft Text amended

Approach to development is not consistent and purpose must be clarified and supplement existing development plan policies.

Amendment made to wording in final version Text amended

Approach to detailed policies on design solutions is not viewed as sound when assessed against Government policies and is in breach of Tender Brief issued in November 2013 which referred to semi-flexible design parameters whereas SQ2 & 3 provide no flexibility for architectural interpretation.

Indicative only and can be managed on a site by site basis through the development management process


Policies should be reworded so specific requirements i.e. urban blocks are either deleted or indicated as possible design solutions. Figures should be labelled as ‘illustrative’

Amended for final draft Text/diagram amendments

Height, massing, urban blocks not supported or justified by urban design study or local context analysis. Justification is available No action required

Requirements for SQ4 are considered overly prescriptive and should be removed. LVMF provides necessary guidance.

Appropriate for SPD No action required

Greater flexibility needed for SQ5, which may change as sites come forward.

SQ5 already states "the most up to date infrastructure requirements" No action required

SQFC1.45 Local residents

Object to adoption of the Masterplan without significant revision and extended consultation.

The Council is satisfied it has undertaken sufficient detailed public consultation on the SPD in accordance with statutory regulations and as set out

No action required

20

in the Councils Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). See accompanying Consultation Strategy and Consultation and Engagement Report for full details of the consultation activities undertaken.

Proposals breach London Plan density policy. London Plan states density guidance is not to be applied 'mechanistically' No action required

Tenure and bedroom size mix are not consistent with London or Local Plan policy and guidance.


Unlikely that development will provide significant family sized housing or meet affordable housing targets given build form proposed.

Guidance supports affordable and family housing in area No action required

LBTH can meet its ten year target without a new development on the scale proposed, based on SHLAA which does not include significant provision within Masterplan area.

The SHLAA is not prescriptive No action required

Planning consents set precedent for future permissions. Managed through the development management process No action required

Effectiveness of Masterplan queried as impact on/from neighbouring areas not evaluated.


No action required

Masterplan is not fit for purpose as only piecemeal guidance

Should be used alongside existing adopted policy and guidance No action required

High density will provide unsustainable load on existing and proposed infrastructure. This is in need of review Addressed by SQ1 No action required

Plan does not adequately address infrastructure especially transport through the area or impact on services/utilities.

Transport/utilities to be addressed by forthcoming Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Concerned at absence of discussion on existing flood defences. Managed through adopted Local Plan policies No action required

Traffic should be reduced across the Blue Bridge with speed restrictions to protect and enhance historic area and pedestrian safety.


Traffic should be reduced across Blue Bridge, with speed restrictions.


Ask that Council make clear intention to preserve and enhance the conservation area. Managed through adopted Local Plan policies No action required

SQFC1.46

Signet Planning on behalf of Millharbour LLP

Important Masterplan is not overly prescriptive. Text amended in final version Text amended

SQ2 – Where active frontages are defined, important to recognise there will also need to be residential entrances

Diagrams are indicative only and this is being better reflected in final version No action required

Any new footbridge needs to be deliverable Diagrams are indicative only and this is being better reflected in final version No action required

Clarification is sought as to how delivery of principal and DLR public open spaces can be done.


SQ3 – Concerned Fig 3.1 does not have regard to pre-application discussions and illustrative massing should be revised to take that into account.



Consider SQ3.6ii should not necessarily refer to lower floors.


Opportunities to provide open space/playspace in slightly different ways than envisaged should not be stifled. Already noted within Masterplan No action required

SQ4 – Amendments to policy wording suggested and provided. Amendment made to wording in final version No action required

Question whether stepping down would help to mark the axis where it would be seen against a backdrop of taller development already consented.


Question how legible ‘uniform palette of materials’ would be when seen from distance and suggest a palette of sufficient contrast and boldness to be legible in distant views may have potentially harmful impacts on coherence of emerging townscape at local level.

Amended for final version Text removed

Further definition of what constitutes ‘aesthetically balanced skyline’ is needed. Suggested wording provided. Already outlined in guidance text No action required

Extent of Canary Wharf cluster is not defined Outlined in existing Local Plan policy No action requiredNight time renders of development which is well integrated into backdrop from distance would be of limited value. Should be requested only where necessary.

London View Management Framework requests this No action required

SQ5 – No mention of innovative waste and recycling storage system/need to connect mentioned in pre-application discussions.

Noted No action required

SQFC1.47 Rolfe Judd on behalf of Nelsons Head LLP

Imperative document is treated as guidance and not as adopted planning policy.

Final version has put increased emphasis on indicative nature of diagrams Text amended

Object to inclusion of indicative heights on Fig V1 and 3.1 as plots not reflective of ownership, do not reflect consented schemes, do not reflect submitted schemes, cannot be presumed sites are unlikely to come forward.

Final version has put increased emphasis on indicative nature of diagrams Text amended

To suggest heights on illustrative plan confuses credibility of Masterplan.



Cannot see evidence which confirms the massing/vision maps have followed the correct approach and followed adopted design criteria.

Supporting evidence is available No action required

Clients site should be represented as one in which redevelopment is likely



21

Support policy SQ1 & 2 Support noted No action requiredSQ3 – Consider Vision Map should be removed and parts 1 and 1a of SQ3 deleted to ensure vision map not used as definitive guidance.



SQ4 – Supports policy. Support noted No action requiredSQ5 – Support principle of policy but questionable whether requirement for development in area to contribute to delivery of infrastructure breaches CIL regs by seeking to impose additional costs/requirements without going through the proper Charging Schedule.

Greater clarity given in final draft and acknowledgement of process No action required


Concerned at huge influx of people to the areaConcern noted. The Masterplan's objectives include securing benefits for the community from development

No action required

Understands there is insufficient water and Thames Water cannot possibly excavate new pipes. Disruption to area if needed to lay a new network would effectively close of Isle of Dogs.


TfL could not cope. Jubilee line runs at full capacity at rush hour, DLR and bus full at 8 in the morning.


Please rethink and replan Suggestion noted No action required

Disruption of massive population increase would be permanent nightmare


No action required

Have thought, care and respect for residents of the area who have lived there for many years who do not wish to be driven from their homes

Securing benefits for the wider community is an objective of the Masterplan. No action required

SQFC1.49GVA on behalf of Berkeley Homes Ltd.

Believes the Masterplan is unsound due to no supporting evidence relating to infrastructure needs; duplication of development plan policies; introduction of new development management policies and site allocations; is not consistent with adopted development plan; and the methodology of the SEA assessment of alternatives is fundamentally flawed but consider that the in-principle concerns listed could be addressed if a number of minor modifications are made.


All prescriptive “requirements” to be replaced by guidance “encouraging” or “supporting” particular development/uses. This applies in particular in relation to limits on building heights and allocations of land uses. Implies Council is seeking to introduce new policy.

Text/diagrams amended in final version Actioned

All infrastructure “requirements” to be deleted or replaced by “priorities”. Amended for final version No action required

Additional text to be added clarifying that alternative approaches and different forms of development may be permissible, even where they are not consistent with specific guidance in the Masterplan, where this is justified on a case by case basis at the development management level.

Amended for final draft to clarify Figures/Plans are indicative No action required

All Figures/Plans to be clearly marked as illustrative. Amended for final draft Text amended

Any prescriptive Figures/Plans to be removed. Amended for final draft to clarify Figures/Plans are indicative No action required

All guidance duplicating existing development plan policies or supplementary planning documents/guidance to be deleted.

No duplications of existing policy in Masterplan No action required

All guidance which is inconsistent with existing development plan policies or supplementary planning documents/guidance to be deleted.

Masterplan accords with existing adopted Local Plan No action required

Include paragraph on p7 to explain weight of Masterplan in context of adopted development plan This information is already outlined No action required

Review definition of ‘net residential area’ as detailed in Mayor’s Housing SPG. Masterplan should allow application of guidance on site-by-site basis


Remove SQ2.1a and b as duplicate adopted policies No duplications, accords with existing adopted Local Plan No action required

SQ2e and Fig 2.4-2.7 should recognise that while step back from dock edge may be desirable, is not appropriate in every case. Guidance is unduly prescriptive and without evidenced foundation

Indicative only and this is being better reflected in final version


Fig 2.1 should be clear plan is illustrative only; remove allocations of non-residential uses and make clear these are promoted.

Final version has greater emphasis on indicative nature of diagrams No action required

Fig 2.2 – routes which bisect land holdings should be reviewed as these should be properly advanced through a local plan review



Fig 2.3 – Allocations of new principal public open spaces should be removed Locations are indicative only No action required

SQ3.1b should be removed as the Masterplan recognises an absence of heritage assets. Some heritage assets are present No action required

Fig 3.1 should be removed as fails to reflect permitted schemes



SQ3.3a definition of podium and plinth should be removed and lack of sound evidence prescribing street sections Fig 2.4-2.7

Supporting evidence is available No action required

SQ3.4 & 5 repeat principles of good design already explored in adopted policy. Adds clarity No action required

SQ3.3c, d and e to be removed as duplicate DM26 Adds clarity No action required

SQ3.5 to be removed as duplicates DM26 Adds clarity No action required

22

SQ3.9a & b should allow for internal child space where appropriate as currently seeks to introduce policy. Text amended in final version Actioned

SQ3.11 should replace ‘required’ with ‘should’ Amended for final draft Text/diagram amendments

Massing on p40/41 should be modified to be ‘illustrative’ and hybrid urban blocks should remove reference to limiting to eight units per floor to account for opportunities where alternative layouts can be equally good in design terms and allow for delivery of more homes. Duplicates existing policy.



SQ4.2 1 and 3 should be removed as seek to introduce more stringent policy than already provided by DM26 and LVMF.

Supplements existing policy No action required

Table 1 p47 should be informed by proper assessment of infrastructure requirements for South Quay area based on scale of emerging development. Table underestimates requirements and should not be indicative.

Indicative nature of table and infrastructure guidance emphasised in final version Amended text

Draft Masterplan is subject of little consensus as no draft released prior to consultation.


No action required

Boundary of Masterplan area not robust and without rationale Greater clarity given in final version No action required

Already adopted plan which makes clear ambition of foreword, and is being delivered in absence of the Masterplan

The Masterplan supplements existing Local Plan policies No action required

If adopted in current form the Masterplan would be basis against which stakeholders could set out to manage the scale of growth in area contrary to ambition of government guidance

Final draft amended to emphasise indicative nature of diagrams and remove ‘requirements’ to clarify Masterplan not seeking to introduce new policy

No action required

No meaningful engagement with landowners set out as stakeholders on p4


No action required

Document should make clear that comments received will be considered and appropriate amendments made before anything more than limited weight can be attached to document

Detail on consultation set out on Consultation Strategy and Consultation Summary reports No action required

Millennium Quarter Masterplan has a different boundary and is unclear why sites falling outside of MQMP are to be included in South Quay Masterplan and what status sites will have which are within MQMP but outside of South Quay area.

Explanation of Masterplan boundary set out in revised draft. Sites outside of Masterplan boundary to be guided by existing adopted Local Plan policy

Text amended

Historic context is of little relevance to form of new development today Important to outline changing nature of area No action required

Axis of Church of St Anne Poplar and Church of All Saints Blackheath should be acknowledged Amended for final version No action required

No adequate response to comments submitted on Strategic Environmental Assessment Response contained within SEA No action required

Unclear why vision should promote varied densities This is outlined in Placemaking Principles and SQ3 No action required

Distribution of massing on Vision map is not supported by evidence base and appears to be seeking to introduce controls over height that the EiP inspector deleted for MDD.


Principal open spaces allocated around Marsh Wall are likely to be dominated by traffic. Unlikely to be high quality, well used spaces.

Spaces are indicative only, can be managed through development management process No action required

Masterplan has failed to acknowledge the emerging context of the South Quay area through the Council’s own permitted schemes and those with significant developer interest

Existing determined schemes have been referenced and evolving landuse mentioned in Context section No action required

Creation of RP panel is noted but not a matter for the Masterplan Has relevance to area No action required

While right to acknowledge CADAP, should make clear applicants can choose to engage with CABE or other qualified organisation.

Noted, but not considered necessary to amend within context of text already supplied No action required

Clarification of SQ1 – referred as ‘housing design’ on p18 but ‘housing density’ note on p23 Amended for final draft No action required

SQ1 implies London Housing Design Guide is a policy requirement, but is not – is guidance Text amended in final version Actioned

Not clear how scenarios to inform SQ1 have been assessed to inform proposals Evidence base is available No action required

SQ2 should be deleted as introduces no principals not clear in adopted development plan. Additional guidance is presented No action required

Benefits of schemes such as South Quay Plaza would not be delivered if schemes were to be designed in strict accordance with Masterplan.

Indicative nature of diagrams has been clarified in final version

Text amended

23

Some routes in Fig 2.2 bisect land holdings. These should be advanced through Local Plan review to allow meaningful consultation with respective landowners.

Fig 2.2 is indicative No action required

No evidence presented as to why existing footbridge is required to be replaced. Masterplan should make clear existing footbridge is to be retained.

This is set out in supporting text No action required

Masterplan should make clear that on-site contributions in lieu will be acceptable to meet any deficiency in on-site communal or play requirements where Council prioritise public open space delivery over residential amenity contributions.

This will be managed on a site by site basis through the Development Management process No action required

SQ3.6b could helpfully acknowledge that where capacity of lower rise elements has been fully utilised for larger units, a smaller unit mix will be encouraged at height even where Council’s preferred unit mix is not met given unique characteristics of this urban neighbourhood.

Can be managed on a site by site basis through the Development Management process No action required

External playspace not always optimum solution (SQ3.9a and b) Guidance considered appropriate No action required

Conflict between SQ3.10c and d. Also no evidence as to prescription. It is not considered that there is conflict No action required

No technical requirement for night-time Verified View Montages.

Further detail added to supplementary text to justify inclusion Amended text

Masterplan is ambiguous in definition of ‘necessary infrastructure’. Plan should have been based on assessment of infrastructure opportunities to seek to unlock optimum capacity in the area for development.

SQ5 states "the most up to date infrastructure requirements" as flexibility required No action required

IDEA Store to be delivered at Wood Wharf is not a matter for the Masterplan.

These are directed to designated town centres which would preclude delivery in South Quay No action required

SQFC1.50 Maritime Greenwich

Consider guidance could be strengthened in terms of developers being required to cooperate in creating seamless or rationally varied design of good quality finishes for the surface finishes of public spaces as well as co-ordinating ‘stand-up’ elements such as street furniture

Already covered by adopted Local Plan policy and can be managed through Development Management process

No action required

Give a more active encouragement of free-enterprise non-residential uses fronting onto and using the linking spaces;

Indicative active frontages might involve a variety of uses/occupiers No action required

Give a more active emphasis on the need for developers and their street-front tenants to be involved in helping ensure the maintenance and quality of those spaces

Already covered by adopted Local Plan policy No action required

Masterplan should reference the Vienna Memorandum on ‘World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape’ and ‘Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessment for Cultural World Heritage Properties’, a publication of the International Council on Monuments and Sites January 2011


Contradictory statements of p14 and p2 para 1.15 regarding SINC

SINCs and Natura 2000 sites referenced in SEA are different, therefore no contradiction No action required

Proposed revision of Section 6 p18 provided Current wording considered appropriate No action requiredSQ2f – stepping back from dock edges. Developments which respect building zone footprints but overhang several stories from floor levels should be considered in terms of compromising the public realm and dock side walkways in terms of light and appreciation of open sky.

This is why the Masterplan cites stepping back from dock edges No action required

SQ4.1 text could be more specific – alternative supplied Existing text considered appropriate No action required

Suggested amendment to General Wolfe statue (SQ4.3a) Existing text considered appropriate No action required

Amendment to Skyline (p45 para 2) suggested and provided Existing text considered appropriate No action required

Typos on p45 para 3 and 4 Amended for final version No action required

P45 para 9 text appears to lack coherence and replacement suggested Amended for final version No action required

Delivery p51 should refer to Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Executive Group Amended for final version No action required

P45 para 5.82 should refer to Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site Management Plan (Third Review) 2014 Amended for final version No action required

P45 5.83, 5.84 and 5.85 correction provided Amended for final version No action required

Would welcome opportunity to engage further The Masterplan team is keen to continue to engage with stakeholders No action required

Document would benefit from closer proof-reading. Standard terminology should be adopted i.e. WHS and World Heritage Site, Masterplan and masterplan.


SQFC1.51 Committee of the Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Planning Forum

Alarming that Masterplan is being written before OAPF has been undertaken. The two processes must surely be synchronised.

The Masterplan will be the first stage of the OAPF No action required

What happens if Strategic Development Committee conforming to Masterplan grants consent that are later found to be incapable of being supported by local power, water or transport infrastructure?

Conditions have been placed on consents requiring these considerations to be addressed before construction proceeds

No action required

18 criteria in LUC scoping report seem to represent a balanced view on development. If not, why was LUC report not amended earlier to reflect a more balanced view?

Masterplan guidance informed by SEA No action required

Not putting enough weight in Masterplan to importance of guidelines issued by LUC, GLA and two London Mayors. SPD must conform with adopted policies No action required

Why does Table 1 not include options for higher levels of density? The only sensible answer is of course to limit density as we go, and the Masterplan must surely be the place to do it.

London Plan states density guidance is not to be applied 'mechanistically'. Table 1 is indicative of infrastructure required

No action required

24

Masterplan does not take account of all the developments already approved in the area, those in pre-planning and those we expect to be approved before the Masterplan is complete. Concerned Masterplan will be defunct before approval process is even complete.

Concern noted. Already consented applications at the time of publication were outlined; this has been updated for the final version. Suggestion noted

Amended text

Worry about a lack of local knowledge for example comparison with New York’s High Line with space under DLR. Space could be made prettier, but is not a recreational location.

Wording amended for final version Text amended

A number of residents have expressed their intentions to leave the area. Sustainable development is meant to protect the rights of current and future residents and not drive them from the area. This cannot be good for community cohesion and it certainly isn’t logical.


No action required

Wish is that the investment, goodwill and effort that has gone into drafting the Masterplan leaves us with a policy statement that both makes sense and has some effect. Please include a robust policy statement limiting density to level recommended by the London Plan.

This is not possible as it would be in conflict with existing adopted policy No action required

SQFC1.52

Rolfe Judd on behalf of Daejan (FHNV 1998) Limited

Imperative document is treated as guidance and not as adopted planning policy. Text has been enhanced for final version Text amended

Opportunity to engage in drafting process did not provide insight to client on direction and content of Masterplan. First opportunity to understand and comment on Masterplan was this consultation. Contrary to requirements of part 14 (ii) of Local Plan Regulations the LA has not provided a summary of the main issues raised during that consultation exercise.


No action required

Is appropriate to provide landowners with a further opportunity to review the Masterplan document once all representations have been received. This could take the form of another public consultation period or direct liaison with individual landowners.


No action required

Approach to net Residential Developable Area differs from that set by Housing SPG. Request amendment to clarify proposed open spaces can be included in calculation.


Support principle of SQ1 Support noted No action requiredRequested flexibility is applied to SQ2 when assessing schemes that propose landuses inconsistent with the non-residential frontages shown on Fig 2.1/open spaces on Fig 2.3



Not clear what might be required of applicants to demonstrate compliance with SQ2 where site constraints may present issues on individual sites.


Not clear why illustrative map for massing is required as DM26 provides clear and rational criteria for assessment of tall buildings.

Helpful for providing overall vision for area No action required

Fig 3.1 contradicts Fig 3.10 which suggests different variations of podium/plinth/taller element could be used on development sites.

Fig 3.1 is illustrative No action required

Fig 3.1 does not appear reflective of land ownership and not consistent with consented schemes.



In current form maps are overly prescriptive. Final draft to clarify Figures/Plans are indicative No action required

Removal of Fig 3.1 and V1 requested so tall buildings can be assessed against DM26



Appears urban design approach is to be universally enforced across all development sites in South Quay area which goes beyond remit of SPD document.



Ability to continue to provide features such as open spaces and routes through developments would be constrained by the inflexible approach to application of hybrid block approach across all sites and client would question the deliverability

Hybrid block approach considered appropriate, and can be managed on a site by site basis No action required

Request removal of section relating to hybrid urban blocks or commentary inserted allowing for other approaches where sites are identified for alternative approaches


Fig 3.1 should be used as diagrammatic guide rather than strict guidance on appropriate building height.



P40 justification text is overly prescriptive and is inconsistent with DM26 Adds clarity, accords with DM26 No action required

Questionable whether the requirement for development in the area to contribute to the delivery of infrastructure breaches the CIL Regulations by seeking to impose additional costs/requirements without going through the proper Charging Schedule process.


Consideration should be given to incentivising developers to provide infrastructure within new schemes by for example reducing affordable housing provision to offset some costs.

Applications will continue to be assessed in accordance with adopted policies No action required

SQFC1.53

Rolfe Judd on behalf of The Komoto Group Limited

Imperative document is treated as guidance and not as adopted planning policy. Text has been enhanced for final version Text amended

Opportunity to engage in drafting process did not provide insight to client on direction and content of Masterplan. First opportunity to understand and comment on Masterplan

The Council is satisfied it has undertaken sufficient detailed public consultation on the SPD in accordance with statutory regulations and as set out

No action required

25

was this consultation. Contrary to requirements of part 14 (ii) of Local Plan Regulations the LA has not provided a summary of the main issues raised during that consultation exercise.

in the Councils Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). See accompanying Consultation Strategy and Consultation and Engagement Report for full details of the consultation activities undertaken.

Is appropriate to provide landowners with a further opportunity to review the Masterplan document once all representations have been received. This could take the form of another public consultation period or direct liaison with individual landowners.


No action required

Approach to net Residential Developable Area differs from that set by Housing SPG. Request amendment to clarify proposed open spaces can be included in calculation.








Helpful for providing overall vision for area No action required



Fig 3.1 does not appear reflective of land ownership and not consistent with consented schemes. Fig 3.1 is illustrative No action required

In current form maps are overly prescriptive and have potential to be misused or misinterpreted. Final draft to clarify Figures/Plans are indicative No action required




Believe perimeter block arrangement generated by hybrid urban block approach will only serve to internalise private residential developments within the area thereby limiting the potential for increased legibility and permeability in the area.

Can be managed on a site-by-site basis No action required



Fig 3.1 should be used as diagrammatic guide rather than strict guidance on appropriate building height. Fig 3.1 is illustrative No action required

P40 justification text is overly prescriptive and is inconsistent with DM26 Adds clarity, accords with DM26 No action required





SQFC1.54 DP9 on behalf of MW30 Ltd

Main concern in Masterplan is SPD not appropriate document to set new planning policies for the area as do not have same status within development plan.

No new policy/allocations have been introduced though indicative nature of diagrams/text has been emphasised for final version.

No action required

Believe the Masterplan should follow the publication of the Isle of Dogs OAPF as these focus on implementation and the identification of challenges and opportunities that need resolving such as infrastructure, access, energy, phasing and development capacity. Context and strategic principles of the wider Isle of Dogs area should be considered first followed by further level of detail within the Masterplan document

Objection noted No action required

Concerned document was not informed by a robust evidence base. Nothing available to review which shows how relevant requirements have been calculated, especially infrastructure requirements.

Evidence available No action required

SQ1 repeats guidance of London Plan policy 3.4 and SP02 and do not believe this needs to reaffirmed in the Masterplan

Supplements existing guidance without repetition No action required

SQ2 – aspirations for active spaces need to be realistic and an appropriate balance found where developments can provide active spaces but also provide for physical unavoidable requirements, like cycle storage, back of house and plant.

Particular requirements can be managed on a site by site basis No action required

SQ3 – Consider inappropriate to refer to massing diagram (3.1) as no evidence to support the indicative massing and approach would reduce development capacity and housing delivery. No justification for heights contained on 3.1

Evidence available No action required

Need to contribute towards infrastructure does not need to be repeated in Masterplan as outlined in development plan.

Further guidance in Masterplan compared to Local Plan No action required

No robust evidence behind findings of infrastructure Table 1 Evidence available No action requiredNeeds to be explained why the replacement of the western South Dock footbridge should be provided after the eastern South Dock footbridge

This is not stated within the document No action required

SQFC1.55 Local resident Insufficient time for full participative discussion involving local people

The formal consultation exceeded the legal minimum of four weeks

No action required

26

Whole Isle of Dogs area needs a comprehensive plan and strategy at least broadly agreed by those that live there. Masterplan should be set aside and reconsidered as part of a wider Isle of Dogs Masterplan

This will be addressed by the Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Millennium Quarter Masterplan should not be deleted as covers a different and larger area. Principle of height scaling down from Canary Wharf tower down to two story terraced houses in Mellish St should stand.

Height principles are established in existing Local Plan policy which remains No action required

Marsh Wall as a ‘local high street’ might work, position is relevant to the Isle of Dogs but suffers the displacement and breaks caused by the DLR structures and water passage to Millwall inner dock

Comment noted No action required

Does not believe space under DLR would be good for a conventional garden or park space, but a carefully thought out and looked after garden using shade-loving plants and ‘lower canopy’ forest plants might work, but it may not be very robust

Concern noted No action required

Space under DLR could be used for Can be considered in line with the principles for DLR public open spaces No action required

-free access dance floor Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-performance space/mini amphitheatre Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-spaces for street musicians Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-skate boarding park Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-exercise equipment for adults and children Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-seating, benches, places for people to gather and talk Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-market stalls Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-car parking Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

Costs of activities under DLR could be from CIL Suggestion noted No action requiredDoes not like podium/plinth/tower proposals as does not make best use of space available. Suggests alternative of entire block between north side of Marsh Wall and South Dock to be built to cover entire footprint of each lot of land but to a uniform height of 10 stories and the entire roof to be one continuous public space roof garden. Where there are gaps between buildings these could be connected by high level footbridges. Some parts could be greenhouses/playing fields.

Suggestion noted, but would impact on quality of public realm No action required

Should be able to restrict the total density or square footage of floorspace allowable.

Masterplan cannot dictate density as would conflict with adopted policy No action required

Huge blocks could allow for Different uses might be accommodated across the area without single large blocks No action required

-car parking or noisy youth clubs/nightclubs in basement Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-shopping malls at street level/ground floor Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-offices on 1st/2nd floor Different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

-residential and compatible uses i.e. schools on 3rd floor and above

Noted, different uses might be accommodated throughout Masterplan area No action required

If there are buildings on north side of Marsh Wall exceeding height of the roof garden, should still be a continuation of the roof garden walkway

Suggestion noted No action required

Buildings on south side of Marsh Wall should be compatible with the general plan, area, objectives and not exceed the height of the roof garden block on north side.


No action required

Consider moving walkways or free bus circulating the Isle of Dogs.


Marsh Wall should not end up being an obstacle to people wishing to walk/cycle across it.

Improved connectivity is an aspiration of the Masterplan No action required

SQFC1.56 Environment Agency

Support that the guidance seeks to shape South Quay to ensure buildings step down from the north to the south and step back from docklands.


Support that the principle that the design of public open spaces should include elements to support and improve biodiversity


This is the only place where the designation of Flood Zone 3a is referenced. It is disappointing to see that apart from the reference to 'housing (subject to flood risk)' on page 40 that the requirements of developments due to the increased nature of flood risk in this area has not been referred to in this document. It missed to include design guidance to reduce and mitigate flood risk as well as include references to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS), Green Roofs and to include key messages from the Thames Estuary 2100 plan relevant to Tower Hamlets and in particular dockside development.

Covered by existing adopted Local Plan policy, but reference added to Development Management section in final document

No action required

Small sections of the masterplan area (in the West and East) are at risk of flooding if there was a breach in the defences or if the defences were overtopped. In these areas, a Flood Risk Assessment would need to assess in detail the risk of flooding to the sites and demonstrated that


27

occupants would be protected from flooding in the event of a breach of the tidal flood defences. Residential uses (except basement dwellings and other highly vulnerable uses) are acceptable in principle, subject to the implementation of suitable mitigation and protection measures.The flood risk mitigation measures should be included in this masterplan guidance, under Development Management or under the Placemaking principle Housing Design and include examples such as raising floor levels above the predicted depth of flooding; ensuring that residential uses will be above the predicted level of flooding; ensuring that occupants will have safe refuge above the predicted depth of flooding; or implementing a suitable emergency plan. The Council's emergency planning team should be satisfied with any mitigation measures proposed such as safe refuge during a flood.


The Sequential Test should be undertaken for any of the developments to be considered appropriate in the masterplan area.

This would be managed through the Development Management process No action required

Outside of the area that may be affected if there was a breach in the tidal defences, a Flood Risk Assessment will be required to assess in detail the risk of flooding to the site.


Principle 1 - it is disappointing to see that SuDS are not referenced here as a mechanism to achieve this or referred to in the masterplan document at all. It is suggested the inclusion of 'through the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems following the drainage hierarchy where appropriate' under Development Management or Housing Design.

Covered by adopted Local Plan policy No action required

All new development will be required to manage surface water runoff rates and volumes in accordance with the London Plan (July 2011) which sets higher standards than the NPPF.


Principle 3 - SuDS could be designed and implemented in ways that deliver other objectives of the masterplan including water use efficiency and quality, biodiversity and recreation. In addition, where Private Amenity Space with Roof Terraces and Community Amenity Space are considered, Green Roofs which are at the top of the hierarchy could be included.

Covered by adopted Local Plan policy No action required

Special requirements for sites that border the docks as they are 'floodwater storage). Development should not encroach into the docks without appropriate flood storage compensation and be set back where possible. Refer to the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan - Dockside requirements. Actions may include - A flood control gate may also be needed on the entrance to the West India and Millwall Docks.


SQFC1.57 Thames Water Omission of a 'Infrastructure and Utilities' Policy - it is the local authority's responsibility to ensure infrastructure is provided ahead of occupation, either through phasing or the use of planning conditions. This is especially relevant to wastewater infrastructure where powers to control connection through the Water Industry Act are limited to the quality of construction of the connection to the sewer, rather than the suitability of the point of connection.


There is no specific policy dedicated to water and wastewater infrastructure in either the Borough's Core Strategy or Managing Development Document. It is considered essential that reference is made to it within the SQ Masterplan. See proposed following wording: "Developers need to consider the net increase in water and waste water demand to serve their developments and also any impact the development may have off site further down the network, if no/low water pressure and internal/external sewage flooding or property is to be avoided. Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate wastewater and water supply capacity both on and off site to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing or new users. In some circumstances it may be necessary for developers to fund studies to ascertain whether the proposed development will lead to overloading of existing wastewater and water infrastructure. We would therefore recommend that developers engage with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to establish the following: 1) The developments demand d for water supply and network infrastructure both on and off site and can it be met; 2) The developments demand for sewage treatment and sewerage network infrastructure both on and off site and can it be met; 3) The surface water drainage requirements and flood risk of the area and downstream and can it be met"

More relevant to review of Local Plan and development of Isle of Dogs OAPF. Can also be managed through Development Management process

No action required

Thames Water must also be consulted regarding proposals involving building over or close to a public sewer.

Thames Water were consulted and a response to this formal consultation was submitted No action required

The desktop assessments indicate that local network upgrades will be required in the area. However, these upgrades are likely to be developed on a case by case basis as development becomes more certain through the planning process and the detailed impact studies are completed. Thames Water would expect the developer to pay a fair and reasonable contribution towards the local

Requires discussion between applicants and Thames Water during application stage

No action required

28

network upgrade.

SQFC1.58 Royal Borough of Greenwich

Concerned about how future unsympathetic development in the South Quay Masterplan area will affect views from locations in Greenwich

Managed in accordance with Local Plan policies and development management process No action required

No mention made in Masterplan of developments already approved or in pipeline, or those outside of area across Isle of Dogs. Supports suggestion that a graphic montage of all such developments on views from General Wolfe statue and grounds of Old Royal Naval College be included in Masterplan and these being used to inform the high building policy.

Already consented applications at the time of publication were outlined; this has been updated for the final version. Suggestion noted

No action required


Feels Masterplan is a triumph of optimism over reality. Comment noted No action required

Will be too late when buildings are completed to find the necessary utilities are not in place.

Concern noted. Managed through development management process. Also to be considered in development of Isle of Dogs OAPF.

No action required

NHS planning to cut the hours of doctor’s surgeries on Isle of Dogs so despite increasing number of residents there will be fewer doctor hours available. Obviously there has been no discussion with NHS on this issue

Health provision is outlined in SQ5 No action required

Planning team is in breach of consultative document it commissioned regarding population/density figures. Why does Tower Hamlets break the recommendations of the report it commissioned?

London Plan states density guidance is not to be applied 'mechanistically' No action required

The team don’t live in the Isle of Dogs, don’t fight, don’t implement their own commissioner’s recommendations, allow developers to renege on promises, don’t have the infrastructure in place before building begins and potentially could break legally enshrined rights.


No action required

Found whole consultative process a sham and fears for future of Isle of Dogs

Noted. The Council is satisfied it has undertaken sufficient detailed public consultation on the SPD in accordance with statutory regulations and as set out in the Councils Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). See accompanying Consultation Strategy and Consultation and Engagement Report for full details of the consultation activities undertaken.

No action required

SQFC1.60 TfL

Public Transport and Connectivity - The masterplan identifies the extent of public transport that serves the area which indicates correctly that the area has predominately good access to public transport services. However, it should be noted that South Quay footbridge, Docklands Light Railway (DLR), cycle hire capacity and local bus services are currently experiencing peak time congestion which can restrict local accessibility. This should be reflected in the current context.

Noted, contextual information amended for final draft No action required

TfL would also request that this section encourages early engagement with TfL given the constrained public transport. Amended in final draft No action required

Supported by the TfL, but greater emphasis could be included demonstrating the need for significant new infrastructure to deliver the new/improved walking &cycling routes over the docks. This could be achieved by referencing ' possible bridge locations' where the new routes cross over the docks.


It would be beneficial if the existing and proposed bridges were labelled appropriately to differentiate the two. Diagrams amended for final version Text amended

The description of the various footbridges referenced within the document is not consistent. Text amended in final version Actioned

The strategy for replacing the existing footbridge is not clear.

Work being taken forward by TfL in advance of Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

The new footbridge is referred to as 'between the South Bank Plaza and Upper Bank Street' Amendment made to wording in final version No action required

The new footbridge is referred to as 'Eastern South Dock foot bridge' Amendment made to wording in final version No action required

A new footbridge is proposed adjacent to the DLR bridge to replace the existing footbridge will be 'improved or replaced' (page 25) and 'replaced or refurbished'. Greater consistency will provide a clarified policy position. TfL requests that the document reflects that the relocation of the existing bridge is the priority over the refurbishment of the existing bridge. The relocation of the existing bridge in line with the DLR Viaduct, utilising the public undercroft of Heron Quays DLR and the proposed public square in South Quay, would expand the catchment of Heron Quays DLR to the south west. This has the potential to increase PTALs in the area (e.g. from level 2/3 to 4)

Diagram is indicative only No action required

It is requested that it is amended to show a public access along the alignment with active frontages facing onto the new route

Indicative diagram already shows this No action required

TfL considers that the bridge to be necessary mitigation and are preparing an invitation to tender to obtain designs and indicative costing of the three new bridges proposed. It is requested that TfL are included as a delivery organisation for the feasibility, design and delivery study for foot bridges.

Text amended for final version Text amended

The GLA and TFL intend to meet with the Council early march to discuss a public realm strategy for the South Quay area and it would be beneficial for this document to reflect any outcome of discussions

Can support guidance outlined in Masterplan No action required

TfL has no objections in principle to SQ2 proposal regarding how to use of spaces adjacent or under the DLR. However, Support noted No action required

29

it is concerned that any proposals that would impede DLR's ability to access, maintain and operate DLR infrastructure. A document outlining the restrictions on uses or structures permitted under the DLR is being created. It is nevertheless welcomed that you expect development proposals adjacent to the DLR to engage with TfL early within the planning process.The document refers to the DLR operating in a similar fashion to New York's High line however it is requested that this is either removed or clarified as the two operate very differently. The High line is anon operational viaduct with a park on top similar to the Greenway which links Hackney to Barking.


A significant proportion of growth is expected to occur away from dock edge; for example within the area south east of South Quay DLR station. This is contrary to what the figure shows which directs development to concentrate alongside the docks.

Already shown within the document No action required

The document states that walking and cycling connectivity is poor in the area due to a poorly defined public realm. On that basis, it is requested that there is a greater emphasis on improving north to south links to Marsh Wall within Figure 2.1.

Indicative diagram amended for final draft highlighting improved north-south connections No action required

TfL expects the number of buses running per hour along West ferry Rd and Eastferry rod to increase in the future. Consequently, these roads should be considered destinations and will continue to be a high attractor for walking trips. On that basis, it is requests that this figures to conclude east to west routes that could be improved to deliver greater accessibility to these two roads.

Diagrams have been amended for final version enhancing indicative routes. Diagrams amended

The figure includes a 3.3m pavement, however TfL recommends that the considering the expected level of footfall in the area that the payment to the northern edge of Marsh Wall is extended to a minimum of 5m wherever possible. Bus services operate along both Millharbour and Limeharbour however no bus stops are indicated. On that basis, it is requested that the document considers how a bus stop, with sufficient alighting space, could be incorporated within the street type.

The indicative diagrams have been reviewed for the final draft No action required

It is recommended that any unnecessary street clutter including guard railing is removed within the area and it is requested that this is included as an additional principle with the policy.


Supports the provision of improved cycling routes however it is requested that greater emphasis is included on those areas sought of Marsh Wall.

Indicative diagram amended for final draft highlighting improved north-south connections Actioned

The Council should use the published London Cycling Design Standards when planning the street environment or during the engineering of cycle-specific infrastructure and reference to the document would be welcomed within the masterplan.

Text amended for final version Actioned

Cycle parking has not been referenced within the document even though its implementation can constrain the space available to deliver public realm improvements. This has become more relevant following the adopted of the FALP which has increase the cycle parking requirements for many land uses. Should a site not be able to accommodate the full provision of cycle parking then it may be necessary to provide provision on street. TfL therefore requests that the document reflects the Council's approach to how cycle parking will be provided within the public realm. The London Cycling Design Standards does provide advice on this matter.

Design Standards referenced No action required

There is currently only one docking station for the TfL Cycle Hire Scheme within the masterplan area - 57 space docking station on Lighterman's Rd. It should be noted there are other docking stations accessible within 200m of the masterplan area; notably the south and east and to the north within the Canary Wharf estate. Notwithstanding this, TfL has identified that an additional five cycle hire docking stations will be required within the masterplan area, the location of which have been appended to this letter. This could equate to approximately 150 dock points with a delivery cost of approx. £1.25 million. This is not funded within the TfL's business plan and therefore would need to be delivered through external funding either by CIL or s 106 agreement.

To be considered as part of Development Management process No action required

The document does not refer to bus infrastructure. TfL therefore requests that detail is included requiring bus stops to be provided in convenient locations for passengers; an accessible for those with mobility impairments and are located amidst high quality urban realm so that passengers feel secure.


In order to increase in bus trips in the South Quay area TfL will be seeking funding towards the provision of additional bus services. Bus stands outside the masterplan area are needed to service local bus routes and therefore existing bus stands will need to be protected and additional stand space sought. The absence of suitable facilities will constrain TfL's ability to provide sufficient bus capacity within the masterplan area. For the masterplan area the bus stands located at Crossharbour are of particular importance.

To be considered in development of Isle of Dogs OAPF

No action required

30

The DLR will continue to experience capacity constraints in the future at this location and therefore it is welcomed that the document makes the link between the provision of additional dock crossing points and relieving pressure on the DLR network. It is also welcomed that the document states that the Council will work with TfL to ensure that site specific impacts (such as those above are addressed through the development management process.


The London Plan Housing SPG recommends that each wheelchair accessible unit is allocated a dedicated Blue Badge bay. For high density development with a low car parking provision this could require a quantum of spaces in excess of what could be economically achieved on site. On that basis, TfL requests that the document reflects that local streets maybe need to provide on street Blue Badge parking to meet a local shortfall in supply. It queries why the document refers to considering the availability of visitor parking spaces. The masterplan area benefits from a reasonably good PTAL level and therefore TfL would not support the provision of visitor car parking that could undermine the use of more sustainable modes of transport. It is nevertheless welcomed that the provision of car clubs or car-pooling schemes are encouraged as this will assist in reducing car ownership in the area.


It is agreed that the work on the Isle of Dogs Opportunity Area Planning Framework (commencing in summer 2015) will provide the appropriate mechanism for delivering further improvements to the public transport network beyond the South Quay area. Notwithstanding that it is requested that the list of strategic infrastructure on page 47 is expanded to include additional cycle hire capacity. Bus services, by definition within the CIL regulations, are not infrastructure and therefore TfL would negotiate bus mitigation on a site by site basis through the s 106 agreement processes. The document has stated within this list that DLR is a delivery partner for delivery the principal public open space. Be aware that this would only be the case where DLR is the land owner. It is welcomed that development should connect to demonstrate a potential connection to a masterplan wide waste storage and collection system as this will assist in reducing to amount of freight movement within the masterplan area.

Indicative nature of table and infrastructure guidance emphasised in final version with amendments No action required

SQFC1.61 James Etherington

Would encourage greater scrutiny of the high density of many new proposed developments. Needs to be greater pushback by LBTH rather than accepting influx of new accommodation and people in such a constrained area.

Proposals are assessed in accordance with adopted policies and guidance No action required

Answers given in public consultation meeting and on what difference the Masterplan would make in practice were inadequate.

Feedback from consultation events has been recorded to inform future events. No action required

Should be greater accountability of spending of S106 and proper follow through on commitments to local service provision being made by LBTH in approving these developments, for example working with all providers of schools and create an enabling environment for them to develop new school places and sites.

Section 106/CIL receipts/spending are managed according to adopted procedures with details published by the Council

No action required

SQFC1.62

Rolfe Judd on behalf of HPB Pension Trust and LCN Properties

Imperative document is treated as guidance and not as adopted planning policy.

Indicative nature of diagrams and text emphasised for final version Text amended

Key objection is inclusion of indicative heights on vision drawing V1 and Fig 3.1



Plots on illustrative figures not reflective of actual plots/land ownership. Heights do not represent consented or submitted schemes. Cannot be presumed sites are unlikely to come forward.

Final draft to clarify Figures/Plans are indicative No action required

To include suggested heights on an illustrative plan confuses credibility of Masterplan

Heights are illustrative only and this has been better reflected in final version

Text amended to emphasise indicative nature of diagrams

Cannot see evidence which confirms massing/vision maps have followed correct approach. Developments should continue to be assessed against DM26

Building heights are assessed in accordance with the Local Plan policies through development management process. Evidence available

No action required

Support principle of SQ1 and criteria are acceptable Support noted No action requiredSupport SQ2 Support noted No action requiredSQ3 presents most concern as visual maps are misleading. Consider Vision map should be removed and SQ3.1 and part a should be deleted to ensure developers do not use as definitive guidance.



Support the principle of SQ4 Support noted No action requiredSupports the principle of SQ5 Support noted No action required

Consider Masterplan should be a supplementary guidance document illustrating level of development in area and not restricting future developments in certain plots.

Masterplan is indicative and does not therefore restrict development in certain plots No action required

Opportunity to engage in drafting process did not provide insight to client on direction and content of Masterplan. First opportunity to understand and comment on Masterplan was this consultation. Contrary to requirements of part 14 (ii) of Local Plan Regulations the LA has not provided a summary of the main issues raised during that consultation exercise.

Noted. The Council is satisfied it has undertaken sufficient detailed public consultation on the SPD in accordance with statutory regulations and as set out in the Councils Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). See accompanying Consultation Statement for full details of the consultation activities undertaken.

No action required

Is appropriate to provide landowners with a further opportunity to review the Masterplan document once all representations have been received. This could take the form of another public consultation period or direct liaison


No action required

31

with individual landowners.Approach to net Residential Developable Area differs from that set by Housing SPG. Request amendment to clarify proposed open spaces can be included in calculation.






Can be managed site by site through the Development Management process No action required


Demonstrates changing nature of area No action required



Fig 3.1 does not appear reflective of land ownership and not consistent with consented schemes. Fig 3.1 is illustrative No action required

In current form maps are overly prescriptive and have potential to be misused or misinterpreted. Final draft to clarify Figures/Plans are indicative No action required




Believe perimeter block arrangement generated by hybrid urban block approach will only serve to internalise private residential developments within the area thereby limiting the potential for increased legibility and permeability in the area.

Can be managed on a site-by-site basis No action required



Fig 3.1 should be used as diagrammatic guide rather than strict guidance on appropriate building height.



P40 justification text is overly prescriptive and is inconsistent with DM26 Adds clarity No action required





SQFC1.63Cllr Cregan, Cllr Wood, Cllr Ronald, Cllr Chesterton

Found it useful and its recommendations should form the core part of the SQMP especially when judging whether future planning applications are sustainable or not.


There is an inherent contradiction between buildings approved, in the pipeline and the infrastructure plans for the area. The infrastructure planning is based on the London Plan targets as per Table 1, the Council has approved planning application which substantially exceed the recommended density i.e. Galliard 2 Millharbour (3,000+). Is the Council saying all these new development is exemplary in design?

Table provides guidance; site by site mitigation can be secured through the Development Management process

No action required

The Council will treat density as only one of a range of factors but the LUC scoping report clearly looks at a wide range of issues, including transportation, schools, connectivity, infrastructure, anti-social behaviour, car parking etc.

Point noted. Considerations such as transport will be addressed by forthcoming Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

High density, tall development works less well for families based on a lot of evidence, therefore the less likely that mixed communities will work. The risk is that people will be moved to social housing properties that are best designed for the private rented market and not for long term, family occupation.

Concern noted. Registered providers were engaged during development of the Masterplan No action required

The masterplan assumes the same density targets for the whole area but the actual PTAL levels in the SQMP area range from 5 down to 2. Densities in the plan should reflect the different PTAL levels in the SQMP area as per the London Plan

Noted, but guidance is indicative and PTAL levels could increase with greater connectivity No action required

Section 2 - The word resident does not appear in the list of groups to be consulted. The Council's list of tenants and residents associations is out of date, misses many residents associations and some of them either chooses not to get involved in planning or are defunct. Most residents also do not belong to residents associations. How would you propose to reach them?

Noted. Contact lists and the Council's database of interested persons have been amended following formal consultation as new persons are added or details are identified as defunct or requiring updates. The Council cannot dictate that organisations or individuals involve themselves in planning.

No action required

East End Life, THC website and writing to local associations will not generate public involvement. Social media, leaflets and emails via the Island Planning Forum was able to generate much higher numbers of attendees. It is suggested the Council to allow more time for preparation, better locations, a better time of the year and assistance with advertising e.g. goggle search. This should be considered before the next major consultation on the OAPF.

It is not considered that the time of year was a poor choice. The benefits of the alternative promotional methods mentioned are acknowledged, but the Council does not have the resources to manage such activity.

No action required

What is the actual split of development across the twenty wards?

This information is outlined in the Council's annual Monitoring Report No action required

Forcing car parking levels to below 10% in most of these new developments is forcing residents to lie about their use

Parking provision managed through existing Local Plan policies; parking elsewhere is potentially an No action required

32

of cars, creates parking stresses on nearby roads and creates more parking fine revenue for the Council. It does nothing to help residents especially those in social housing. With self-driving cars now being tested in Greenwich, Tesla electrical car charging points in Canary Wharf and numerous electric cars on the road some of the reasons for trying to reduce car use are changing.

enforcement issue.

By the time the Masterplan is approved in May (?) it will be redundant as a large number of developments will have been approved which clearly do not match the recommendations in the SQMP. How the 2nd South Quay Plaza Tower seems to occupy the space reserved for a mini-park. Perhaps it would be cheaper and less mis-leading not to do any more masterplans?



The OAPF should have been done before the SQMP or run in parallel with it not after it. How can you do a Masterplan proposing up to 64,000 people in it (Option 5 in the LUC report) with no TfL input? That seems to contradict the notion of a Masterplan.

The Masterplan will be the first stage of the Isle of Dogs OAPF No action required

Who will fund the capital requirements in the area as S106 and CIL might not be able to provide all of the funds required? Concerned that the public investment will not be available to match the huge increase in population and that CIL will not cover the gap. What is the budget for all of the infrastructure requirements in the area?

Infrastructure needs and funding are managed through Council's prioritisation matrix No action required

The Council will use these powers again as developers will see the Council using its powers as a cheaper option then paying appropriate contributions to affected residents. The Council will improve developer's profits at the expense of resident's property values. It is interesting that the SQMP makes no mention of this issue.


Most of the existing new development are anti-septic and unchild friendly, besides Phoenix Heights. The word Nursery does not appear in the main document yet the demographics suggest it is one of the most important types of education in the area (as many parents move away as their children age).

Nursery provision can be offered as part of community facility provision No action required

What are the public health implications of such high levels of density? Has the Council's Public Health Team been consulted on the SQMP? The research we have read is negative on the health implications of high-density developments.

Public Health have been consulted, and evidence has been considered as part of Local Plan No action required

The term "ASBO" does not get mentioned in either the main report or in the LUC scoping document. Why not? There are young people hanging out inside the secure areas of those developments without concierges (mainly social housing), in waterside areas away from the roads and out of view of parents where they can smoke cannabis and drink alcohol. Smart design could help with ASBO but recent developments have made it worse. Where will young people wish to hang out in the SQMP area? How will this problem be fixed?

Behaviour of individuals is not a matter for the Masterplan No action required

Will those new towers get demolished in 30 years time? Not a planning concern No action requiredWith construction likely to proceed for the next 10-15 years we need to find a better way to protect existing residents from the noise and disruption of construction. It is suggested at a minimum, new rules on pile driving and a 9am Sat start versus 8 am with no weekend working allowed on Bank holiday weekends

Can be managed through the Development Management process No action required

There is a complete disconnect between the Council 'Planning for school places 2012 - 2022'(Sep 2012) and the detail contained in the masterplan. No detail on school capacity (as compared to the GP analysis). Why? LUC report says that the IOD has the fewest options for school expansion and potential new schools and therefore the capacity for financial contributions to offset adverse effects within the immediate locality is limited. It also says the masterplan is unable to allocate sites for a primary school. If so, how was the Westferry print works site reserved for a secondary school?

Education addressed by SQ1, SQ5 and existing adopted policy. Westferry was allocated through the development plan process involving rigorous public examination by an Inspector. Such provision is not possible for SPDs, which cannot set new policy or allocate sites.

No action required

There is none in the SQMP. This is an issue we will wish to discuss with the Council in more detail in the future Request to meet acknowledged No action required

The combination of planned works and emergency works is toxic in a geographically constrained area with only two exit routes. More planning is required, for example, to only allow one major road obstruction on the two main access routes and that all construction related traffic is co-ordinated across all developments in the same way that the London 2012 Olympics co-ordinated traffic across London. In addition, given the expected increase in traffic will the Blue bridge be replaced, if so when, who will manage the process and pay for it? The SQMP is silent on this issue.

The Blue Bridge is a matter for the Isle of Dogs OAPF to consider; works are a matter for the Transport team

No action required

These big tall towers in SQ may not be economically sustainable over the next 10 -15 years when the market cools. They are not sold to meet the real housing needs but to overseas investors. However, if smaller less dense development was encouraged then the upfront costs would be lower, developers would be more likely to build as they had lower risk, the impact on local infrastructure would be less requiring less public investment and therefore less s106/CIL. That would help to reduce the price per unit and make units more affordable making them accessible to a wider range of people.

Concern noted. Heights and densities are managed through the development management process. The planning system cannot control how units are marketed and sold.

No action required

33

The list of utility issues - water, sewage, mobile phone capacity, internet, busses etc. How will all of these issues get dealt with?

Some issues mentioned are not matters for planning, others are wider issues that can be dealt with through the Isle of Dogs OAPF

No action required

The masterplan does need to include guidance on social housing related issues. These may not be enforceable but that does not mean that you cannot recommend them to developers. The issues are: durability of internal fittings; child play space internal and external; entrances

Individual designs managed through Development Management process No action required

The dock areas are designated as site of importance for nature conservation. The SQMP has little to say on how the adverse effects on the historic and natural environment will be mitigated, both during construction and with the subsequent population increase e.g. construction noise on the swans that normally reside in Middle Dock


Unlike Whitechapel, it feels that the Council has no vision for the area beyond the delivery of the London Plan housing target and the 4,000 social housing that the Mayor has promised as a manifesto commitment. Individual developers have a vision for their little patch but there is no collective vision.

The vision of a 'thriving dockside neighbourhood' is set out on page 17 No action required

34

Table 3: Key amendments to the supplementary policy guidance within the South Quay Masterplan SPD

The table below outlines the key amendments to the supplementary policy guidance within the adopted South Quay Masterplan SPD (October 2015) compared to the previous consultation version (November 2014).

The changes listed in the table below focus on additions and deletions to the text of the supplementary policy guidance as a result of consideration of the representations received (set out in Table 2 of this Consultation Statement) during the formal public consultation period (5 th January – 16th February 2015). Additions are underlined and deletions are struck through. Also included for ease of use and transparency is a summary of the reason for the change and consideration of its affect. It should be noted that a number of other amendments have also been made to the document, but these are corrections related to grammar, presentation and other such minor clarifications.

Supplementary policy guidance Change Reason

SQ1 Housing density Development seeking to exceed London Plan housing densities should will be required to

C) provide the required infrastructure in accordance with the Local Plan and the London Plan.

Representations raised concerns that the supplementary policy guidance was going beyond its legislative remit by including requirements. It was considered that this was something that should be covered by a Local Plan policy. The SPD has been fully prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and the supplementary policy guidance acts within their remit by supplementing the adopted Local Plan. However, the Council acknowledges this perceived concern and has replaced the phrases ‘required/need to/must’ with ‘should’ has. This has been done for consistency and clarity.

The additional text has been added to criterion for clarity in response to representation. This to make it clear that it is the infrastructure requirements of the Local Plan and London Plan that will need to be met.

SQ2.1. Connections & public realm Development should will be required to deliver legible and well-defined networks of routes and spaces by

Representations raised concerns that the supplementary policy guidance was going beyond its legislative remit by including requirements. It was considered that this was something that should be covered by a Local Plan policy. The SPD has been fully prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and the supplementary policy guidance acts within its remit by supplementing the adopted Local Plan. However, the Council acknowledges this perceived concern and has replaced the phrases required/need to/must with ‘should’ has. This has been done for consistency and clarity.

SQ2.2 New public open space Development should will be required to:

SQ2.3. Principal and DLR public open space

Development adjacent to the Principal and DLR public open spaces should will be required to

SQ3.1 Massing Development should will be required to define and enclose the network of connections and spaces set out in SQ2 by

SQ3.2Hybrid urban blocks Hybrid urban blocks should are required to consist of three core components

SQ3.3 Podiums and plinths massing Podiums and plinths massing

Podium and plinth massing should are required toSQ3.4 Podium and plinth design This should will be required to:

SQ3.5 Taller elements massing and design

SQ3.5 Taller elements massing and design

Taller element massing and design should will be required to:

SQ3.6 Housing typologies Development should deliver a range of housing typologies and their design should aim to including:

a. directing wheelchair accessible housing to:i. the ground floor where non-residential uses are

not suitable; orii. lower floors served by at least two lifts with easy

access to street level and communal amenity space.

b. directing family housing to:i. on the ground floor where non-residential uses

are not suitable, in the plinth element and in the lower levels of the taller element;

ii. have easy access to child play space, communal amenity space and service cores; and

iii. enable passive surveillance over child play space and communal amenity space with elements of play. c. accommodate in the hybrid urban blocks to: i. provide a range of residential types including town houses, flats, maisonettes, and duplexes; ii. maximise the proportion of dual-aspect units; iii. limit units on each floor to eight per floor; and iv. maximise floor to ceiling heights, particularly at lower levels

d. maximise daylight and prevent overheating of single-aspect units by considering the depths of the unit

This additional text has been included in response to representations for clarity.

Directing has been edited so it reads correctly and improves grammar for parts a. and b.

The background text to supplementary policy guidance SQ3.6 included a number of points that were drafted as supplementary policy guidance and mistakenly excluded in error. These have been reinstated and now make up two new criteria in c) and d).

SQ3.8 Communal amenity space This should Text introduced to improve how the guidance is read.SQ3.9 Child play space SQ3.9 10 Private amenity space Numbering rearranged to improve how the supplementary policy

guidance is read.SQ3.10 Private amenity space SQ3.10 9 Child play space Numbering rearranged to improve how the supplementary policy

guidance is read.SQ3.11 Car parking & servicing Where parking is proposed, it should will be required to

deliver:Representations raised concerns that the supplementary policy guidance was going beyond its legislative remit by including requirements. It was considered that this was something that should be covered by a Local Plan policy. The SPD has been fully prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England)

35

Supplementary policy guidance Change Reason

Regulations 2012 and the supplementary policy guidance acts within its remit by supplementing the adopted Local Plan. However, the Council acknowledges this perceived concern and has replaced the phrases required/need to/must with ‘should’ has. This has been done for consistency and clarity.

SQ3.12 Developments with car parking and servicing shared access

SQ3.12 Developments with car parking and servicing shared access

Text amended to improve how the supplementary policy guidance is read.

SQ3.13. Mechanical parking systems Mechanical parking systemsThis should reflect:a. demand for parking access;

Mechanical parking systems should reflect:a. demand for parking access


SQ3.14 Car parking for disabled people

Car parking for disabled people

This should be provided within or below

Car parking for disabled people should be provided within or below


SQ3.15 Integrating social infrastructure & primary schools

Amend the title from “Integrating social infrastructure & primary schools” to “Integration of social infrastructure & primary schools”

ii. on podiums for play decks and MUGAs.play decks, MUGAs and on podiumsWas 3.16 but amended as incorrectly numbered

Text amended to improve grammar.

Text amended to read correctly

SQ4.1 The Skyline Development located on the Grand Axis should: will be required to:

Representations raised concerns that the supplementary policy guidance was going beyond its legislative remit by including requirements. It was considered that this was something that should be covered by a Local Plan policy. The SPD has been fully prepared in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 and the supplementary policy guidance acts within its remit by supplementing the adopted Local Plan. However, the Council acknowledges this perceived concern and has replaced the phrases required/need to/must with ‘should’ has. This has been done for consistency and clarity.

SQ4.2 Layering and clustering Development should: will be required to:

SQ4.3 Views Development should will need to

Give full name of “the Grand Axis” - “the Maritime Greenwich Grand Axis”

SQ4 supporting text The masterplan requires is a uniform palette of

material for the sites along the Grand Axis. Overtime this has a way of standing out amongst thecluster of buildings unified by their colour andmateriality visible in the distant view.

Text removed as could be read as introducing new policy which is beyond the remit of an SPD, and was not the intention.

SQ5 Now just a waste section rather than infrastructure more generally

Change the title from “Infrastructure” to “Waste Management”

Infrastructure requirements covered by existing Local Plan. Only waste offers any further detail – schools captured in SQ3.Text amended to improve clarity.

Cumulative changes to supplementary policy guidance

The document’s supplementary policy guidance has been amended in places to ensure the meaning is clear, and that the policies supplement existing Local Plan policies as a material consideration, rather than appearing to set new policy requirements which is beyond the remit of an SPD. The main change to policy is in the additions to supplementary policy guidance SQ3.2, where three new criterions have been added. This detail was in the supporting background text, and was clearly written to guide future development. Therefore it should be clearly included in the body of the supplementary policy guidance rather than the supporting text.

Primarily the changes are a result of request for clarity in the document received during the public consultation.

36

web view2.5105 people attended the consultation events held by the council during the statutory...

Documents