haringey project final presentation
DESCRIPTION
Final project presentation of the Haringey Build Up teamTRANSCRIPT
Build Up Programme / University of Westminster
London Borough of Haringey
Final Presentation 1 March 2010
Build Up Programme / University of Westminster
Alan Mace
Today we are presenting the final output from our 3 months with Haringey Borough Council
Thank you for the opportunity and the challenge.
We hope that our outputs are of value and will progress your objectives
Build Up Final Presentation
• Planning & Regeneration Centre Chris Dudley
• Tottenham Hotspur Planning Application Olumide Obasemo, Maria Tomolova
• Tottenham Green Urban Design and Development Framework Trevor Bendell Reza Shafaei
• Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document Alison Minto
• Haringey Sustainable Design and Construction GuidanceOlumide Obasemo Maria Tomolova
• North London Main Land Use and Development PlanAlain ChiaradiaYatwan Hui
The Agenda
About Build Up
- Retaining professionals- Importance for the future- Scale of task
- spatial, functional, sectoral
- Complexity of local governance
- Projects & participants- LB Haringey
Planning and Regeneration Center
Chris Dudley
Final Build-Up Presentation
on
01 March 2010
Planning Application
Maria TOMALOVA & Olumide M. K. OBASEMO
Presentation Outline
• Project Task
• Details of the Proposal
• Outline of Work Done
• Analysis of Work Done
• Input to Draft Report
• Personal Cogitation
• Appreciation
Project Task
To produce, in collaboration with the
dedicated Haringey Council Team,
the first draft of Planning Committee
report on the proposed scheme.
� Updated all the submissions / responses from the public and
stakeholders—from which to synthesise the key issues that would be
in the report:
• In total, about 900 public responses in the form of letters, e-mails and web portal
entries were received.
• Formal stakeholders’ submissions were also received from:
� Environment Agency
� Metropolitan Police
� SAVE Britain’s Heritage & The English Heritage
� Tottenham Conservation Area Advisory Committee,
� The FA & England’s Manager
� North London Chamber of Commerce
� CABE
� Surrounding Boroughs, e.g. Waltham Forest, Camden, Barnet, etc.
� Greater London Authority
� Utilities companies: Network Rail, ThamesWater, LEFPA, etc.
� Inputs on assigned section of the Draft Report
Outline of Work Done
Analysis of Work Done
Analysis of Work Done (cont’d)Highlights of Concern from Public
Submissions
• Traffic congestion & parking
problems are likely to be
exacerbated
• Proposed supermarket could
lead to net loss of jobs and
businesses
• Demolition of listed buildings
deemed unjustifiable, and could
lead to bad precedence
• Inadequate & ineffective disabled
facilities.
• Insufficient infrastructural
capacity for 56,000+ people
Highlights of Concern from
Stakeholders’ Submissions
• Network Rail & Thames Water
made compelling cases for
improvement measures to rail &
water supply facilities
• Conservation groups & NGOs
firmly insisted on the
incorporation of listed buildings
into the scheme
• Several issues yet to be resolved
with the Police, despite extensive
consultations already!
• CABE still unsatisfied with the
proposed stadium design and
some other aspects of the scheme.
Input to the Draft Report• The sections of the Draft Report in general include:
�Site and Surroundings
�The proposal
�Relevant History
�Consultations
�Policies
�Assessment
�Conclusion & Recommendations
• The synthesised key issues are used in the
consultation section of the Report
Personal Cogitation
• Tottenham, Haringey, is the best option of THFC, else they
would have chosen another; so the Council should not be
intimidated by the threat of the club moving somewhere
else and should be firm in the inevitable negotiation
process leading to the approval of the scheme!
• Having said that, the Council has to be forward-looking
and take into consideration the times we live in whilst
deciding on this application.
Thank you for your time
TottenhamTottenham High Road Historic CorridorHigh Road Historic Corridor
TottenhamTottenham Green Urban Design Green Urban Design Development Framework Development Framework
TottenhamTottenham High Road Historic CorridorHigh Road Historic Corridor
Final Progress Report 1 March 2010
Project Team
Project Managers, Haringey Council:Marc Dorfman Asst. Director Planning and Regeneration
Ismail Mohammed Group Manager Planning Policy
Stefen Krupski Project Officer / Sites Team
Build up Consultants:
Trevor Bendell Reza Shafaei
Reference Documents
1. A10 / A1010 Corridor Study, Potential Scope of Wor k: Draft Document
2. Mayor Great Spaces Initiative: Application Form to Join the Initiative
3. The Mayor’s Great Spaces: Haringey Policy 20094. Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter: Draft Issues and Options
Discussion Paper5. Haringey A10/A1010 Historic High Road Corridor / A C ultural
Quarter for Tottenham Green: Draft Brief for Consultant6. Tottenham High Road Conservation Area Character
Appraisal: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 7. A New Plan for Haringey 2011-2026 Core Strategy – Pref erred
Options:
Reference Documents
8. Statement of Community Involvement – 20089. Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor:
Design for London, London Development Agency10. Core Strategy – Summary of Issues and Options:
Consultation Response
Council Documents Hierarchy
Area Description
• Chain of connected high streets, main road London to Cambridge• High street shopping, residential, grander institutional building, greens
Project Aims
1- The regeneration proposals focusing on creating a chain and succession of linked great spaces:
• South Tottenham Gateway• Seven Sisters• Tottenham Green• Bruce Grove• Tottenham Hotspur Area• Northern Gateway
2- Coordination to tie all together
3- Improve neglected links; Tottenham Green & Bruce Grove
Project Methodology
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter
Key Project Description
• Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter
Key Project Description
• Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses
• Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter
Key Project Description
• Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses
• Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter• Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale
intensification
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter
Key Project Description
• Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses
• Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter• Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale
intensification• Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of
Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter
Key Project Description
• Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses
• Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter• Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale
intensification• Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of
Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor• Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter
Key Project Description
• Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses
• Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter• Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale
intensification• Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of
Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor• Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green• East and West sides divided by High Road
Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter
Key Project Description
• Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses
• Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter• Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale
intensification• Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of
Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor• Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green• East and West sides divided by High Road • West includes historic Holy Trinity Church, its yard, Sunday
School & vicarage
Key Project Objectives
• Identifying the boundary
Key Project Objectives
• Identifying the boundary
• Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educati onal destination within the Borough to attracting people
Key Project Objectives
• Identifying the boundary
• Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educati onal destination within the Borough to attracting people
• Have a look at lower admission and upper admission
Key Project Objectives
• Identifying the boundary
• Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educati onal destination within the Borough to attracting people
• Have a look at lower admission and upper admission
• Interview with land owners; what their development asp irations are; how they want to change the land use
Key Project Objectives
• Identifying the boundary
• Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educati onal destination within the Borough to attracting people
• Have a look at lower admission and upper admission
• Interview with land owners; what their development asp irations are; how they want to change the land use
• Design brief and Specification for external consultan t development
Key Project Objectives
• Identifying the boundary
• Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educati onal destination within the Borough to attracting people
• Have a look at lower admission and upper admission
• Interview with land owners; what their development asp irations are; how they want to change the land use
• Design brief and Specification for external consultan t development
• Development opportunities and constraints
Site MapTottenham Green land ownership Masterplanmap showing designated boundaries for land ownership, 2009.
Site MapRevised land use map showing designated outline of boundaries for Tottenham Urban Development Plan
Site Map
Tottenham Green
Main Stakeholders – Identification of Buildings
Land Use Key Buildings
Cultural
The Bernie Grant Arts Centre
The Marcus Garvey Library
The Tottenham Green Leisure Centre
The Tottenham Palace (community Church)
The Women Community Centre
Religious
The Holy Trinity Church, Philip Lane
The High Cross United Reform Church, Clusterworth RdThe St. Mark’s Church, High Rd
The Friends Meeting House
The Mary’s Church, Lansdowne Rd
Tottenham Baptist Church, High Rd
St. Francis de Sales Church, High Rd
Brook St. Chapel
Land Use Key Buildings
EducationalThe college of North East London (CONEL)
The Primary School
Commercial
Offices
Specific Retails
Tesco
Pubs and Clubs
Civic
The Tottenham Police Station
The Public Parking
The Bus Garage
Apex House
Open Space Tottenham Green
Historic
Edwardian Grade II
Old Boys School 1908
Bernie Grant Arts Centre
Tottenham High Cross and Well (Monument)Tottenham Green East Georgian Terrace
The Swan Public House
Tottenham Town Hall
Main Stakeholders – Identification of Buildings
Identification of Land Owners
Identification of Land Owners
Identification of Land Owners
Identification of Land Owners
Sources of Financial SupportFunding Body Programme Description Level Date
GLA Mayor’s Great Spaces InitiativeA unique opportunity to revitalise and
improve the quality of their public spaces2009-
Tottenham Green Cultural Area Improvement
LDA and DCSF Mayor’s Youth Offer
YOFto help provide more activities and services
for young Londoners£79m 2008-2010YCF
PAYP
GLAPriority Parks Initiative grant for Lordship
Recreation
To help Haringey council to carry out major regeneration of Tottenham’s largest green
space£400k
LDA and ESF
Community Grants programme
to small voluntary and community organisations to support their capacity to engage with local communities and deliver a range of skills and employment support activities
Up to £12,000
Closed 14 Sep 2009
Co-Funding Organisation programme(CFO)
to improve employability and skills in the capital with specific focus on providing greater employment opportunities for disadvantaged people
2007-2013
Sources of Financial SupportFunding Body Programme Description Level Date
LDA and ERDF ERDF Operational Programme
to promote sustainable, environmentally efficient growth in , capitalising on ’s innovation and knowledge resources. It will focus on promoting social inclusion through extending economic opportunities to communities, in areas where this is most needed.
2007-2013
English Heritage and GLA
Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) To support projects that could help local organisations to share their stories to celebrate the Story of London this summer
£3,000 -£10,000
Closed?
Heritage Lottery Funded Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI)
Completed in 2008
Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme (HERS)
Completed in 2007
Partnership Scheme in Conservation Areas (PSICA)
Began in 2008
Comparison of Aims
Study Haringey’s proposed development projects and summarise the main points
so that they are all under one Urban Design Framework.
Consider landowners/stakeholders intentions and look at any possible planning issues.
Compare stakeholders aims with that of the councils proposed development plans and indicate any differences.Seek to resolve any disputes/differences.
Suggest possible development options
Implement Urban Design Development Framework.
Reassess design proposals
Assessing The Design Proposals
1. Usability2. Legibility3. Permeability and connectivity4. Walk-ability5. Viability6. Quality7. Coherence8. Character
Identified Constraints1. Usability and functionality: • The open green spaces have no obvious function or purpose
• There are lots of over-left and poor-used open spaces, especially in-between of the buildings. are they public or private?
2. Legibility: • The Bernie Grant Arts Centre is hidden by the facade of the listed building – Leisure Centre is
hidden behind the car park
3. Permeability and connectivity: • Poor furniture acting as a barrier to new public realm – the High Rd and its physical elements
creates a major barrier to pedestrian movement - e.g. high volume of traffic, bus lane contraflow, central reservation and lack of pedestrian crossing segregate its 2 sides.
4. Walk-ability: • lack of easy walk-able and friendly-bicycle path. Lack of acknowledgement of desire lines within
the public realm
5. Viability: • Vacant new retail units in ground flour along east side of High Rd
6. Quality: • Recycling centre on main access to Bernie Grant Arts Centre –– rubbish dumping outside Bernie
Grant Arts Centre – poor quality of street furniture
7. Coherence:• Isolated and fragmented spaces and a distinct lack of permeability and Coherence between sites
e.g. retail, greens and cultural sites.
Identified Opportunities1. Usability and functionality: • Maximise the potential of the green spaces as usable spaces
• Increase use of the public realm at the rear of the Leisure centre
• Split Leisure Centre and Library / Re-locate library expand Leisure Centre
• New rear access to library
2. Legibility: • Decrease the dominance of the car park and improve the green space and links to Tottenham
Green
• Improve links to adjoining residential areas to the west
3. Permeability and connectivity: • Improve accessibility of the Green and the pedestrian access across the High Road to the Green
4. Walk-ability: • Formalise the desire lines; highlight borders and paths; enhance the landscaping
5. Viability: • Improve the links and the crossings between 2 sides of the High Rd.
Identified Opportunities6. Quality: • Enhance the appeal of the Green
• Make the green central to the community and urban realm
• Use interventions to reflect the history of the green spaces and build on the historical importance of the Green
• Better management and maintenance of public realm, planters and furniture
8. Character:• There many buildings – in particular Tottenham Green & Bruce Grove areas – that have good
characteristics that can be emphasised and built upon
Ideas for Improving Development Framework
1. Providing Landscaping to Tottenham High Road2. Linking The Fragmented Green/Public Spaces with
improved pedestrian routes and enhanced visual links3. Providing Urban Social Function for The Greens4. Providing a Coherent Social and Commercial Chain to
Link The Cultural Points
Creating an Overall Urban Design FrameworkSuggested methods for creating a means of linking together all the different Haringey projects so that they are all under one Urban Design Framework.
Method 1. Produce a single linking document – a spreadsheet or database – that carries references for all the relevant, useful and current documents. With this will be a covering document to explain a basic planning process to be used by everyone: a basic set of procedures to follow when carrying out planning routines (assessment an implementation). All those involved in the planning processes, will made aware of this UDF document, and they will all be instructed to refer to it in carrying out urban design work. Urban Design Framework.
Method 2.Create and instigate a new job post: ‘Urban Design Liaison Manager’. All planning staff – inc. planning staff, designers, developers, and other contractors – should be aware of, and liaise with this central pivoting key personnel.
Next Step
1. Send out survey documents to landowners/stakeholders.
2. Collate received landowners survey information.3. Compare stakeholders aims with that of Haringey’s
proposed Urban Design Developments.4. Highlight any differences and seek to such differences.5. Consider any design development options.6. Produce a time schedule for the proposed projects.7. Implement Urban Design Development Framework,
beginning with proposed start dates for particular projects.
Alexandra Palace Initiation Project
Alison Minto
Project AimsHeritage Building Projects:To support and work alongside the Physical Regeneration team in the progression of the Projects
Alexandra Palace:To work with the team in developing the Brief and PID documents and to look into funding opportunities
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Heritage Building Projects
Activity• Memo to the Council Leader• Situation at final presentation
Remove these
Replace these
Myddleton Road N22
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Alexandra PalaceThe project will look to examine:
•Current issues that face the palace and the park•Options for the future use
•Options for managing existing resources
•To increase benefits for the local community economy•To make it self sustaining
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Ways forward
Close completely
Managed decline
Establish new vision and develop
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Current Provision and Facilities
Exhibition hall
Conference Facilities
Phoenix bar/ pub
Theatre – derelict
Ice rink
50% additional
Space
Currently unused
The Park:Playground
Pitch and puttCricket clubTwo CafesSkate park
Boating LakeDeer Enclosure
Benefited from £3.5m HLF funding
BBC tower and original recording
suites
Offices for the Trust
All under one roof
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
GovernanceHaringey Borough CouncilResponsible for keeping the Palace open under the 1900 Act
£ funding
TrusteesConsultant Committee
Statutory Advisory committee
Alexandra Palace and Park Charitable Trust
Alexandra Palace Trading Limited
The Community
Interest groups
Government
Commercial sector
The Media
Leaseholders
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
How to work together
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Project space
Haringey Borough Council
APTL
APPCT
Haringey Borough Council
APTL
APPCT
Project space
Visioning ExerciseAPTL say it should be:
Pioneering
Distinctively different
Great Host
Of the People
Brilliant Basics
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
What about:
Profitable
Distinctively good
Great
For the People
Brilliant
Or:
Iconic
Exciting
Future proof
Sustainable
Funding Opportunities
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Funding Opportunities
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Most likely sources to explore:
Heritage Lottery FundFor applications over £5m First-round applications: 30 September 2010possible £10m Application
Community Infrastructure LevyUse the planning gain system and set a Council wide standard charge for cultural facilities
Population growthHaringey’s population is projected to grow by 10.2 % population increase of 20000 up to 2026 and assume that this is in 75 % new homes. 10000 population increase£141 contribution per person£14,100,000 Total over the 15 year period£940,000 per year
Project Programme
APTL
Haringey BC
APTL
Build up?
Unknown?
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Conclusions and Next Steps
This is only just the beginning of this phase of the life of Alexandra Palace.
My suggestions:
� Complex organisational issues need resolving
� Speed progress up
� Establish Council project leadership and delivery team
� Make this an opportunity not a problem
� Take control and ownership
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Thank you
Working on this project has been both a pleasure and a complex puzzle
Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document
Draft Haringey Sustainable Design and Construction Guidance Document
Final Report 1 March
Obasemo OlumideMaria Tomalova
with a kind guidance of Sule Nisancioglu andi and Richard Truscott
The Output and Objectives
o Collect set of best existing guidance, including relevant National Policy (PPSs), Regional Policy (The London Plan, 4B.6 Sustainable Design and construction)
o Catalogue and compare in a matrix
o Copy relevant sections
o The Content of a Good Guide
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate
Change:
While there may be economic cost to stabilising climate change, delay in doing so would be dangerous and more costly.Haringey produces 968 ktpa of
CO2 emissions (49% are from dwellings, 33% non domestic and 18% from transport)
The key issues of GLA SDC Guidance:
� Re-use land and buildings� Designs make the most of natural systems� Reduce the impact of noise pollution flooding and micro-climate
effects� Conserve and enhance the natural environment (Biodiversity)� Promote sustainable waste behaviour, recycling schemes, CHP
schemes, pre-demolition audit� Application for strategic dev should include a statement of
sustainability� Adapting to Climate Change - flexible use, ’urban heat island effect’
Sustainability Statement
Tackling Climate Change
• Haringey Council signed the Nottingham Declaration in Dec.2006
• Haringey Council Carbon Reduction Scenarios• Sustainable Community Strategy
• Haringey Green Fair (June2007)• SPG the Greenest Borough Strategy
• Haringey’s Sustainable Procurement Policy and Strategy set out a systematic measured and continuous improvement approach
UDPCore Policies:UD1 Planning StatementsUD2 Sustainable Design and ConstructionUD3 General PrinciplesUD4 Quality DesignUD6 Mixed Use DevelopmentUD7 Waste StorageUD8 Pl Obligations
LDF- Core Strategy- an important role in reducing Haringey environmental impact
London Plan relevant policies:
4A.1 Tackling Climate Changes4A.2 Mitigating Climate Changes 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction4A.6 Decentralised Energy4A.7 Renewable Energy4A.11 Living Roofs4A.12 Flooding4A.18 Water and Sewerage Infrastructure4A.21 Waste Strategic Policy and Targets
The Content of a Good SDC Guide:
• Sustainability in general, sustainable design, climate change with its effects
• Why we need to change our attitude to the nature with striking examples of results of our activities
• The government’s targets for energy efficiency, water supply and waste
• Relevant policy and strategies with explanation (national, regional, local)
• Environmental assessment methods and their application
• Location, re-use of buildings or sites
• Sustainable materials in constructions
• Sustainable waste management
• Energy efficiency and renewable energy
Content continuation
• Water conservation and management, SUDS, flood risk strategy
• Nature conservation and biodiversity
• Designing out of pollution • Mobility and transport • Principles of social sustainability
• Sustainable design and construction checklist
• The benefits of good design and construction (community, occupants, developers)
Content continuation
• How much does sustainable design cost?
• Adapting to climate change
• Need for planning permission
• Aspects which should be taken into account in development proposal
• Case studies • Glossary
Any Comments? Thank you for your attention
North London Value Planning and Regeneration Benchmarking Programme
2009-2011
North London Main Land-use and Development Plan
UDP and LDF-CS similarity analysis
Alain Chiaradia, Yatwan Hui
Final Report 1 March 2010 - Draft 02
Project / Output & Objectives
• Composite UDP and LDF CS Proposals Map for North Londo n
• Similarity analysis of UDP and LDF CS policies in N orth London
Target = core boroughs: Barnet, Enfield, Haringey, Waltham ForestExtended target = fringe boroughs: Islington, Camde n, Hackney
North London Strategic Alliance
Executive Summary
• How similar UDP and LDF CS policies are?• UDP policies
• between 40% to 60% are similar WF, B, H, E • between 30% to 45% are unique E, H, B, WF
• LDF CS policies • CS are compact , one third of UDP (DMP & IDP not available yet)
• between 77% to 98% are similar E, WF, H, B• between 2% to 23% are unique B, H, WF, E
Executive Summary
• Why are UDP & LDF-CS are so similar when places are uni que?• Policy compliance
• National policy• Regional policy (London Plan)
• Ad hoc efficiency • Policy maker s make good re-use of what is already
available
• UDP as text, place shaping as interconnected• Policy redundancy
Progress / UDPs proposals map
Themes 43% completed
• Town centre network including local centre• Employment area boundaries• Key development sites• GLA opportunity areas and area of intensification (including schedule
of development type/quantum, AAP)• Conservation areas• Metropolitan Open Land• Key parks• Green belt• AONB/ecology• Arterial, transport infrastructures, bus stop, tube and train stations• Heat demand and supply
Progress / UDPs proposals map
Obtained: Haringey, Waltham Forest, HackneyPending: Barnet, Enfield, Islington, Camden
Progress / UDP + LDF Policies
• Initial Target (extracting, matching, rating, analysis) 100% completedHaringey, Barnet, Enfield, Waltham Forest
• Extended Target 50% completedCamden, Islington, Hackney
- extracting: 100%- matching, rating, analysis: 0%
Similaritiesv. differences
Similar e.g. Promote growth in
town centre
Uniquee.g. Additional policies,
Place specifice.g. Enfield Town
Detail specific
e.g. Housing targets
Methodology / UDP + LDF PoliciesCollecting, extracting, matching, coding
Methodology / UDP + LDF Policies
Unique policy
3 Boroughs with similar policy
2 Boroughs with similar policy
4 Boroughs with similar policy
0
1
3
3
2
Rating similarity, uniqueness
General findings / UDP PoliciesFocus by number of policy
1. open space2. transport3. TC & retail4. housing
2006 Haringey2007 Waltham Forest1994 Enfield2006 Barnet
Total policy number
Policy number By theme 4 3 2 1
General findings / UDP Policies
Total word count
Word count bypolicy theme
Focus by word count
1. open space2. transport3. TC & retail4. housing
4 3 2 1
2006 Haringey2007 Waltham Forest1994 Enfield2006 Barnet
Similarity findings / UDP Policies
196 11798150“missing” policy
unique policy
2 similar
3 similar
4 similar
2006 Haringey
2007 Waltham
Forest
1994Enfield
2006Barnet
17% 11% 33% 10%32% 19% 27% 17%
20% 16% 10% 14%
27% 44% 17% 40%
59% 46% 70% 40%Overall similarity = ++
** Does not include area specific policy section* One policy can be matched by several policies
Matched policies*
Total policy number (461)** 95 154 51 161
Similarity findings / UDP Policies by theme
%similarity
similarity % = ((similar to 3 + similar to 2 + similar to 1) / policy number by theme )) x 100
Does not include Enforcement | Implementation
2006 Haringey2007 Waltham Forest1994 Enfield2006 Barnet
Findings / LDF Policies
Haringey Waltham Forest Enfield Barnet
DateMay 2009 Jan 2010 Dec 2009 Nov 2009
Stage Preferred Options Preferred OptionsProposed
SubmissionDirection of Travel
Word Count
1322 3453 13286 3445
No of Core
Policies12 11 46 14
Findings / LDF Policies
Policy Theme Similarity 0 - 3
Haringey Waltham Forest
Enfield Barnet
Managing Growth 2 1 0 1 1Housing 3 1 1 1 1
Environment 3 1 1 1 1
Movement 2 1 1 0 1
Employment 3 1 1 1 1Town Centres 3 1 1 1 1
Design 2 1 1 1 0Conservation 3 1 1 1 1
Green Infrastructure 3 1 1 1 1Health and Well Being 2 1 1 0 1
Culture and Leisure 1 1 0 1 0Visitors and Tourism 0 0 0 1 0
Community Infrastructure
3 1 1 1 1
Regeneration 1 0 1 0 1Places 0 0 0 1 0
Findings / LDF Policies
Score % Policy Sub-theme Rating HAR WAL ENF BAR
24/51 47% Housing 3 1 1 1 1Supply 3 1 1 1 1Delivery 1 0 0 1 1Quality and choice 1 0 1 0 1Affordable housing 3 1 1 1 1Affordable housing contributions 0 0 0 1 0Working with external partners 0 0 0 1 0Social and intermediate homes 1 0 1 1 1Working with external partners 2 0 1 1 1Particular housing needs 2 0 1 1 1Family housing 2 1 1 1 0High quality dsign 1 0 1 1 0Lifetime homes 0 0 0 1 0Guidance and standards 0 0 0 1 0Housing density 2 0 1 1 1London Plan Density Matrix 1 0 0 1 1Gypsy and travellers 2 0 1 1 1
Findings / LDF Policies
Score Max Score
% Policy Rating HAR WAL ENF BAR
3 3 100% Managing Growth 2 1 0 1 124 51 47% Housing 3 1 1 1 126 51 51% Environment 3 1 1 1 1
30 60 50% Movement 2 1 1 0 1
20 33 61% Employment 3 1 1 1 126 48 54% Town Centres 3 1 1 1 122 48 46% Design 2 1 1 1 08 24 33% Conservation 3 1 1 1 118 39 46% Green Infrastructure 3 1 1 1 138 105 36% Health and Well Being 2 1 1 0 15 18 28% Culture and Leisure 1 1 0 1 00 3 0% Visitors and Tourism 0 0 0 1 014 30 47% Community Infrastructure 3 1 1 1 13 15 20% Regeneration 1 0 1 0 10 0 0% Places 0 0 0 1 0
Towards shared services – doing more with less– medium to long term
• Core policy team for sub-region, shared and better evidence base
• Policies bank (regional, national, international)
• Implementation | delivery bank (what work, why – de monstrated ROI)
• More focus on prevention, outcomes and monitoring – total place
• More place | people specific i.e. spatial plan ledgeo-market research pervasive in industry since 40 years, not so in LA
Next Steps / Suggestions
Towards shared services – doing more with less– easy win
• Sub region, systematic policy bank (london councils)
• Coordination template across sub-region (informal g roup + lead & owner)– vocabulary– wording style– policy classification– policy “missing”
• Take the big 5 to their own game, commission one st udy, reuse, reuse...
• Use of research LARCI and university collaboration + structured KT
• Use of small, experienced, innovative and caring co nsultancy
Next Steps / Suggestions
• Composite UDP and LDF Proposal Maps for North London
• Matrix analysis of key UDP and LDF policies in North London
• Benchmarking standard types of work and costs
• Evidence base for Bid Preparation to make it happens
• A different type of “Planning, Regeneration and Build ing Control Service for North London”
Next Steps / Outcomes & Outputs
Discussions /
“Policy needs to be a great deal more place specific, which is difficult as policy planners and DC planners tend to like generically applicable policy statements.
Building consensus will be key to boroughs working together, and forming joint-evidence as key part of that buy-in.”
Strategic Policy Planner LBTH - 2010
Thank you