Proxy Unblocker Journal

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Proposed Submission Core Strategy Consultation Statement Local Development Framework October 2010 Hammersmith and Fulham Council 1 OSED SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY CONSULTATION STATEMENT It identifies how bodies and persons were invited to make representations, Background In October 2005, the council consul comment, and after taking this into accordance with Regulation 25 of the “200 lished Generic Development Management Core Strategy consultation under Regulation 25 Bodies invited to make representations The council specifically consulted wit h the organisations, bodies and groups y and residents groups, businesses and individual residents. In addition, the c 2 How bodies were invited publication of the Core spection at LDF information points, an article and associated announcement announcement of the consultation pr ocess and availability of the Core three evening public discussion works public “drop in” sessions on a num Summary of the main issues raised om 133 individuals, organisations and statutory consultees, including the Government Office for London, individual points and issues were raised. The representations may be seen here was a report that summarised the matters raised at the public discussi on workshops. The overall response was he 133 consultees for the key spatial options for delivering the Council’s vi 3 concerned with proposed policy options fo r the regeneration areas, affordable hose topics/issues that received comments, lists the people and organisati ons that commented, summarises the key issues that were raised and provides a summary the council’s key How representations were taken into account The council carefully considered the r the council has considered the issues al consultees have also received The council considers that it has carried out comprehensive consultation exercises over the past few years whic 4 Bodies invited to make representations to the Core Strategy Options (Regulation 25) a) Consultees who responded to earlier LDF consultations Name/ Organisation Name/Organisation Dr Anthony Jelley Cemex Materials Uk Ltd Rowberry Close Tenants Association Fulham Society Auriol Kensington Rowing Club Theatres Trust London Climate Change Agency Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group Miss Meher Oliaji Imperial College Mr Jerome Stewart Octavia Housing and Care Notting Hill Housing British Waterways London Region Hammersmith & Fulham Liberal Democrats Environment Agency Unite Group Plc Goodman English Heritage-London Region Greater London Authority Bellway Homes North London Mr Stephen Claypole Brook Green Association Parkway Properties Ltd Westfield Shoppingtowns Ltd QPR 1st Supporters Trust St Martins Property Investments Ltd Crossrail Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment Ms Sheila Hancock Bishops Park Co-ordinating Group London oratory school West & Partners Mrs Victoria Timberlake Costco Wholesale UK Limited Mr. John Marshall NOMS - Ministry of Justice Mrs Adrienne Scott Mirviss Barton Finch Ltd Genesis Housing Group NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames MR Charles Phillips National Grid Property Ltd Mrs Mavis Smith Hammersmith & Fulham Friends of the Earth Joanna Brendon Natural England Thomas Pocklington Trust St James' Investments Ltd/Tesco Turley Associates Mrs Josephine Anne Lundberg Terrace Hill Developments Ltd Friends of Margravine Cemetery West London River group Land Securities Tamara Dragadze St George Central London Jean Moir Octagon House Unit Trust London & Newcastle Goldhawk Ltd Mr Andrew Slaughter MP Earls Court and Olympia Group Ltd Government Office for London Highways Agency Mr Greg Hands MP Walt Disney Company Limited White City land Owners rt of London Authority Hammersmith Community Trust Thames Water Property Services Workspace Group plc 5 b) Specific Consultation bodies (inc Name/ Organisation Greater London Authority English Nature English Heritage-London Region Natural England Coal Authority Highways Agency Environment Agency Government Office for London The Planning Inspectorate Hammersmith & Fulham Primary Care Trust Port & City Health Authority Port of London Authority Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea London Borough of Ealing London Borough of Brent London Borough of Hounslow London Borough of Wandsworth London Borough of Richmond Sport England Thames Water Property Services The British Council of Disabled People The Church Commissioners The Crown Estate Commissioners The Home Office The Housing Corporation The National Grid Company Plc The Sports Council (London Region) Transport for London Western Riverside Waste Authority 6 Name/ Organisation Name/Organisation Mr. Frank Colcord 726 Luncheon and Social Club (Age Concern) London Coastguards London Corinthian Sailing Club Abbey National London Corinthian Trust London Cyrenians Housing Abdale Road Residents Asso London Historic Parks & Garden Trust Accessibility Youth Project London Manufacturing Group Acorn Under 5'S Club London Nigerian Rugby Football Club London Oratory School Acton Housing Association London Remade Acton Training Centre London River Services Transport for London London Sevashram Sangha Ada Lewis Tenants And Residents Associat London Strategic Health Authority Adam Holmes Associates London Swimming Addison Boys' Club London United Busways Ltd Addison Forum London West Learning & Skills Council London West Learning Skills Council Addison Primary School London Wildlife Trust Addison Singers London Wildlife Trust H& F Group Addison Youth Club Lord Napier Place Residants Association Advance Advocacy & NCH Violence Community Education Lord Roberts Mews Management Ltd Advocacy Training & Progression (HAFAD) Advocacy Voice Lovell Partnerships Afghan Council UK LRT Pensioners West 6 Area African Caribbean Women's Develoment LT Property African Horn Environmental Protection Link (AHEPL) Lullaby Dreams Age Concern Lynne Evans Planning Al Muntada Al Islami Trust Lyric Theatre Albert & Friends Instant Circus Lytton Estate Tenants' & Residents' Association Albion Mews Tenants Association Malcolm Judd & Partners Alex Gordon Partnership Malcolm Primary School All Saints Church (Fulham) Malvern Court & Landor Walk All Saints Primary School r Court Sports & Social Club Alley Tenants & Residents Association Margra vine and Field Road Tenants and Residents Association Alliance Planning Maria's Health Enhancement Marks & Spencer Marks & Spencer Plc Marriage Care Anthony Bowhill & Associates Marshes Relief Foundation Anthony Goss Planning Masbro Residents Association APD London Save the Children Masbro Youth Club Applied Environmental Research Lt Community Association Arab Health Project Meadowbank Social Club Arab Women's Group Melcombe Primary School Argyll and Glyn Co-operative Limited Member European Parliament Arise Education Project Member European Parliament 7 Arthur Henderson/William Banfield Member European Parliament Member European Parliament Arup Planning Consultants Member European Parliament Asbridge/Ely Social Club Member European Parliament Ashcroft Square Tenants' And Residents' Association Member European Parliament Asian Elderly Group (Shanti Day Centre) Member European Parliament Asian Elderly Milap Club of H&F Ministry of Defence Asian Womens Welfare Association Mencap H&F Asian Youth Group Mentoring Project Askew Crescent/Clifton Ave Reside nts Association Mercury Records Mfantse Mpontu Kuw Askham Court Social Club Milap Weekly Askham Court Tenants Club Miles Coverdale Primary School Aspen Gardens Tenants' Association Association for the Conservation of Ministry for Justice Association of Eritrean Jeberti in UK Mitre Bridge Partnership Association of Residents in Sands End Mobile Operators Association Association of Spina Bifida & Hydrocephalus (SE Region) Mohyal Community Association (UK) London Association of Town Centre M anagement Monahan Blythen Architects Monday Carers' Group Astra (Hammersmith) Swimming Club Monday Club Monday Club (Mental Health) Mothercare Auriol Kensington Rowing Club Mount Carmel Senior Citizens Avonmore Gardens Residents Associ ation Mozambique Community - UK Avonmore Mansions Residents Associat Muscular Dystrophy Campaign Avonmore Primary School Museum of African Caribbean Regions & Randolph Beresford Trust Avonmore Youth Club Musgrave Cres cent Residents Association & Neighbourhood Watch Music House For Children B H Community UK Muslim Women's Association MVM Planning Ballymore Properties Ltd. N W London Asso ciation for Spina Bifida/Hydrocephalus Bank of Ireland Napier Court Residents Association Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Barclay Hall Christian Fellowship Barclay Hall Luncheon Club National Grid Barclay Hall Summer Project National Grid Barclay Hall Trust Barclay Road Residents Association Natural England Barclay Road Residents Association Barclay Road Social Club Navratyri Garba Barclays Bank Naz Project (London) Barclays Bank Plc Barker Parry Town Planning Neighbourhood Watch Barn Elms Rowing Club Barons Court Project Barons Keep Forum Barons Keep Tenants Association Barratt Homes Ltd (London Division) New Covent Garden Soup Co. Ltd Barton Willmore New Economics Foundation New Hurlingham Court Limited 8 Barton Wilmore Partnership New Kings Primary School Barton's Court Residents' Association w Kings Road West Residents Association Bath Court Social Club New Testament Church of God Bayonne Nursery Out of School Club NKANU Development & Cultural Association Normand Park Bowling Club Normand Park Primary School Bellhouse Joseph North Fulham NDC Bellway Urban Renewal Brook Business Centre North Sherbrooke Residents Association Beneficial Outreach Centre Northend Pensioners Club Northend Road Traders Association Notting Dale Urban Studies Centre ub Notting Hill Housing Trust Bentworth Primary Scho Housing Notting Hill Housing Group Notting Hill Housing Trust Bexley Council Nottingdale Technology Centre Hotel Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan - In Nubian Life Octavia Hill Housing Trust Octavia Housing & Care Bishop Park & Winnington Bowls Club Office for Government Commerce Old Contem ptibles Association (Hammersmith Branch) Old Oak Centre Old Oak Tenant s' And Residents' Association Black British Heritage Old Oak Housing Association Black Carers Self-Help Group (Mental Health) Old Oak Over 50s & Bingo Group Black Families Holiday Alli Old Oak Over 60s Club Blythe Neighbourhood Council Old Oak Primary School Old Oak Youth Club Body & soul Charity Older Women's Group Boist Waters Cohen Partnership Oldfield King Planning Consultants Boots The Chemist Ltd Olympia Exhibition Centre Bourne With It Angels One World Book Bovis Urban Renewal Ltd Bovis House Brackenbury Primary School Original Club Brackenbury Resident s Association Orisun Brackenbury School Fundraising Committee Osborne Richardson Brading Terrace Residents Associatio Osram Court Tenants Association Bradmore Kids Workshop Bramley Housing Co-op Our Lady of Dolours Brazilian Contemporary Arts Our Lady of Fatima Breakaway Family Holiday Project Out on Thursday Brent Active Citizen Project Outside Chance Brent Business Ventre Ltd Outside Edge Theatre Company Bridging Arts Over 2 Youth Brightwells and Lowlands Tenants And Residents Association Over 50s Club Britannia Road Residents Associatio Over 60s Group (Holy Trinity) British Grove Group Over Sixties Group 9 as Chinese Education Centre British Trust for Conservation Vol unteers P & O Earls Court/Olympia Broadway Pakistani International Airlines Broadway Centre Project Palace Adventure Playground Broadway Club Palliser Court Residents Association Broadway Focus Group Palliser Court Residents Association Parents & St Broadway Malyan Landscape Ltd Parents Active Broadway Shopping Centre Parez & Co Broadway Squash and Fitness Centre Park Court Sheltered Scheme Broadway Supported Housing Trust Park Mansions Tenants Association Brompton Park Residents Association Park Royal Partnership Partnership Performance & Support Unit Parsons Green Residents Association Brook Green Carer & Toddlers Group Brook Green Residents Associ Partnership Brook Green South Residents Associ Patel Taylor Architects Broxholme House Tenants and Residents As sociation Paul Brookes Associates Brunswick Club Paul Dickenson and Associates BT Telecommunications Service PDD Limited Bullen Consultants Peabody Trust Peacock Burleigh College Pearscroft Court Tenants Association Burlington Danes School Pensioners Forum Buro Happold Pepperpot Day Centre Bush Theatre (Alternative Theatre Company) Business Enterprise Centre Peabody Estate Tenants Association Business Enterprise Scheme Business Link London Central Business Trust Busy Bees - Bishop Creighton Hous Philboro Pensioners Social Club Philpot Square Tenants Association Phoenix High School CACI Information Services Phoenix Lodge Residents Limited CALM (Confidential and Local Mediation) Phoenix Neighbourhood Renewal Programme Cambridge School Pizza Hut Cambridge School Before School Club Plane Tree Court Social Club Canalside Activity Centre Planning Aid for London Canalside Canoe Club Planning Perspectives Canberra Primary School Peabody Estate Tenants Association Planning Potential Playwright Productions Cara Irish Housing Association Polish Catholic Mission Care and Repair Carers Group North Polish Social & Cultural Centre Carers Group South Polygram UK Caring for Carers Association Pope John Primary School CARMRA Clem Attlee Residents' Association Positively Women Caroline Estate Tenants Association POSK Polish Social & Cultural Castle Centre Primark Catalyst Housing Group Princes Royal Trust Cathnor Park Area Action Group ects in Partnership 10 Cedar Lodge Sheltered Housing PRP Architects Public Health Training LodoH Central Gurduara (Khalsajatha) Sikh Temple Qantas Airways Ltd Central London Dial-A-Ride Centre for Armenian Information & Advice (CAIA) Queen Caroline Tenants and Residents Association Centre for Environmental Technology Queens Club Gardens Ltd Centre for Filipinos Queen's Club Gardens Residents Association Centrepoint Housing Team Queens Manor Primary School CFBT Careers Service Queens Mansions Leaseholders Assocn. CgMs Consulting Queens Park Rangers Queens Park Rangers Over 60's Club School ChangeMentalHealth Association for Deaf People) Rail Link Engineering Chapman Warren Raleigh International Charecroft Estate Tenants And Residents Association Rampage Elderly Holiday Project Charing Cross Sports Club Randolph Beresford Early Excellence Centre Charles Russell Baldocks Randolph Beresford Early Years Centre Charlick & Nicholson Architects Rank Leisure Ltd Chelsea & Fulham Labour Party Rapleys Chelsea Football Club Rapleys Chelsea Harbour Marina Ravenscourt Park Bowls Club Chelsea Harbour Residents Association Ravenscourt Theatre School Chelsea United Youth Club Chelsfield Plc Reach Africa Chiswick Seventh Day Adventis t Church Real Options Ltd. Chris Blandford Associates Realgrun Landshaftarchitekten Christ Church Reflections Performing Arts Christian Charisma fellowship Refugee Advice & Support Centre Church of God Worldwide Mission Refugee Council Refugee Housing Association Refugee Placements Citibank International plc Refugee Wo men & Children's Welfare Association (RWCWA) City Mission Neighbourhood Nursery Remarkable Pencils Ltd CIWEM Consulting Renewable Power Association Residents Assoc for Sands End North Cleverly Estates Tenants Associat ion Richard Rodgers Partnership Clifton Avenue Residents Associat ion Richard Rogers Partnership Cluttons Development Rights of Women Coca-Cola Great Britain & Ireland River Gardens Amenity Ltd Colbin and Mogridge River Gardens Residents Association Colebrooke Legal Advice and Referral Centre River House Project Colebrooke Senior Citizens & Over 50's Club Colebrooke Social Cultural & Welfare Association (CSCWA) Colin Buchanan & Partners River House Trust College Park Residents Association (Over 60's) College Park Youth Club Colliers CRE Comer Homes Rivermead Court Limited Commercial & Residential Plc Riverside Artists Communities and Local Government Riverside Community Church 11 de Gardens Sheltered Housing Scheme Riverside Gardens Tenants and Residents Association Community and Voluntary Sector Association (CaVSA) Community Chest Riverside Trust Ltd Community Culture Music Enterprise bert Owen House Tenants Association Community Development Foundation Robert Owen Pensioners Group Community Education Forum bert Turley Associates Community Housing and Therapy Rockley Court Managemnt Ltd Community Links Project Roger Tym & Partners Community Mental Health Trust Rolfe Judd Planning Ltd Roman Catholic Deanary of H&F Computer Cab plc Confederation of Indian Organisation ey Court Residents & Tenants Association Connections Romulus Construction Connections Communications Centre Rosebank Residents Association Conrad International Hotel London Rosewood Over 60s Social Club ROTALEC - Life Education Centres Conservative Group Rothermel Thomas Considerate Constructors Scheme Royal Association for the Deaf Construction Confederation Construction Industry Council Royal British Legion Fulham Women's Section Royal Mail Legal Services (Property Law) Royal Mail Property Holdings Construction Products Association Consultant Planning Group Royal United Kingdom Beneficient Association (RUKBA) Consumer Forum Royal Yachting Association Cook and Eat Club Consultants Council for Environment Education RPS Planning Council for Mortgage Lenders Council of African & Afro-Caribbean Churches Rugby House Countryside in Partnership plc Rugby Mansions Ltd Countryside Properties Sacred Heart High School Crabtree Estate Residents Association Sacred Heart J M Primary School Craford Fabrics Craven Cottage (Senior Citizens) Social Club Safeway Food Stores Ltd Crisp Road Residents Association Safeway Food Stores Ltd Sainsbury's Plc Cruising Royal Yachting Amateur Rowing Association Sainsbury's plc Head Office Cunnane Town Planning Sands End Adventure Project Cushman & Wakefield Sands End Playhouse Cushman &Wakefield Healey and Baker Sands End Pre-School Playgroup Sands End Village Festival Cycick (Cycle Community Workshop) Saturday School Cyclists Touring Club Save The Children Fund (Travellers Unit) Daisy Trust David Lock Associates Deaf Access Trust SBCA Senior Citizens Club Social Section Department for Education & Sk Scott Brownrigg & Turner Department for Transport Airports Department for Work and Pensions Scott Wilson Resource Consultants Department of Trade and Industry Scribes UK Derek Horne & Associates Seagram Distilleries Plc 12 Derek Lovejoy Partnership Development of African Descendence Seasons for Growth Development Planning Partnership Senior Citizens Creative Arts & Lunch Club Devonport Road Residents Associatio n Sense (UK Deafblind Charity) Dialogue Communicating Planning Diligence Advice Projects (DAP) Disabled Christian's Fe llowship Hammersmith Disabled Living Foundation Diverse Productions Ltd Shepherd Robson DocHouse Shepherds Bush Baptist Church Domestic Violence Intervention Project (DVIP) Shepherds Bush Bar Charter Dominion Housing Group Shepherds Bush Community Association Dorcas Estate Tenants & Residents Assocn Shepherds Bush Empire Shepherds Bush Families Project DPSD Consulting Group Shepherds Bush Healthy Living Centre Dr Edwards & Bishop Kings Fulham Charity Shepherds Bush Housing Association Drivers Jonas Ducane Housing Association Ltd rds Bush Islamic Cultural Centre Dudley UK Ltd Shepherds Bush Library E H & F Mental Health NHS Trust Eagle Eyes Association for Afgan Displaced Youth Shepherds Bush Mosque & Muslim Cultural Centre Ealing Family Housing Association Shepherds Bush Outreach Project Ealing Hammersmith & Hounslow Health Org Shepherds Bush Place Residents Association Ealing Primary Care Trust Shepherds Bush Residents Assocn. Earls Court and Olympia Group Ltd rds Bush Road Methodist Church East Acton Woodcraft Folk Shepherds Bush Rotary Club East African Community Association Shepherd s Bush Social & Welfare Credit Union Ltd East European Advice Centre Shire Consulting East Sector Working Group Shurgard Storage Centres UK Ltd Ebony Sistren Housing Association ckle Cell & Thalassaemis Support Group Ecole Francaise De Londres Eco-logic Silverlink Train Services Sinclair Road Residents Association (SRRA) rtnership Educational Development School Sir John Lillie Primary School Edward Woods Community Centre Sir Oswald Stoll Mansions Residents Association Edward Woods Tenants' And Re sidents' Association SIROAID Edward Woods Youth Club Sisterhood & Brotherhood Edwards Woods ASC Small Jobs Scheme Eel Brook Commoners Somali Caring & Education Association Somali Children's Advocacy EMI Records (UK) Somali Community Support Centre Emlyn Gardens Tenants And Residents Associ ation Somali Research Foundation/Centre Emlyn Leisure Gardens Association Somali Women Support & Development Group Somalian Community Development Organisation Empress Place Action Group SOMCENTRE (Somali Refugee Learning & Support Empty Space Theatre Company Somer Court Social Club Energy Saving Trust Somer Court Tenants Assocn. English Partnerships Sons of the Thames Rowing Club English Tourism Board South Park Housebound Club English Welsh Scottish Railway 13 Entec UK Ltd Splendid Hotel group Springvale Terrace Ten ants' And Residents' Association Eric Parry Architects dan's East Acton RC Church Eritrean Community Association Eritrean Social Community St Alban's & St Augustine's Church St Andrew Bobola's Polish Church St Andrew's Church European Land Development St Augustine's Catholic Church Evergreen Club St Augustine's Primary School Evergreen Club (The) St Christophers (Hostels for Young Single Homeless) Ex-Carers Group (H&F) ristophers Fellowship Eynham Residents Association St Christopher's Fellowship Fair on the Green Family Friends Family Housing Association St Dionis Church Family Service Group St George Community Trust Farm Lane Social Club St George plc Faroe Road Residents Association St George plc Fatima Youth & Community Association St James Homes Ltd Federation of Small Businesses St John's St Johns & St James Church Field Road Tenants and Residents Association St Johns Ambulance Brigade FIRM (Fun In Recovery Management) St Johns CE Walham Green Primary School First Base Enterprise Centre St Katherine's First Great Western Trains St Katherine's Church First Plus Planning St Katherines Youth & Community Centre Firsthand Ltd Firstplan St Lukes Church Flora Gardens Primary School St Marys Friendly Group Flora Gardens Tenants' Association St Mary's Friendly Group Focus Central London St Mary's Primary School Forward Project St Matthews Church Foster and Partners St Matthew's Church Foundations UK St Matthew's church Friends and Neighbours St Michael & St George Church Friends of Bishops Park St Michaels Lunch Club Friends of Chelsea Studios St Michael's Music Project Friends of Fulham Palace St Mungo Community Housing Association Friends of Hammersmith Hospital St Mungo Community Trust Friends of Holy Innocents (The) St Mungos Association Friends of Kenmont Primary School St Paul's Church Hammersmith St Paul's Primary School Friends of West London Dance FSU North Fulham Fuel Oils (London) Ltd Fulham & Hammersmith Historic So Fulham Archaeological Rescue Group Fulham Baptist Church St Saviour's Centre Fulham Black Community Association St Saviour's Wendell Pk St Saviours with St Mary's 14 Fulham Conservative Club St Stephen's & St Thomas' Fulham Court Community Group St Stephen's & St Thomas' Church Fulham Court Tenants and Residents Associ St Stephens CE Primary School Fulham Cross Secondary School St Stephen's with St Thomas Social Club Fulham Football Club St Thomas of Canterbury Fulham Football Club Ltd St Thomas of Canterbury Catholic Primary School Fulham Football in the Community St. George West London LTD Fulham Good Neighbour Service St. Pauls Court Estate (Management Com) Fulham Group South for Carers Stadium Forum Fulham Guides & Brownies Stamford Brook Residents Association Fulham Horticultural Society Stamford Court Residents Association Fulham Job Centre Standard Life Assurance Properties Fulham Legal Advice Centre Standing Together Against Domestic Violence Fulham Palace Meadows Allotment Association Standing Together Against Domestic Violence Fulham Palace Trust - Museum of Fulham Palace Star Road Scheme (Vereker/Orchard/Cheesemans) Fulham Primary Play Centre Staying Put Services (Furnish) Fulham Primary School Stenning Consultancy Fulham Rotary Club Stewart Ross Associates Fulham Seventh-day Adventist Church Stocken Tenants Action Group Fulham Society Stonham Housing Association Fulham Society Strategy Directorate GLA Fulham Somali Women's Association Substance Misuse Day Care & After Care Programme Fulham Spiritualist Church Sulgrave Club Fulham Supporters Trust Gardens Residents Association Fulham Swimming Club Sulivan Court Tenants' And Residents' Association Fulham Symphony Orchestra Sulivan Estate Youth Club Fulham United Reform Church Sulivan Primary School Fulham United Reformed Church Sundial Arts Fuller Smith and Turner plc Sustainable Development Programmes Sustainable Development Programmes Furnish / Staying Put Community Store Swanbank Court Social Club G L Hearne Planning Tanner T A Centre site G M Dennis & Partners TAPE (Tenants Association Peabody Estate) Gam-anon (Gamblers Anonymous) Tasso Baptist Church Gapps Properties Ltd Taxi Pata Pata African Arts Gateway Clubs (Mencap) Taylor Woodrow Prop Co Ltd Gateway Technology Centre Terra Firma Consultancy General Electric International Inc Generator X Gensler Gerald Eve Ghanaian Community Association H&F Gibbs Green School Thames Explorer Trust Education Group Gibbs Green Tenants' & Residents' Association Thamesbank Gillespies The Asian Health Agency The Barton Willm GL Hearn The Beacon Global to Local Ltd The Bell Cornwell Partnership GMA Planning The BOC Foundation The Christian Community Church GNC Folk Art Group The Coda Centre 15 The Commission for Racial Equality Godolphin and Latymer Girls School The Conservation Practice Goldcrest Homes The Consumers Association The Diocese of London Good Neighbours Project The Education Business Section LBHF The Food Standards Agency Goodman The Football Foundation The Forestry Commission Grampian Residents Associati The Freedom Brewing Company The Georgian Group Grandparents Association The Good Shepherd RC Primary School Greater Hammersmith Business Improvement District The Green Stationery Company Greater London Enterprise The Greengrocer Greek Cypriot Association The Hurlingham Club Greek Orthodox Church of St Nicholas The Hurlingham Club Greenside Childrens Trust The Lawn Tennis Association Greenside Primary School The Local Futures Group Greenside Residents Action Group The Mayhew Animal Home Greenside Road Residents Association The National Energy Foundation Greggs Plc The Piperian Residents Association Grenada & Caribbean Welfare Association The Planning Bureau Grenfell Creche The Princes Trust Groundwork West London The Prince's Trust Grove Good Neighbourhoods Project The Ramblers' Association Grove Housing Co-op Grove Neighbourhood Centre he Real Nappy Association Grove Toddlers The Redeem Evangelical Mission Fulham GVA Grimley The SQW BBP Partnership The Urban Partnership H & F Pedestrians Association The Vince Hines Foundation H & F Pre School Learning Alliance The William Morris Academy H&F Action on Disability (H AFAD) DPSS Theodore Goddard H&F and Wandsworth Local Group of Ramblers Association THI Developments Ltd Training Enterprise Education Directorate H&F BME Network Third Age Foundation H&F BME Network Threshold Advice Centre Thames Estuary Partnership H&F Carers Centre Threshold Housing & Support H&F Citizens Advice Bureau Threshold Housing Advice H&F Community Law Centre Threshold Tenant Trust H&F Community Transport Project Tibbalds Planning TOPS Estates H&F Gun Crime Community Town Planning Consultancy H&F Irish Pensioners Group Townmead Tenants & Residents Association H&F Mentoring Project Townmead Youth Club H&F Mind Central H&F Mind Cityfix Trafalgar House Group Premises Ltd H&F Pensioners Club Training for Life H&F People First Tribal MJP H&F Play Association Trinity Free Church H&F Pre-School Learning Alliance Tues Tigers & Wednesday Lions H&F Primary Care Group Tuesday Bingo Club H&F Primary Care Trust Tuke Manton Architects LLP 16 H&F Refugee Forum Turley Associates H&F Rugby Football Club Turning Point (Druglink) H&F Twynholm Tenants and Residents Association Twynholme Baptist Church H&F Sheltered Housing U Can Do It H&F Sickle Cell Support Group H&F Technology Training Union Railways North Limited H&F Turkish Association Union Railways Property H&F Urban Studies Centre United Friendly Assurance H&F Victim Support Scheme United International Pictures H&F Volunteer Centre United Reform Church 50+ Social Club HAFAD 1st Chance Project Universal Island Records HAFFTRA Universal Music Halcrow Fox Upper Room Halford Residents Association Urban & Economic Development Urban and Infrastructure Projects Group Hamilton Associates Urban Initiatives Hammersmith & Fulham Friends of the Earth Hammersmith & Fulham Local Agenda 21 Forum Vanessa Nursery School Hammersmith & Fulham London Cycling Campaign Vanston Place Summer Project Vanston Place Tenants Association Hammersmith & Fulham Skills Centre Hammersmith & Fulham Voluntary Development Hammersmith & West London College Verulam House Residents' Association Hammersmith and Fulham Cyclists Village Hall Senior Citizens Club Hammersmith Apollo Virgin Cinemas Ltd Hammersmith Bengali Association Virtual Engine (The) Hammersmith Christian Fellowship Voluntary Sector Resource Agency H&F Hammersmith Christian Fellowship Volunteer Reading Help Hammersmith Community Garden Association Volunteers Sewing Group Hammersmith Conservative Association W S Atkins Hammersmith Embankment Residents Association W14 Housing Co-op Wakelan Associates Waldemar Avenue Mansions Tenants Association Walham Gr een Court Residents' Tenants' Association Wandon Road Residents Association Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust Voluntary Services Office Wardo Avenue Residents Assoc. Hammersmith Hospitals Trust Warner Bros Hammersmith Job Centre Waste Paper Products Ltd Hammersmith Parish Church Waste Watch Hammersmith Penguin Swimming Club Waterhouse Close Sheltered Housing Hammersmith Police Watermeadow Court Tenants and Residents Association Hammersmith Rotary Club Ways into Work Hammersmith Salvation Army Weatherall Green Smith Hammersmith United Charities Wednesday Womens Writers Group Hammersmith Womens Aid Wendell Park Playgroup Hammersmith Womens Aid Outreach Pr oject Wendell Park Primary School Hammersmith Woodcraft Folk Wentworth Social Club Hanover Court Residents Association West & Happy Bunnies West 12 Housing Co-op 17 Happy Times Nurseries & Childcare Ltd West End Baptist Church rs urt Residents Assoc Harrison Housing West Kensington Residents Association Harrow Refugee Forum West Kensington Tenants Association Harrow Youth & Community Club Harwood Mews Residents Association West London Bangladesh Welfare Association Haven Project West London Business Haven Trust West London Centre for Counselling West London Community Services Foundation Health Enterprise Partnership (HEP) West London Family Church Hearing Concerns West London Group National Schizophrenia Fellowship Heathermount School West London Health Promotion Agency Heathrow Express West London Muslim Women & Children Heavyduty Electrical Systems st London Real Nappy Campaign Helical Bar plc West London River Group Henry Compton Secondary School West London Studios Management Ltd Herbert Court Tenants Association West London Tinnitus Group Hever Estate Tenants Association Westcroft Square Residents Association Western Kurdistan Association Hilary Close Residents Association Westfields His People Christian Church Westminster City Council Westmoreland Properties Ltd Hives Partnership Planning Westside Housing Westway Childcar e Project (formally H&F Travellers) Holy Cross Primary School Holy Ghost & St Stephen WH Smith - Stationers Holy Ghost & St Stephen's Church Holy Innocents Adventure Playground Support White City Clock Club White City Music Home Builders Federation White City Residents' Association Homeline White City Youth Project Home-Start White Light (Electrics) Ltd Hope4all Whiteholt Community Association nants And Resid Hounslow Refugee Forum Wimpey Homes Holding Ltd Hueston Antiques Women's Housing Trust Hungarian Language School Women's Ink Hungarigan Reformed Church in the UK Women's Pioneer Housing Hurlingham & Chelsea School Wood Frampton Hurlingham & Chelsea Secondary School Wood Lane School Hurlingham Club Wood Lane Tenants Association Hurlingham Court Limited Wood Sanders & Co Ltd Hurlingham District Residents Association Woodmans Mews Tenants' And Residents' Association Hurlingham Mansions Residents As sociation Woodstock Housing Trust Hurlingham Park Bowls Club Hyder Consulting Ltd Women's National Commission Ian Ritchie Architects Wormholt Park Primary School Wormholt Seniors Club iceni projects Wormholt Estate Tenants & Residents Association Iceni Projects Ltd Wormwood Scrubs Pony Centre Imperial Wharf (East) Residents Association 18 Impex (Glassware) Ltd WSP Environmental Independent Age Yarrow Housing Indigo Planning Yonnex UK Ltd Young Blood Theatre Company Industry Council for Packaging & The Environm Youth Development Summer Camp Project Youth Link Intervention Project Instant Muscle Zed-Interaid UK Intermedia Mattimus Georgious Mrs Angela Henderson Iranian Association Iranian Association Arts & Sports Ms Maureen Sheehan Iraqi Community Association Mr Nigel Hensman Irish Charitable Trust Ms Niki Van Oosten Isla Hispana Mr Richard Edwards Islamic Cultural Centre Mrs alison power Islamic Cultural Centre & Mosque (Shep herds Bush) Mr Griffith Vaughan-Williams Mr Bruce Marquart Jack Tizard School Mr. John Marshall James Laurance Group Ms Imo Sewell Risley James Lee Nursery School Ms Dianne Murray Jehovah's Witnesses Hammersmith & Fulham Miss Rosemary Pettit Jepson House Tenants' And Residents' Association Miss Zoe Chick Joanne's 50 Plus Group Terry Foulsham Jobcentre Plus Jobreach H&F Miss Emma Osbaldeston Nussey John Knight Lodge Residents Group Jean Moir John Sharkey & Co Ms Sophie Burrell Jones Lang LaSalle Jones Lang LeSalle Mrs Francois Jones Long LeSalle Ltd Mr Jonathan Spencer Justwright Ms Renee Medney Kelmscott Gardens Tenants' And Residents' Association Ms Claire Walsh Kenmont Primary School Mrs Donelan Kensington Hall Gardens Residents Assoc Dr Tim Leung Kensington Hilton Hotel Mr Simon Wainwright Kensington Hotel Ms Lindsay Easton Kensington Housing Trust Mrs P Fahey Mr Prince ce Playground Mrs Joan de Salis Kim Wilkie and Associates Ms Susan Raven King Edward Mansions Residents & Tenants Mrs Judith Drew King Henry's Reach Residents Association Mrs Rita Scott King Sturge LLP Kingleigh Folkard & Hayward Ms Jane Sullivan Kingsland Estates Ltd Kingsley House Residents Association Mrs Mills Kingswood/Munster/Wyfold Residents & T.A Mr M Jebons Kinnoul/Musard/Humbolt Residents Assoc Mrs M Newman Kurdish Association (for Refugees) Mr Tom Flynn L Cornwall Partnership Mr Adam Ridley 19 Laing Homes Thames Valley Ms Ellen Lamparter Lakes Food Euro Limited Mr Jack Kee Lakeside Road Area Association Ms Sharon Beecham Lakeside Road Area Tenants Association Shepherds Bush Tenants group Mrs C Mark Lambert Smith Hampton (on behalf of NOMS/ HM Prison Service) Mr Tom Longrigg Lancaster Court Tenants' Association Mr C H Cheung Lancaster Court Youth Club Ms Susan Lahusen Landmark Information Group Ltd Landuse Consultants Mr L C Johnson Langford Play Centre J De La Mare Langford primary School Mr Marcus Martindale Larmenier Infants School Eoin Patterson Last Chance Youth Club Latham Architects Mrs H MacIntosh Latin American Cultural Asso Mr C Noonan Latymer Christian Centre Ms Ann Kutek Latymer Upper School Miss P Hurst Lavazza Coffee (UK) Ltd Lewis & Tucker Lawn Tennis Association Mr S Wardell LBHF DSD DSO2 Civic Catering Mr Michael Wale JP LCH Shepherds House Ms Shirley Ali Khan Leisure Club Ms Belinda Carle Lena Gardens Primary School Mr Mark Billington Leopard Lounge Ms Penelope Harrison Ms Helen Lunn Ms Jeannie Ferguson Lewis Hickey Mr David Whitehouse de League Mrs Habell ation Lime Grove Residents Associ Mr Richard Thompson Linacre Court Tenants Residents Association Mr Michael Thorncroft Link Graphix Lisgar Estate Southern Housing Group Mr Douglas Gee Mr J Lawrence Llewelyn Davies Mrs Alison Power Lloyds Bank plc Ms Kate Poole Mrs E Moulson London & Newcastle Goldhawk Ltd London 21 Sustainable Network London Bubble Theatre Company Mr Andreas Lang London Buddhist Vihara Barton Hous e Tenants Residents Association London Campaigns Co-ordinator London Borough of Hillingdon Brightwells and Lowlands Tenants And Residents Association Becklow Gardens Tenants Association Carnwath Road Tenants and Residents Associat ion Samuel Lewis Trust Residents Action Group Charcroft Court Tenants & Residents Association Shepherds Bush Tenants Committee Charecroft Estate Tenants And Residents Association Da Palma Court Tenants' Association H&F Non estate properties H&F Non estate properties H&F Non estate properties 20 Businesses and residents within the boundaries of the five identified in the Core Strategy Options. 21 Dear … 22 b) Dear 23 24 Dear …. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ppendix E. Core Strategy: Counc received to Core Strategy Options June-July 2009 (Regulation 25) xplanatory Note his document forms part of the consultation statement prepared in accordance with he document follows the structure of the Core Strategy Options document that was the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009. It provides a summary of the main issues raised in representations received under Regulation 25 and outlines how these issues were addressed in the Core Strategy. Full copies of the representations may be seen on the council’s published in June 2009. It provides summaries of the topics/issues that received comments, lists the people and organisations that commented, summarises the key November 2010. . . Hammersmith and Fulham Today page 36 2. Issues, Opportunities and Constraints page 37 3. Spatial Vision page 38 4. Strategic Objectives page 40 5. Key Spatial Options for Delivering the Council’s Vision page 41 6. Options for each Regeneration Area page 50 7. Borough Wide Strategic Policies page 66 8. Delivery and Implementation of the Core Strategy page 87 9. Appendices page 90 10. List 1. Bodies and others who commented on the page 93 Regulation 25 Core Strategy Options document 35 . HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM TODAY his section of the Options document provided a brief summary of key facts about rganisations that commented Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group. epresentations on this section were mainly in the form of observations, with suggestions for additional information to be included. The Disability Forum commented on the lack of information about disabled people. omments noted. ction arising from representations ection on “Hammersmith and Fulham Today” has been updated and revised. It is now titled “Hammersmith and Fulham: The Place, the area, the people, the economy”. 36 2. ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The borough faces a number of challenges that relate to its inner London location and its particular physical, social and environmental make-up. These were outlined in this section along with the opportunities and constraints to tackling them. Organisations that commented General summary of representations Representations concerned with issues, opportunities and constraints in the borough were often developed further by organisations in comments on proposed regeneration areas, borough wide strategic and other policy options. In particular Although no additional significant new matters were raised in the representations, The council has reviewed the section on issues, options and constraints and included In respect of the Thames Tunnel, the council understands that Thames Water is continuing to consult with relevant authorities about the optimum route of the tunnel and the process for selecting works sites. It is understood that final decisions on the exact locations have not been made and that public consultation on the preferred route and construction sites will start in September 2010 The council therefore consider that whilst it is appropriate to acknowledge that Thames Water have aspirations to provide a Thames Tideway Sewer Tunnel which will prevent sewerage infrastructure in the Core Strategy. Section on “issues, opportunities and constraints” has been updated and revised where appropriate. It is now titled “Challenges”. See also Core Strategy section on Infrastructure. 37 The Council’s Spatial Vision was set out in section 5 of the Core Strategy Options and sought: Increased provision of housing to reduce deprivation and polarisation and will have secured more stable and balanced communities; Delivered the physical, social and economic regeneration of a number of identified areas and housing estates and their integration with the rest of the borough and achieved decent neighbourhoods; Improved quality of life for all residents; and Mitigation of the impacts of climate change. Organisations that commented Liberal Democrats; Mrs Meher Oliaji; Grainger and Helical Bar; The University of the Arts London; Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & Spencer; Sainsburys and Helical Bar; NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit; Environment Agency; Thames Wharf Ltd; Mr Andrew Slaughter; Government Office for London; Imperial College; Goodman; British Waterways; Hammersmith & Fulham Ms Shirley Cupit; Ms Maxine Bayliss; Environment Agency; John Lewis Partnership; Hammersmith & Fulham Friends of General summary of representations Representations provided both support and objections for the council’s vision. Elements of the vision that received most comment were concerned with housing, with residents and local organisations concerned about promotion of home ownership and estate renewal. Comment was made that existing estates, such as West Kensington, were “decent neighbourhoods” and that it was wrong to suggest otherwise. Private developers on the other hand supported the aspirational objectives of the council, but considered that residential development need not be low to medium rise – it could be high rise if designed well. The Earls Court and Olympia Support was forthcoming for creating a cleaner, greener borough. Other representations suggested further topics that make a decent neighbourhood, such as a sense of place and step free walking routes with level pavements. GoL wanted to see where, when and how development would take place in the 38 In respect of the overall vision for the borough, the council consider that in general the level of support outweighed objection. The main area of interest, which was also the subject of representations elsewhere in the Options document, was the council’s objective to create decent and aspirational neighbourhoods. However, the council Turning to estate renewal, the council has a long history of estate regeneration and this is a continuing long term commitment. The identification of specific estates within the Core Strategy is considered to be in the interest of good and transparent planning. As the Options document pointed out, the council will achieve a mix of housing types and sizes that will ensure that no one tenure predominates in a neighbourhood. Aforementioned PPS 1 states that planning authorities should: “Ensure the provision of sufficient, good quality, new homes (including an appropriate mix of housing and In respect of the objections seeking revision to the principle of low or medium rise development being an integral part of a decent neighbourhood, the council considers that this is unnecessary. Not only have areas of the borough been identified where tall buildings may be appropriate, but it is always open to a developer to put forward a proposal for a tall building and to submit supporting justification which the council will consider. The council’s wording is “predominantly low to medium rise” which does preclude tall buildings where appropriate. Further guidance will be provided in regeneration area planning frameworks. 2. Redrafted decent neighbourhoods concept to clarify meaning 3. Fine tuned definition of “what makes a decent neighbourhood” 39 Organisations that commented Liberal Democrats; Theatres Trust; Grainger and Helical Bar; The University of the Arts; Ms Shirley Cupit; Barratt Homes Ltd; Sainsburys and Helical Bar; NHS London ent Agency; St James’ Investments Ltd/Tesco; Imperial College; Goodman; British Waterways; English Heritage; Her Majesty’s court Service; HAFAD and Disability Forum; Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group; Ms Maxine Bay liss; John Lewis Partnership; Hammersmith General summary of representations There was both support and objections to the housing strategic objectives, including objection to the omission of the need for student housing. In respect of other objectives, there was general support, with comments less concerned about the The level of support is welcome. Some fine tuning of the objectives are appropriate, but not for all, for example provision of student housing is not a strategic objective of the council. In respect of equality impact assessment, an assessment has been carried out and supplements the sustainability appraisal. The objections to housing objectives have been noted, and the Core Strategy has clarified the decent neighbourhoods concept. The council’s evidence base has also been updated and will be appropriately identified in the Core Strategy. 1. Fine tuned strategic objectives where necessary. 2. Redrafted decent neighbourhoods concept to clarify meaning. 3. Updated baseline information. 4. Undertaken an equality impact assessment. 40 5. SPATIAL OPTIONS FOR DELIVERING THE COUNCIL’S VISION A: PLANNING FOR REGENERATION AND GROWTH Two options were provided in the document, namely either focus and encourage growth in 5 key opportunity areas with a constrained approach elsewhere in the borough or promote maximum development in all areas of the borough. Organisations that commented General summary of representations There was considerable support, particularly from landowners and others with an interest in the identified areas, for preferred option A1 and the identification of 5 key regeneration areas within the borough,. There was a request to split the West Kensington, Earls Court and North Fulham area into two separate regeneration The support for the 5 key opportunity (regeneration) areas is welcome. These areas With regard to development options outside of the regeneration areas, the council accepts that proposals will come forward for ad hoc sites and that these will have a 41 undermine regeneration objectives in the 5 key areas, but could also lead to a less coordinated approach and one that could impact upon local character. In respect of flood risk, the council has undertaken a sequential test for development sites identified in the Core Strategy (see background paper). In addition, all developments would be expected to be supported by appropriate flood risk assessments. Prepared Core Strategy Sequential Test B: PLANNING FOR THE LOCATION OF EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES The preferred option included a mixed use approach, with major office development in Hammersmith town centre and the White City Opportunity Area and an International Convention Centre at Earls Court. Only Hythe Road would be an employment zone where the priority would be to protect industrial and other B class Organisations that commented General summary of representations There was considerable support for option B1 which specifically identified key areas such as Hythe Road, Hammersmith town centre, the White City Opportunity Area and Earls Court as suitable for employment. However, one representation particularly The general support for preferred option B1 and its constituent parts is welcome and 42 based queries, these are not considered to undermine the robustness of the option. Some comments have lead to changes to regeneration area policies and others will be picked up and dealt with in the development of planning policy documents for these regeneration areas. However, it is important to note that proposals for an ICC at Earls Court have now been superseded and an ICC will not now be developed in this location. 3. Proposal for an ICC removed. C: THE HIERARCHY OF TOWN AND LOCAL CENTRES The Council want to maintain and support a pattern of centres that maximise opportunities to obtain goods, services, jobs and leisure activities in convenient places. In particular we want to: regenerate the three town centres; maintain or improve their status within the London hierarchy; enhance the vitality and viability of all centres; and ensure that there is a satisfactory quantity and distribution of shopping and local services in the borough that contribute to ensuring we have decent neighbourhoods Organisations that commented Barclays Bank Plc; Liberal Democrats; Barton Finch Ltd and Tesco Stores Ltd; Westfield Shoppingtowns Ltd; St James' Investments Ltd/Tesco; H&F Volunteer Centre; Nhs Hammersmith & Fulham; HAFAD and Disability Forum; The General summary of representations Consultees both supported and objected to the Options for the hierarchy of Town and Local Centres. Comment was made on the proposed shopping hierarchy for the centres and in particular the need for the council to provide robust evidence to support the hierarchy. Objection was also made regarding the strict control over non- Some consultees were disappointed that the policy options did not include more opportunities for voluntary sector organisations in town centres, and where premises are made available for such uses, consultees thought that they should be affordable. There was also a call for the council to have more engagement with town centre businesses. 43 Developers and land owners in Shepherds Bush both supported and objected to the Core Strategy option to not extend Shepherds Bush Town centre north of Westfield. In addition, there were some respondents who felt that the Core Strategy Options and the London Plan review have prematurely categorised Shepherds Bush as a There was a call for the Core Strategy to be more proactive with regard the issue of health and a request for more protection against the misuse of alcohol and more attention to be paid to the location of takeaways which it is alleged contribute to child obesity. More general comments were made on the amount of traffic and noise in town centres and how regeneration initiatives should first seek to combat those issues before embarking on elaborate new development schemes. It was also noted that all shops in town centres should have step free access for disabled people. There was a request for the creation of a new Key Local Centre designation at Earls Court in anticipation of the area being regenerated (a case was also made for the Earls Court regeneration area to potentially become equivalent to a town centre). This section of the Core Strategy received a mixed response from consultees. Some In respect of the proposed new shopping hierarchy, consultees wanted to see a robust evidence base produced to support the options discussed. Consultees also Other issues raised by consultees were on affordable premises for voluntary sector organisations and more engagement needed with local businesses. In respect of the The Core Strategy Options document ruled out an extension to the town centre boundary involving land north of Westfield which raised objections from some developers and landowners. The council consider it is not appropriate to extend the town centre boundary at this time. Instead, it is proposed to acknowledge in the Core Strategy that it may be appropriate to allow town centre activities to be located north 44 of Westfield if on going capacity studies and other work related to the proposed WCOA planning framework identify a need to accommodate town centre uses in this location. Should acceptable proposals come forward the council will consider proposing an extension to the town centre boundary as part of a future review of the The request for the shopping hierarchy to be amended to include a new Key Local Shopping Centre at Earls Court is considered inappropriate at this stage. The proposed shopping hierarchy in the Core Strategy Options was put forward on the basis of the council’s vision for the borough, and the current health and distribution of shopping provision in the borough. The Earls Court Regeneration Area (as named by As consultees point out, the council have proposed a new key local shopping centre in the White City Regeneration Area. The justification for this is based on a more Consultees to be made aware of the evidence base used to support the policy options put forward, including: 45 More information to be included in regeneration area SPDs on appropriate Avoid duplication with Planning Policy Statement 4 D: COUNCIL HOUSING ESTATES AND DECENT NEIGHBOURHOODS The Core Strategy Options identified six housing estates that are likely to need either small scale development or r edevelopment over the next twen ty years. These are the White City Estate including Batman Close, Wood Lane Estate, Queen Caroline Estate, West Kensington Estate, Gibbs Green Estate and Clem Atlee Estate. Organisations that commented Martin Peach, Ms Shirley Cupit, Countryside Properties in Partnership, Mr Andrew General summary of representations A number of consultees agreed that many of the council’s large housing estates include stock which was not envisaged to last as long as it has and renewal has a part to play in planning the future of housing in the borough and that the council needs to adopt a long term strategy to address this. However, there were objections to the proposals, including comments that: a) the proposals will reduce the number of social housing units on estates and the council is silent on the need to provide additional social housing units to re-house those losing their homes through any loss; b) the document is vague with regard to the need for additional community facilities arising through the increased densities resulting from estate c) higher densities mean higher maintenance costs, which will be passed on to d) the maximum density guideline for Hammersmith and Fulham is 450-700 habitable rooms per hectare for areas within ten minutes walking distance of town centres and outside of these areas, the density guideline for Hammersmith and Fulham is 200-300 habitable rooms per hectare. There are concerns that redevelopment of estates will lead to developments that exceed these densities; e) the naming of council estates as candidates for renewal will place blight on the estates; f) the compensation as part of any compulsory purchase will not be sufficient for an estate occupier to purchase another property elsewhere in the borough; g) the council only owns 17% of properties in the borough, with the rest being either privately owned or privately rented. There are therefore already mixed provide exactly the same amount and nature of council rented property; h) rather than simply knocking down and rebuilding estates, the council should instead try and reduce the level of financial exclusion on council estates; and 46 With regard to b),the Core Strategy Infrastructure Needs Schedule identifies the priorities for additional facilities including in areas where there are significant development proposals. With regard to point c), as the existing stock ages, the costs of maintenance will rise. Regeneration offers an opportunity to provide new and improved housing built to modern building standards, which are far more resilient to the sands of time than post With regard to point d), it should be noted that the council has to take into account the density matrix included in the London Plan when considering new residential development. The council considers that most of the borough falls within the GLA’s definition of “urban”, rather than “central” and that the remainder is more akin to “suburban”. The maximum density range within the “urban” category is 450-700 habitable rooms per hectare and the council will expect higher density schemes to have particularly good design and be in areas of high public transport accessibility, In terms of estate regeneration, further density guidance will be provided in regeneration area SPDs. With regard to point e), the council recognises the benefit of upgrading the social housing in the borough, including council estates, and wishes to see this done as part of its commitment to more mixed and inclusive communities. Accordingly, the Core Strategy encourages the regeneration of council estates along with other areas of land in the borough. However, the policy does not indentify specific estates or part of estates for use for a public function or as areas that the council will seek to redevelop itself. It merely emphasises th e planning aspirations for improvement and regeneration. With regard to point f), the council has made it clear that i leaseholders and freeholders will receive the full statutory compensation to which With regard to point g), the economics of redeveloping an estate to re-provide solely social rented/council housing would insurmountable financial burden on the council. To provide solely such With regard to point h), through regenerating these estates to provide a mix of tenures it will help to ensure mixed and balanced communities in the borough. Regeneration will also create opportunities to provide suitable infrastructure so as to ensure that all residents have access to training and career opportunities. 47 With regard to point i), the estates that have been identified for regeneration are all estates that are either in current need of investment or are likely to require significant investment within the time period of this plan. Some of the estates are located next to brownfield sites that offer a unique opportunity for phasing development so that residents can remain close to their neighbourhood during regeneration. If these opportunities are missed, when the estates are in need of regeneration, there will not be an opportunity to phase the development using nearby brownfield land and it is likely that residents would have to be displaced far away from their estate during regeneration. In addition to the above responses, because the council estates identified in this Spatial Option are also an integral feature of the regeneration areas identified in Spatial Option A “Planning for Regeneration and Growth”, the council has decided to subsume Spatial Option D into Spatial Option A Included further information pertaining to the likely community infrastructure expected to be provided as part of any redevelopment proposals in the Infrastructure Needs Study and in the Core Strategy infrastructure schedule. Included updated and revised text regarding the council’s housing strategy. Further density guidance to be included in regeneration area planning Included council assurances to tenants and leaseholders in Core Strategy WHAT MAKES A DECENT NEIGHBOURHOOD? Throughout the Core Strategy reference is made to what the council considers to be the key principles that make a decent neighbourhood. These principles relate to the type, size and tenure of housing, quality of design, types of infrastructure that would be expected in an area, employment opportunities and levels of well being. The decent neighbourhood principles relate particularly to areas that are experiencing regeneration or are likely to be experiencing regeneration in the near future and they are the key standards on which any regeneration scheme will be assessed. Organisations that commented Liberal Democrats, British Waterways, Mr Richard Osband, Ms Shirley Cupit, Ms Maxine Bayliss, Environment Agency, John Lewis Partnership, Hammersmith and General summary of representations The emphasis on creating high densities but within low and medium rise buildings and the promotion of cycling and walking in the borough was particularly welcomed. However, the majority of consultees objected to the decent neighbourhood principles. The main reasons for objection included: a) No mention of environmental sustainability issues; b) Criteria should promote the creation of a sense of place; 48 c) The neighbourhoods are already decent and aspirational; d) By labelling an area not decent you are labelling the people not decent as they make the area what it is; it is not correct to caricature many areas of the borough as not being ”decent neighbourhoods”; e) Disagree that in order to be considered decent you should be a homeowner; f) Do not believe that low/medium rise development is required to create a decent neighbourhood. With regard to point a), the council acknowledge that environmental sustainability is an integral part of a decent neighbourhood. The proposed submission Core Strategy will mention environmental sustainability within the decent neighbourhood principles. With regard to point b), it is agreed that the proposed submission Core Strategy should make reference to sense of place. With regard to point c), a number of neighbourhoods in the borough lack appropriate infrastructure and are of a poor built quality, failing to integrate with their surrounding areas and creating an environment in which people feel unwelcome and unsafe. It is these circumstances that the council wishes to tackle. With regard to point e), the criteria that identify a decent neighbourhood were clearly With regard to point f), the criteria that do not state that you have to be a homeowner to be considered part of a decent neighbourhood. However, the council considers that residents should have the opportunity to acquire a stake in their homes if they so With regard to point g), the text states that ‘predominantly’ low to medium rise neighbourhoods. Clearly this does not preclude other types of residential development and there will be opportunities in certain locations with good public transport accessibility and where the local context would not be impacted upon, to build to higher densities. The section of the document that deals with the built environment makes specific reference to those locations that are considered appropriate for tall buildings. Revised principles will be added that recognise the importance of environmental sustainability and the im 49 6. OPTIONS FOR EACH REGENERATION AREA 1. THE WIDER WHITE CITY OPPORTUNITY AREA The preferred option was for an enlarged WCOA that would be subject to a long term phased regeneration to establish decent neighbourhoods and a more mixed and balanced community across the whole area. The Opportunity Area is identified in the London Plan and the council wish to create a vibrant and high quality environment with a substantial number of new homes and anchored by the BBC and Westfield. Organisations that commented Highways Agency; Westfield Shoppingtowns Ltd; Transport for London; HAFAD and Disability Forum; Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group; Mr martin Peach; Liberal Democrats; Assael Architecture Ltd; Mr Alexander Christie; The University of the Arts; Land Securities; Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & General summary of representations The council is not persuaded to extend the WCOA boundary to include the University of the Arts premises. In addition, it has decided not to extend the town centre boundary to include land up to the railway viaduct north of Westfield. Instead, it is proposed to acknowledge in the Core Strategy that it may be appropriate to allow other work related to the proposed WCOA planning framework identify a need to 50 accommodate town centre uses in this location. Therefore, should acceptable proposals come forward, the Council will consider proposing an extension of the town centre boundary as part of a future review of the Core Strategy. Further guidance to be provided in the wider White City Opportunity Area The preferred option was to provide a mix of uses, developed to a comprehensive Organisations that commented Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & Spencer; Westfield Shoppingtowns Ltd; Imperial College; HAFAD and Disability Forum; Liberal Democrats General summary of representations Support for a mix of uses and development in accordance with a comprehensive plan, but requests for greater emphasis on provision of community facilities; acknowledgement of the need for significant infrastructure which will impact on the amount of social housing that can be provided; identification of student housing as an important element of the housing mix; and provision of knowledge based industries as well as creative industries. Support welcome. The council will publish a planning framework for the wider White City Opportunity Area in Spring 2011. Comments made on the Core Strategy options have been taken into account in the drafting of this document, which will be subject to public consultation, as well as leading to fine tuning of the proposed submission Core Further development guidance, for example on mix of uses, provided in the Core Strategy and in the wider White City Opportunity Area planning b) WHITE CITY ESTATES Preferred option was to undertake a phased 20 year redevelopment of the estates, rather than a piecemeal development and improvements, and achieve new housing 51 Organisations that commented Mr James Hislop; Mrs Caroline Wood; Mr Alexander Christie; Mrs Jacqueline General summary of representations There was objection to the proposed demolition of the estates. Individuals pointed to The council has clarified its intentions for estates in the proposed submission Core Strategy. It has referred to regeneration rather than redevelopment of estates, which Further clarification of decent neighbourhood principles included in the proposed submission Core Strategy Further guidance and details of estate regeneration and other opportunities, for example QPR football ground, provided in the Core Strategy and will also be included in the wider White City Opportunity Area planning framework. Organisations that commented 52 General summary of representations Further guidance and details to be provided in the wider White City 2. HAMMERSMITH TOWN CENTRE AND RIVERSIDE The preferred option was to encourage the regeneration of the town centre as a vibrant and accessible centre with a strategic role in West London. A number of key strategic sites are identified, and improved functional and physical links are sought Organisations that commented West and Partners; Grainger and Helical Bar; London and Regional Properties Ltd; St James’ Investments Ltd/Tesco; Brackenbury Residents Association; Her Majesty’s Court Service (HMCS); Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group; Mr Martin Peach; Barratt Homes Ltd; Environment Agency; John Lewis Partnership; Hammersmith & Fulham Friends of the Earth; Imperial College; Transport for General summary of representations Developers with an interest in Hammersmith town centre supported the preferred approach, namely identifying the centre as a preferred office location, provision of more private housing and increasing the shopping offer. There was also a call for a development brief for Hammersmith & City Line Car Park site and for acknowledgement of the sensitive nature of HMCS facilities and the proximity of, and need to support, Charing Cross Hospital. Local Groups considered that tall buildings were not appropriate and also had concerns about inclusion of riverside sites in the regeneration area and the possibility of inappropriate development. Others supported links with the river, including a request that the regeneration area included the Hammersmith Embankment site. There was a specific request for a long term 53 aspiration to sink and cover the A4 flyover. The suitability of the town centre as a location for student housing was raised. The general support for the regeneration of the town centre is welcome. Further guidance on the proposed way forward has been included in the proposed submission Core Strategy, in both strategic site and boroughwide strategic policies, New housing will be encouraged within the town centre, but student housing is considered more appropriate for the White City and Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Areas. Further guidance and details relating to specific sites, including infrastructure requirements and tall buildings, provided in Hammersmith town centre policies; Regeneration Area boundary altered to include Hammersmith Embankment site and policy for the site included in Core Strategy. a) TOWN HALL AND ADJACENT LAND, NIGEL PLAYFAIR AVENUE The options consisted of redevelopment to provide a mix of town centre uses, Organisations that commented 54 General summary of representations Comments from developers supported the preferred option, namely regeneration of the larger site, whereas individuals were mainly opposed to the redevelopment of the Both support and objections have been noted for the regeneration of the larger site. . The future of the site is also subject to events taking place outside of the LDF process. The council has selected a development partner and consultation on the scheme has taken place, for example a public exhibition on design and appearance of the proposed public square in autumn/winter 2009 and further exhibitions in 2010. A planning application is expected to be submitted for the redevelopment of the site Further guidance and details, including infrastructure requirements, provided in the proposed submission Core Strategy. Planning application will be subject to public consultation. b) KINGS MALL AND ASHCROFT SQUARE The preferred option envisaged a comprehensive mixed use town centre scheme aimed at enhancing Kings Mall shopping centre; rebuilding Ashcroft Square housing estate; and providing a substantial number of new jobs through office development. Organisations that commented General summary of representations There was a call for the need for new and additional office floorspace to be strengthened and for a reduction in reliance on town centre car parking. Other comments sought refurbishment of Kings Mall shopping centre rather; housing that was available to local people across all income groups and supported by amenity space provision; and an education and training centre for the Lyric on land next to the 55 Further guidance and details, including infrastructure requirements, included in proposed submission Core Strategy. c. QUEEN’S WHARF, RIVERSIDE STUDIOS AND QUEEN CAROLINE ESTATE The council’s preferred option was to develop Queens Wharf and Riverside Studios as one scheme, predominantly for residential. In respect of Queen Caroline Estate, the council announced its intention to consider the scope for redevelopment in the Organisations that commented Mr Martin Peach; Riverside Studios; Ms Shirley Cupit; Barratt Homes Ltd; Environment Agency; Dr Tamara Dragadze; A2 Dominion Group; Ms Susie Hack; June Bennett; Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group; the Hammersmith General summary of representations There was objection to the development of Queen Caroline Estate as well as requests to deal with the estate separately from the other identified sites. A number of individuals commented that the estate displayed many of the characteristics of decent neighbourhoods. The riverside location of these sites means that development must be of the highest design. The council considers that this is best achieved by a joint development of Queens Wharf and Riverside Studios in accordance with a comprehensive urban design strategy, and that any alternat justification. In addition, linkages with Queen Caroline Estate and other opportunities, including Hammersmith Embankment, should be considered where these will lead to In respect of objections to the redevelopment of Queen Caroline Estate, the Council’s reasoning for estate regeneration in general has been stated in the council’s specific regard to Queen Caroline Estate, the Council considers that the age of the stock and the opportunity that regeneration would provide in improving the riverside 56 block has more direct links with the Queens Wharf and Riverside Studios sites and offers the potential for a comprehensive riverside scheme with replacement housing as part of a strategy for the whole frontage. Further guidance and details, including infrastructure requirements, provided in proposed submission Core Strategy. Identify southern block of Queen Caroline Estate only for regeneration and amend description of site. Identify possibility of links with Hammersmith Embankment Identify Hammersmith Embankment as a strategic site . 3. WEST KENSINGTON, EARLS COURT, NORTH FULHAM REGENERATION This area has been identified in the draft replacement London Plan as a proposed new Opportunity Area. It covers the Earls Court complex, a TfL depot at Lillie Bridge, housing estates (including West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates) and Fulham town centre. Within the area are two key strategic sites. The council’s preferred option includes establishing decent neighbourhood principles and maximising economic regeneration, also taking into account Kensington and Chelsea’s objectives for the Earl’s Court area. Organisations that commented St Andrew’s Church, c19941; Marcia Doyle; Dr Anthony Jelley; Ms Sue Tuck; Curragh partnership; Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group; Mr Richard General summary of representations Support for regeneration was sometimes qualified, for example there were calls for sufficient open space to be provided, requests that residents must benefit from the housing renewal and comments on suggested phasing of development. A particular objection was concerned with the development of Seagrave Road car park and the degree of linkage it should have with the rehousing of local estate residents, especially as the site is not within the regeneration area boundary. There was some Earls Court and Olympia Group made numerous comments, including a request that the regeneration area is divided into two, namely the Earls Court H&F Area and the North Fulham Area and that reference is made to preparation of a masterplan for the The varied content of the comments has been noted, particularly the concerns of residents and the ambitions of developers and landowners. The Council’s reasoning for estate regeneration in general has been stated in the council’s response to 57 representations to Spatial Option D for council housing estates. With specific regard to Gibbs Green and West Kensington Estates, the Council considers that the age of the stock and the opportunities that regeneration would provide are important factors that need to be taken into account. There is an opportunity for the council to pool land resources with adjoining development sites and to work jointly in the provision of new homes and jobs as well as other infrastructure and to improve links with the A planning framework for the area, which along with land in Kensington and Chelsea, has also been identified in the draft replacement London Plan as an Opportunity considers that this is unnecessary. Work on the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area framework will not be affe cted by its inclusion within the wider regeneration area, whilst having one regeneration area rightly establishes the links Further guidance and details, including infrastructure requirements, will be provided in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area planning framework which will be published for consultation Seagrave Road car park to be included in the Opportunity Area. Regeneration Area to be renamed as the North Fulham Regeneration Area. a) EARL’S COURT EXHIBITION CENTRE 2, LILLIE BRIDGE DEPOT, WEST KENSINGTON AND GIBBS GREEN ESTATES AND ADJACENT LAND The preferred option was for a mixed use development to provide housing, employment, hotels, leisure, offices and associated facilities. Included in the development should be an International Conference Centre. Organisations that commented Mr Richard Osband; Mrs Sally Turner; Gibbs Green Tenants and Residents General summary of representations There was concern from local people about the proposed demolition of the housing 58 Support came from landowners. Earls Court and Olympia Group repeated their comment that the Earls Court area should be considered as a separate regeneration area and subject to a masterplan. Another commentator wanted the LDF to acknowledge the importance of Olympia, including its links to the area. There was also a call to include West Brompton Station within the site boundary. The council’s reasoning for estate regeneration is provided in the response to representations to Spatial Option D for council housing estates. With regard to the implications arising for leaseholders and freeholders from the council’s regeneration plans, the Council has made it clear that i f plans do come forward, leaseholders and will receive the full statutory compensat Further guidance and details provided in the proposed submission Core Strategy. Additional guidance, including infrastructure requirements, will be provided in the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area planning As soon as any plans emerge we will be c Included council assurances to tenants and leaseholders in Core Strategy b) NORTH END ROAD/LILLIE ROAD/CLEM ATLEE ESTATE The Core Strategy options proposed a partial or phased integrated redevelopment of Clem Atlee Estate and the North End Road and Lillie Road frontages for a mix of Organisations that commented Miss Megha Chopra; Mr Terry Page; GMUKS ltd; Fit Rooms Ltd; Moyal Community General summary of representations 59 Support from a number of businesses to the proposed regeneration, but resident The council’s reasoning for estate regeneration is provided in the council’s response to representations to Spatial Option D for council housing estates However, further consideration of the proposed site has led the council to exclude the majority of Clem Atlee estate from the site. Instead, the site boundary now includes only the North End Road and Lillie Road frontage and Chuter Ede House and the shops below and Coomer Place car park. The support for the redevelopment of the North End Road and Lillie Road frontage is Further guidance and details of policy requirements provided in the proposed submission Core Strategy. As soon as any plans emerge we will contact residents to discuss what it could Amended description and boundary of regenerat ion site that now excludes much of Clem Atlee estate c) SEAGRAVE ROAD CAR PARK; WEST BROMPTON STATION Development primarily for residential, with sufficient affordable housing to enable renewal of local housing estates, but additionally a hotel and offices could be provided. Approximately 25% of new housing should be social rented. Organisations that commented General summary of representations There was general support for residential development on this site. However, reservations included suggested rewording to suggest that development should not be expressly linked or dependent on developmen t/estate renewal elsewhere in the The general support for the council’s preferred approach, albeit often with reservations, is welcome. It is agreed that further clarification of the relationship 60 whole, is necessary. As a result, the council has included the Seagrave Road car park within the Opportunity Area and also drafted an amended policy that clearly states that the site must be considered as part of the comprehensive approach to the Opportunity Area. The policy also identifies the links with West Brompton Station. Further guidance and details, including infrastructure requirements, provided in the LDF Core Strategy and to be included in the proposed Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area planning framework. Regeneration Area boundary extended to include Seagrave Road car park and land adjoining West Brompton station and other smaller areas. Policy drafted to clearly state that the Seagrave Road site is part of the Opportunity Area and must be consider ed as part of the comprehensive approach to the Opportunity Area. SOUTH FULHAM RIVERSIDE The aim is to regenerate this former employment area for predominantly residential use. Employment use could be provided in the most accessible parts of the area. The amount and type of development will depend on the capacity of public transport and Organisations that commented London Borough of Wandsworth; Mr Ed Peshall; Port of London Authority; Cemex Materials Uk Ltd; Circadian Ltd; Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group; Dr Anthony Jelley; Mr John OCallaghan-Williamson; Ms Susan Baker; River Thames General summary of representations The identification of South Fulham Riverside as a regeneration area was well supported by consultees. Local residents in particular supported the proposed regeneration as they believe the industrial uses in the area are inappropriate and their replacement with residential and other uses could help create a more residential friendly feel to the area. One resident indicated that the area has suffered under the current planning policies and believes that most residents in the area are in support of the proposals. However, some want reassurance that the proposed housing in this location would include affordable units. 61 Despite the support for this preferred option, consultees had more specific requests A further concern relates to the suggested capacity of the area for high density Transport congestion and access to public transport were two other issues raised in relation to the South Fulham Riverside area. Residents in particular are concerned that more development in this area is going to increase traffic congestion and put greater strain on the limited public transport in the area. There was a request from certain consultees for the boundary of the South Fulham Riverside Regeneration Area to be extended to incorporate additional sites. Suggested sites include: Lots Road Power Station (and that the site is suitable for tall buildings) Land at the corner of Townmead Road and Imperial Road (based on its appearance and underuse). Sullivan Road In response to representations about high density development and tall buildings in 62 In respect of the additional sites that consultees wish to see within the boundary of South Fulham Riverside area, the council considers that it is appropriate to include sites which represent an opportunity for regeneration within the life of the Core Strategy and fit with the objectives for the area. It is agreed that some sites on Sullivan Road which present an opportunity for regeneration and were part of the former UDP employment zone designation should be included in the regeneration area boundary. In respect of the Lots Road Power station site, the council consider that this should not be included within the area because it is physically separated from the rest of the South Fulham Riverside area by the railway line and is already the subject of planning permission for redevelopment. With regard to the site on the corner of Townmead Road and Imperial Road, this includes a working depot and additional land. However, it is agreed that this land may come forward for regeneration within this plan period. Further detail on the revised boundary for the area is included within the proposed submission draft of the Core Strategy and within the proposed supplementary planning document for the area. Boundary of South Fulham Riverside revised and further sites that are considered to be suitable for regeneration included. 5. OLD OAK COMMON AND HYTHE ROAD AREA The Core Strategy Options noted that Old Oak Common and Hythe Road is characterised by low density industrial land, railway tracks and sidings and waste management facilities. The Crossrail route will pass through this area and there is a possibility that London’s High Speed 2 could terminate here. A major rail interchange Organisations that commented 63 General summary of representations Consultees were generally supportive of the preferred option for the area. Emphasis was placed by some consultees on the need to significantly improve transport substantial development commences. The potential enhancement of the canal-side was particularly welcomed by a number of consultees. One consultee suggested that the wording relating to the transfer of waste and materials required further clarification. Some objections were raised regarding the level of traffic generation that any proposals at Old Oak and Hythe Road could lead to. Objections were also raised regarding the possible loss of industrial premises in the area as land values rise. The council welcomes the general support for the preferred option and the suggestions for the clarification of the use of the Grand Union Canal for the transfer of waste and materials. With regard to the issue of traffic generation, the council agree that any significant development in the area could only proceed if either a Crossrail station, High Speed 2 hub or both, were located within the vicinity. Any proposed development would have to demonstrate that it would not place an undue Clarification in the proposed submission Core Strategy that regeneration needs to be supported by appropriate transport infrastructure and other facilities; Clarification that the Grand Union Canal should be used for the ‘transportation a) OLD OAK COMMON SIDINGS Old Oak Common Sidings consists of 32.5 hectares of railway sidings to the north of the West Coast Mainline tracks. The land is currently safeguarded for use by Crossrail; however, the council considers that the proposed servicing facilities that are to be located here could potentially be relocated to either the North Pole Depot site or to elsewhere in London, releasing the site for major mixed use development. Organisations that commented General summary of representations All consultees supported the preferred option for the Old Oak Common Sidings. Particular reference was made of the importance of making best use of the canal as part of any development proposals. 64 The council welcomes the support given to this option and acknowledges the benefits that the canal can offer to the context of any redevelopment proposals. b) NORTH POLE DEPOT North Pole Depot sits to the south of the West Coast Mainline tracks and covers a distance of 1.8 miles, crossing the boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea. The council’s preferred option was for the site to be used to assist in the provision of enhanced local passenger rail services and as a possible location for the relocation of rail operations from other locations, such as the Organisations that commented General summary of representations The option was supported. It was acknowledged that the development of the site was s ambitions of regenerating the area. The council welcomes the support for this option. 65 7. BOROUGHWIDE STRATEGIC POLICIES ING DEVELOPMENT The council’s preferred option sought to increase the supply of housing in the Organisations that commented General summary of representations b) HOUSING MIX 66 Organisations that commented General summary of representations Representations provided both support and objection for this policy. The provision of a mix of different housing types, with a particular emphasis on family accommodation and low cost housing, was welcomed. However, a number of consultees felt that the council should not be so explicit in their requirements given that there may be cases where site constraints make the provision of certain housing types, such as family accommodation, inappropriate. It is acknowledged that not all locations will be appropriate for family accommodation, particularly town centre locations where it may be more difficult to create amenity space. In the proposed submission Core Strategy the commentary to the housing mix policy acknowledges that some locations may not be appropriate for family accommodation. c) AFFORDABLE HOUSING The council’s preferred option for housing was that 50% of all new dwellings should be affordable, with most of being intermediate housing. This option reflected the council’s aspirations, stated within the spatial vision, to address the imbalance of tenures and to provide a broad range of options to suit different lifestyles and life stages both in the public and private sectors. Organisations that commented General summary of representations A number of consultees supported the council’s preferred option, particularly the proposals to increase the quantity of intermediate housing in the borough. However, others objected to the lack of flexibility of this policy and there was comment that the LDF fails to seek to provide sufficient housing for rent. There was concern from a 67 were preliminary and may be adjusted following further evidence from the West In addition there was a call for a more clear definition of ‘affordable home ownership’ and concern about the lack of mention of space standards. The council’s affordable housing policy is supported by a local housing market assessment and other evidence. It is considered that this policy which includes a The supporting text for the affordable housing preferred option clearly stated that economic viability will be a consideration when negotiating affordable housing. The Mayor of London’s Draft Replacement London Plan, in which he revises the Affordable home ownership refers to non-social rented affordable housing where a percentage of the property is owned by the occupier. The Core Strategy includes a glossary that clarifies the document’s terminology. Space standards are to be dealt with in the Generic Development Management DPD and in a Supplementary Planning Document at a later stage of the Local Development Framework process. d) HOUSING QUALITY 68 achievement of high quality, well designed housing that provides amenity and public realm benefits, with good quality local facilities. Organisations that commented General summary of representations The majority of consultees welcomed the general thrust of this preferred option, densities in areas with good public transport accessibility. A number of consultees mentioned that design should still be a primary consideration within these higher density developments and that units should be provided with adequate living space, private amenity space and shared outdoor amenities. A number of consultees felt that it would be appropriate to mention the importance of environmental sustainability issues within this policy. Design is an integral factor in the assessment of the merits of high density schemes and the council will expect such developments to provide suitable living space and public and private amenity areas. With regard to comments that the preferred way forward should be more closely aligned to London Plan policy 3A.3 and encouraging ‘high density and the maximum intensity of uses’, it should be noted that within the same sentence are the words ‘compatible with local context’. To disregard these last four words could undermine the borough’s architectural heritage. It is accepted that density should be a composite of public transport accessibility, local context and design principles. Environmental sustainability issues are dealt with elsewhere in the preferred options 69 Included reference to the composite nature of density with regard to public transport accessibility, local context and design; Mentioned the importance of energy efficiency being an integral part of good e) ACCESSIBLE HOUSING Organisations that commented General summary of representations There was a mixture of support and objection for the proposed way forward . The recognition of the need for accessible housing was generally welcomed. However, there were concerns regarding the definition of physical disability used in the H&F Housing Study – particularly that it does not take account of those with a learning difficulty, with sight and hearing loss, multiple disability as well as older disabled people. It was felt by one consultee that the 2001 census figure of 27.05% of households with a limiting long term illness would be a more robust figure. Despite this, the figure of 10% was considered to be acceptable. There were further concerns regarding the affordability of disabled premises. Further clarity was also requested on the council’s policy of adapting properties for disabled residents in council estates or private housing not earmarked for redevelopment. No specific changes. f) CONVERSIONS AND EXTENSIONS The preferred option seeks to offer borough residents more freedom in terms of extending their homes so that people are able to stay in the borough rather than having to leave in order to enlarge their homes. This option also seeks to prevent the loss of family sized accommodation as a result on conversions.. Organisations that commented 70 General summary of representations No objections were raised regarding the conversions policy. There were however, concerns regarding the proposed relaxation on extensions, namely that rear and roof extensions can have adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of overlooking, loss of light and general feeling of overcrowding. The preferred option seeks to allow householders greater flexibility in terms of how they can extend their property, but consi deration will be taken of any proposed extension’s impact upon neighbour’s amenity and upon the reduction of garden The preferred option would ensure a flexible approach to proposals involving the conversion of HMOs to self contained accommodation whilst noting that houses in multiple occupation can provide flexible and cheap accommodation for people on low incomes.. Organisations that commented General summary of representations Just one consultee made representations relating to this policy. The consultee supported the preferred option. This option seeks to ensure that there is an adequate provision of special needs housing to service the borough’s residents. The need for such housing is likely to increase in future years, particularly as the population ages. Applications for new special needs housing will be welcomed, amenity and character. 71 Organisations that commented General summary of representations Consultees were generally supportive of the preferred option. One consultee felt that further clarification was necessary in the commentary and that it should be made clearer that the principal aim of the policy is to recognise the importance of enabling Further clarification on the criteria for assessing the appropriateness of special needs housing schemes was included in the Generic Development Management Options document (November 2009) and will be included in this DPD. It is acknowledged that care and housing support no longer needs to relate to specific developments, however the lack of a policy relating to special needs housing i) OPTIONS FOR STUDENT HOUSING The Core Strategy Options identified regeneration areas as the preferred location for Organisations that commented Alumno Developments, Imperial College, BH E Property Developments Ltd, Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & Spencer, London and Regional General summary of representations Generally, consultees objected to the preferred option. The principle reasons for this objection are listed below: a) Student housing should not form part of an affordable housing mix as it does not constitute affordable housing; b) The current number of student bedspaces in the borough identified in the en that 1,600 students study in the c) The policy does not reflect London Plan as it seeks to ‘restrict student d) It is inappropriate to restrict student housing solely to regeneration areas; 72 e) No consideration has been taken of the positive impacts of students both f) There is no evidence to substantiate the council’s assertions that students can have negative direct and indirect impacts upon a locality. g) The need and demand for student housing should form part of the West With regard to point a), it is acknowledged that student housing does not constitute affordable housing and should not form part of any affordable housing contribution arising from a conventional housing development. With regard to point b), many of the 1,600 students studying in the borough are not permanently based in the borough. The December 2008 Student Accommodation Supply and Demand Study by Savills shows there to be 536 Imperial College students and 630 Royal College of Music students permanently studying in the borough (a total of 1,166 students). The same study also shows there to be a current capacity of 582 bedspaces in the borough. The council acknowledges that there is a shortfall of provision of student accommodation in London. By identifying the White City OA and the Earls Court West Kensington OA as suitable for student accommodation, the Core Strategy policies With regard to point c), the draft replacement London Plan Policy 3.8Bg states that With regard to point d), the majority of the borough’s larger development sites are located within the Earls Court and West Kensington and White City regeneration areas. It makes sense to consolidate student accommodation in these areas in order to ensure that appropriate supporting infrastructure is provided for these students. Outside of these regeneration areas, the borough has a predominantly residential nature. Any proposed large scale student accommodation proposal in such an area could negatively impact upon the areas amenity. This is also true in town centres, which already experience the less savoury aspects of the night time economy. It should be noted that the GDM Options specifically refer to the Earls Court and West Kensington and White City regeneration areas, rather than regeneration areas in general, as the areas where major new student schemes should be located. With regard to point e), it is acknowledged that students to contribute positively to the economy, which is reflected by the presumption that, subject to design and other considerations, student accommodation schemes will be welcomed in the White City and Earls Court regeneration areas. With regard to point f), the council wishes to see additional student housing provided in the two identified OAs. Small development s are not precluded from elsewhere, nor 73 night it has the potential to cause nuisance to neighbours. It is therefore considered appropriate to seek an impact assessment and management plan for all schemes. The next stage of the Core Strategy will report on the findings of the West London The reference to student housing forming part of an affordable housing mix It will be acknowledged that there current stock of student accommodation premises in the borough is not sufficient to house all the permanent full-time students studying in the borough. Further clarification provided on location policy for new student accommodation. j) OPTIONS FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS The council jointly provides a gypsy and traveller site with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea which provides 20 pitches under the Westway. The London Organisations that commented General summary of representations There was both support and objection to this option. The principal objections to the option were that there was considered to be a lack of analysis and evidence, particularly relating to the capacity of the current site which is considered to be unsuitable and overcrowded. Also of concern was the assumption that the need for future pitch capacity in the London Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment is the resu lt of families with a ‘psychological aversion to bricks and mortar’ – indeed the consultee stated that he had spoken to a number of travellers that did not have t he ‘psychological aversion to bricks and mortar’ that the council suggests they have. The Government Office for London stated that Circular 01/2006 Planning for Gypsy 74 In order that the council’s policy on travellers is in general conformity with the London Plan, it is necessary for the Core Strategy policy to take into account, and follow, the GLA’s policy. Since the publication of the Core Strategy Options, the GLA’s policies on gypsies and travellers have gone through a number of alterations. Indeed, in mid September 2010 the Mayor published a further minor alteration to the draft replacement London Plan that proposes amendments to policy 3.9. The Mayor wants to see these alterations considered at the reconvened Examination in Public in The criteria for assessing the siting of a new travellers’ site has been moved from the Generic Development Management Policy Options document into LOCAL ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT The preferred option was to ensure that accommodation is available in the borough for small and medium sized businesses by r equiring a range of types of units in new Organisations that commented General summary of representations The consultees were generally in favour of this option that provides for the accommodation needs of small and medium sized businesses and the more flexible policy approach to the change of use of employment sites. However, some respondents wanted more flexibility including where a site is in a residential area, or for mixed use schemes that re-provided for employment or where a site or premises were clearly unsuitable for modern business needs. A few respondents supported the alternative option that would allow for change of use with no restriction. Alternatively the view was expressed that there should be a more certain policy approach to prevent sites becoming blighted by the generation of “hope value” and the loss of 75 The view was expressed that the reference to Hammersmith Hospital and Imperial College and to related bio medical industries should be broadened to include Charing Cross Hospital and other industries linked to these medical facilities. Comment also included needing to ensure sufficient housing for staff and students. The need to promote business barges as a way of providing for small businesses The view was expressed that small business should be encouraged rather than The support for this option is welcomed. The policy will indicate the Council’s The Council is keen to ensure that modern premises for small businesses and start- ups continue to be provided throughout the borough. It considers that seeking provision in larger developments is an appropr iate tool for achieving this however, there will be flexibility where this approach can be demonstrated to be inappropriate. The reference to Hammersmith Hospital and related bio-medical industries could be extended to include those activities linked to Charing Cross Hospital. The comments in relation to Earl’s Court and West Kensington area will be considered under the relevant section. With regard to business barges the council will view any application for such a facility add to the stock of small business premises in the borough. Add reference to the contribution of Charing Cross Hospital and related industries. SUPPORTING COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES Ensure that both existing and new residents, and visitors to the borough have Ensure that the schools in the borough match the needs and aspirations of local parents and their children: 76 Encourage and promote healthier lifestyles and reduce health inequalities. Organisations that commented Chelsea Football Club; Imperial College; Nhs Hammersmith & Fulham; Her Majesty's Court Service (HMCS);Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group; Liberal Democrats; Theatres Trust; The University of the Arts London (UAL); Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Jehovah’s Witnesses; Land Securities and Marks & Spencer; General summary of representations The respondents to this section of the Core Strategy generally supported the options put forward, such as protecting existi ng facilities and promoting new facilities (including health facilities) in appropriate locations, but there were also some observations and objections to specific elements of the policy options and supporting text. In particular, respondents highlighted the need to: support the growth and development needs of higher education institutions; identify the role that courts play as a community facility; and refer to the voluntary sector and how it will continue to be funded Consultees were also concerned with leisure and recreation, in particular the need The general support is welcome. However, it is clear that certain consultees did not feel that the policy options went far enough to incorporate uses such as law courts, educational institutions, health facilities, faith facilities and canal based recreation. In response, the proposed submission Core Strategy has been drafted to include reference to a range of uses. However, it does not include an exhaustive list and the policy is written in such a way that other uses are not precluded. Proposed new education and health facilities have been identified in the proposed submission Core Strategy where these are known, and other facilities, including recreation and leisure, have been addressed in the relevant sections of the proposed submission document, particularly in specific regeneration area and site policies. In addition to the Core 77 infrastructure and community facility needs in the borough. In respect of encouraging the co-location of facilities, the council considers that this is appropriate for a number of reasons, including providing accessible services and making full use of buildings. Where a specific user may require accommodation but cannot provide it for themselves, the availability of multi-purpose accommodation which can be shared Reference made to the need to provide major new leisure facilities east of The term river-based recreation has been changed to water related recreation so as not to preclude canal-based recreation; and List of community facilities and services expanded to refer to uses such as, educational institutions and health facilities (see also Infrastructure Schedule). OUR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The Core Strategy Options outlined the council’s strategic objectives to: Improve and protect amenity and quality of life of residents and visitors by ensuring a safe, accessible and pleasant local environment, where there is a Encourage and promote healthier lifestyles and reduce health inequalities through good quality, inclusive and sustainable design. Conserve and enhance the quality, character and identity of the borough’s natural and built environment Protect and enhance the borough’s open green spaces, promote biodiversity and protect private gardens Organisations that commented Moyal Community Association (UK) London; BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & Spencer; Environment Agency; General summary of representations Consultees generally supported the options put forward. They welcomed, in particular, the aim to create additional parks and open spaces and improve access to them. There was also wide support for protecting private gardens, and local residents were keen to see this carried through into specific initiatives. 78 also felt that it was unclear in the Core Strategy what the proposed hierarchy of spaces might be. They emphasised the need for a robust evidence base to support Developers raised concern over certain aspects of the open space and recreation section of the Core Strategy. In particular, it was stated that until the quantum of development in the regeneration areas is agreed, the amount of open space cannot be committed to. They also felt the Core Strategy should take into account the presence of existing facilities and local constraints in the provision of open space and child playspace. One disagreed with the option to create a local park on land south of the viaduct near Shepherd’s Bush, stating that it would be an inefficient use of land. Another consultee suggested that there should be flexibility in the policy to allow developers to contribute to improving open spaces in the wider area and not just within the borough boundaries. Consultees generally supported the options for open space, but in response to the issues raised the council has provided clarification to a number of policy matters. The council agree that new open space provided as part of mixed use development should relate to development quantums. The council intends to develop open space The representations made by the Government Office for London regarding the MOL In respect of the Thames and Grand Union Canal, these are subject to specific policies in the Core Strategy and are not discussed in open space policy. Clarification on the amount of open s pace provision that developers will be required to provide in development schemes to be included in SPDs. 79 Organisations that commented Port of London Authority; British Waterways; Gellys; Sainsbury's and Helical Bar; Environment Agency; Thames Wharf Limited; Hammersmith & Fulham Friends of the General summary of representations There was considerable support for the preferred options for the river and canal, but there were also a number of objections. The main points of disagreement were centred around future development adjacent to the river/canal. In particular, the Developers objected to the presumption against tall buildings in riverside locations because in their opinion this does not promote the most efficient use of brownfield land. They also claim that the council has not justified the presumption against tall buildings through any evidence gathering and that the Core Strategy could be found unsound as a result. Developers also objected to the statement that new riverside development should provide opportunities for the enhancement of biodiversity and water based uses. They argue that access to the water is not good enough to successfully seek new uses and that the emphasis should be on the protection of existing facilities rather than the development of new ones. Developers also stated that enhancing biodiversity and providing water based uses could compromise flood defences in these locations. The Environment Agency and British Waterways supported the requirement for the enhancement of biodiversity and the promotion of water based activities. British Safeguarded wharves were also a matter of disagreement. The Port of London Authority objected to the lack of reference to the protection of wharves and no reference to the promotion of freight transport in this policy option. 80 The council’s preferred option for tall buildings in riverside locations did not preclude tall buildings where they would have a positive relationship to the riverside and meet a key design element in a masterplan for regeneration. The council consider that this ining control against overdevelopment and impairment of the local context. The basis for this policy option is supported by a background paper on tall buildings and will also be expanded upon in a In respect of the council’s preferred option for water based activities in new development, this is considered to be an appropriate way forward to help protect and improve key riverside functions. As devel opers point out, flooding and access to the river are important considerations in implementing these measures and where there is conflict the provision of new water based activities may not be achievable. Of course, the council will always consider the advice of the Environment Agency in these matters. More detail on the use of the river and canal is included in the Regarding the safeguarding of wharves, the council continues to want to see safeguarding removed from vacant wharves and notes that the Mayor will review safeguarding prior to 2012. This is a clarification of the council’s approach, because the Core Strategy Options referred to removing safeguarding from all safeguarded wharves, not just those that are vacant. The council will work with the Mayor on his review. The council’s approach will be reiterated within the South Fulham Riverside planning framework. The PLA also indicated the need for more promotion of freight transport, but the council consider that further reference is not necessary where this duplicates London Plan policies. 81 Clarification of the requirements imposed on developers for water-side enhancements in the boroughwide proposed submission Core Strategy as well as in detailed site policies and the GDM DPD. Reference to the wharves in the River Thames policies and clarification about seeking removal of safeguarding from vacant wharves. Included reference to the promotion of river and canal freight transport where this does not duplicate London Plan policies. The preferred option included the council’s commitment to maintain a strong emphasis on achieving a high quality urban environment and an approach to inclusive urban design that considers how all aspects of the urban realm and land uses can be addressed to help regenerate places. In addition, the option identified areas where tall buildings may be appropriate and noted important elements of the borough’s structure that need to be taken into account when proposals are Organisations that commented NHS Hammersmith& Fulham; Brackenbury Residents Association; London Fire Brigade; The University of the Arts London (UAL); Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & Spencer; Grainger & Helical Bar; Sainsburys & Helical Bar; General summary of representations The majority of representations were concerned with the approach to tall buildings. Developers and landowners with interests within areas identified as possibly being appropriate for tall buildings supported the policy, whereas some who were outside of the areas called for additional areas, including Lots Road, Seagrave Road car park 82 that tall buildings should be provided with lifts; acknowledgement that green spaces have a positive influence on health; a request for a policy for conservation areas; and comment that design should take into account issues of safety. The level of support for the policy is welcome, however it is agreed that the approach regarding tall buildings requires some clarification. In particular, it is proposed that the Core Strategy and planning frameworks for the individual regeneration areas will identify more clearly the areas that may be suitable for tall buildings. However, it is not anticipated that there will be a general widening of the areas that may be appropriate for tall buildings as requested in some representations. In respect of The Generic Development Management DPD will also include additional design and .Policy on tall buildings clarified in the proposed submission Core Strategy. This will be supplemented by further guidance in specific regeneration area planning frameworks, for example the WCOA SPD. TO CLIMATE CHANGE: REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS AND RESOURCE USE Organisations that commented Natural England; Environment Agency; H&F Volunteer Centre; Moyal Community Association (UK) London; Liberal Democrats; Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & Spencer; Grainger and Helical Bar; Sainsbury’s and Helical General summary of representations There was both support for and objections to the preferred climate change policy option, although most comments were positive. The supportive comments that were 83 made were frequently accompanied by sugges tions for amendments or additions to the preferred approach. Several comments were made about the need for more consideration to be given to adaptation issues as well as mitigation and for a wider range of impacts to be considered rather than just flood risk in the borough. Some consultees agreed with The general level of support offered for the preferred policy option is welcome. The preferred approach has been amended slightly in the proposed submission Core Strategy, although it is not thought to be appropriate to make significant changes, as Revised proposed submission policy on reducing carbon emissions and resource use and additional coverage to be included in the GDM DPD Over 60% of Hammersmith and Fulham lies within the Environment Flood Zones 2 and 3. Flood risk is an important consideration as part of any development proposal in these areas. The council’s preferred option seeks to minimise the risk of flooding from fluvial, surface and foul sewage sources by ensuring that developers undertake flood risk assessments and that appropriate actions are taken to mitigate the risks of Organisations that commented General summary of representations The preferred option was generally supported, particularly the requirement for developers to provide sustainable urban drainage systems. Objections were raised relating to seeking contributions from development proposals in the vicinity of the river. Instead, representees felt that contributions should not be limited to properties solely in the vicinity of the river and should be applied to all proposals in the flood zone. More generally, any contribution should be limited to that required as a direct result of the development itself, and not to rectify existing 84 The Environment Agency raised objections to the council’s statement that the sequential test permits the consideration of all sites for development. Thames Water suggested a number of amendments to the Core Strategy policy relating to sewer capacity which it says would ensure its soundness. Thames Water submitted a proposed policy on water and sewerage infrastructure capacity and another on water and sewerage infrastructure development. The council notes the objections raised to developer contributions. It acknowledges that it is not just developments within the vicinity of the river wall that would be affected by some form of flood event, be it tidal or sewer and/or surface water flooding. The proposed Core Strategy policy on water and flooding provides further In response to the Environment Agency’s concerns, it is a fact that some 60% of the borough is within either Flood Risk Zone 2 or 3. Of the land within Zone 1, the majority is relatively inaccessible via public transport, with PTAL levels of 1 or 2. The only land that would be considered suitable for development at this time within Zone 1 would be parts of the White City land which is already identified for regeneration. The council also considers that given London’s unique circumstances resulting from the Thames Barrier, the actual probability of fluvial flooding in the borough is far more remote than the Flood Zone designations suggest and that the greater risk to properties in the borough is from surface water and foul sewer. In response to Thames Water, the council has included more information in the Core Strategy on the need to update ageing infrastructure, including sewer capacity, as well as provide new infrastructure (see section on Delivery and Implementation and Infrastructure schedule). There is also reference in the Infrastructure section on Thames Water’s aspirations for a Thames Tideway Sewer Tunnel. Core Strategy drafted to identify needs of utility providers, such as Thames Water, and need for developer contributions for mitigation and/or relief measures which reduce the overall risk of flooding from all developments that would directly result in an increas ed risk of flooding and not solely from developments in the vicinity of the Thames. Sequential test carried out for identified sites and regeneration areas (see background paper) 85 New delivery and implementation policy included in Core Strategy. The option outlined the preferred approach to sustainable waste management, including identification of waste sites in the Old Oak Common Area Organisations that commented London Borough of Wandsworth; Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & Spencer; Highways Agency; Hammersmith & Fulham Friends of the Earth General summary of representations Relatively few comments were made on the council’s preferred option for waste. The council’s waste policies will need to reflect national and Londonwide policy and Further guidance to be included in specific regeneration area planning Policy on the provision of sustainable waste management facilities to be included in the GDM DPD. TRANSPORT Organisations that commented 86 General summary of representations The objective of improving transportation and accessibility received general support. However, some qualified this support by asking where the funding would come from to achieve improvements and others sought assurance that the needs of disabled or elderly were not forgotten. Additional comments included the need to identify parking standards; opposition to increasing road capacity; more emphasis to be given to buses; and queries regarding supporting evidence for a High Speed 2 Hub at Old Support for the preferred option is welcome. The individual projects identified in the The proposed submission text also reflects more recent Government announcements on transport projects, whilst those schemes that are strategic projects have additional justification in the draft revised London Plan and in the Mayor of London’s Transport In respect of parking standards, the council considers it more appropriate for this issue to be included in the GDM DPD Policies on parking standards to be included in the GDM DPD DELIVERY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CORE STRATEGY Organisations that commented General summary of representations A number of consultees welcomed their engagement in the delivery process and expressed the importance of continuing to be part of that process through to the Core 87 a) the section needs to demonstrate more partnership working; b) the requirement for a Central Line station in the White City Opportunity Area should be removed due to financial constraints and a new station, not required as a direct result of the development itself would be contrary to government guidance; c) developers should not be responsible for funding improvements to Shepherd’s Bush Police Station; d) mention should be made of the Town Hall and adjacent land and the creation of a central location for council premises; e) too great a burden is being placed on developers to provide infrastructure improvements; if too many burdens ar e placed, development simply will not f) the PCT has plans for two polyclinic systems which need to be reflected in the g) reference should be made to the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. h) mention should be made of the need for biodiversity enhancements as part of i) some in the voluntary sector considered that there was only a need for one central voluntary sector hub in Hammersmith. With regard to point a), this section of the document will be expanded on as part of With regard to point b), the Council is currently producing a White City Opportunity Area SPD which is looking at possible tr ansport demand arising from development in the area. Viability is obviously a key consideration. The costs of providing a new With regard to point c), S106 will always be negotiated within the context of Circular 05/2005 or its successors. The developments at White City are likely to place an increased pressure on the police facilities in that area. Consultation with the With regard to points d), f), g), h) and i), the points made have been taken into account in the proposed submission Core Strategy. 88 Policy included on delivery and implementation. Reference made to the PCT’s plans for two polyclinic systems, one covering the north of the borough with the delivery points being White City, Reference will be made of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment; Emergency services and biodiversity enhancements will be added to the list of infrastructure needs in the Infrastructure Schedule; and Mention of the possibility of third sector hubs in the borough in the Infrastructure Schedule. AD HOC COMMENTS Organisations that commented H&F Labour Councillors General summary of representations Concern that the borough’s approach to consultation is little more than a tick box Consultation has been comprehensive with the intention of gaining as wide a 89 APPENDICES The appendices contain supplementary data and maps to support the preferred APPENDIX 2: OPEN SPACE HIERARCHY Organisations that commented Mrs Caroline Wood; Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group General summary of representations Is it correct to call the park adjacent to Imperial Wharf Imperial Wharf Park? The local consultation wanted it named Sands End Park. Omission of Norland North Open Space (OS9 in UDP) Wormwood Scrubs and Little Wormwood Scrubs are Common Land but are not indicated with the symbol. Brook Green should also say ‘and Little Brook Green’ for clarity The table should indicate with a symbol the historic parks & gardens on the English Heritage Register. The river and canal should be included in a new borough category of ’linear’ open space With regard to the appropriate name of the park adjacent to Imperial Wharf, the Council identify this as Imperial Park. Regarding the omission of Norland North Open Space from the Open Space Hierarchy, the open space has been renamed ‘Edward Woods Town Park’. The boundary will be amended to reflect the remodelling of the open space. It is agreed that the common land symbol should be put against Wormwood Scrubs and Little Wormwood Scrubs as they are common land. However, it is considered 90 unnecessary to refer to Brook Green and Little Brook Green separately in the Core Strategy as this could confuse the issue rather than add clarity. In respect of the request for separate identification of the Historic Parks and Gardens which are on the English Heritage register, these are identified on the Proposals Map and will be listed in the LDF. The council does not agree that the river and canal should be designated as linear open spaces as suggested by the Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group . Such a designation is not necessary in terms of their protection. Ensure that the name and boundary changes to Edward Woods town park Add a symbol for common land next to Wormwood Scrubs and little APPENDIX 3: PROPOSED SHOPPING HIERARCHY Organisations that commented Barton Finch Ltd and Tesco Stores Ltd General summary of representations The one representation made to Appendix 3 (Proposed Shopping Hierarchy) if any future scheme is approved on this site it could be appropriate to amend the centre’s boundary. In the meantime, it is considered that the boundary should not be changed and that the proposed neighbourhood centre designation is consistent with the size and function of the Organisations that commented 91 General summary of representations Two consultees did not agree that Linford Christie Stadium should have its MOL status removed. They consider that if it were removed from MOL it could in time be at risk of redevelopment. Add Little Wormwood Scrubs to the Scrubs MOL. Add the Riverside Walk as part of the London wide Thames Path to MOL. The council has proposed the removal of Linford Christie Stadium from the MOL designation and consider this to be appropriate as it not only recognises the built up nature of the site, but will also ease the potential development of improved sports facilities on site. In respect of the request that the riverwalk and the canal towpath should be In respect of Little Wormwood Scrubs, this is physically and visually severed from Wormwood Scrubs by the West London Line Railway and Scrubs Lane. It is not considered to be of a significant size or strategically significant areas to be designated as MOL Therefore Little Wormwood Scrubs will remain as an open space of borough wide importance. 92 LIST 1. BODIES AND OTHERS THAT COMMENTED ON THE REGULATION 25 CORE STRATEGY OPTIONS 1. Dr Anthony Jelley 2. Mr John O’Callaghan-Williamson 3. Ms Megha Chopra 4. Mr Terry Page 5. GMUKS Ltd 6. Mr Hugo Kirby 8. Mr James Hislop 9. Mr Richard Osband 10. Coal Authority 11. St Andrew's Church 12. Barclays Bank Plc 13. Mr Martin Peach 14. Jeffrey Asante 15. Ms Susan Baker 16. Fit Rooms Ltd 17. Mrs Owen 18. Caroline Moss PR Ltd 21. The Ocuppier 22. CAMOC museums of cities 23. Natural England 25. Moyal Community Association (UK) London 26. Marianne Cahill and Brett Page 27. Mrs Sally Taylor 28. Jane Reed 29. Assael Architecture Limited 30. Mr Richard Magnus 31. Marcia Doyle 32. Mrs Vanessa Wright 34. Mr Ed Peshall 35. Ms Meher Oliaji 36. Liberal Democrats 37. Fulham Podiartry Practice 38. Mrs Caroline Wood 40. London Borough of Wandsworth 41. West and Partners 42. Theatres Trust 43. Port of London Authority 93 44. MRS WENDY FEESS 45. Heathrow Hub 47. BHE Property Developments Ltd 48. Grainger and Helical Bar 49. Miss Emilie Tournier 50. Mr Don Ward 51. Ms Sue Tuck 52. Costco Wholesale UK Ltd (Costco) 53. The University of the Arts London (UAL) 54. Mr Alexander Christie 55. Riverside Studios 56. Ms Shirley Cupit 57. NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit 58. Countryside Properties In Partnership 59. Mrs Jacqueline Christie 60. Miss Louisa Verney 61. Gibbs Green Tenants and Residents Association 62. ms maxine bayliss 63. Environment Agency 64. Aviva, BBC, Helical Bar, Land Securities and Marks & Spencer 65. John Lewis Partnership 66. Sainsbury's and Helical Bar 67. Jehovah's Witnesses Hammersmith & Fulham 68. Thames Wharf Limited 69. London and Regional Properties Ltd 71. Land Securities 72. Boropex Holdings Limited 73. Workspace Group plc 75. Barton Finch Ltd and Tesco Stores Ltd 76. North End Road Business Group 77. Barratt Homes Ltd 78. Curragh Partnership 79. Cemex Materials Uk Ltd 80. Highways Agency 81. CBRE Investors 82. St George Central London 83. General Mediterranean Holdings Ltd 84. Dr Tamara Dragadze 85. Government Office for London 86. Comer Homes 87. National Grid Property Ltd 88. A2 Dominion Group 89. Circadian Ltd 94 90. Alumno Developments Ltd 93. Thames Water Property Services 95. Hammersmith & Fulham Friends of the Earth 96. Mr Andrew Slaughter MP 97. Westfield Shoppingtowns Ltd 98. CP Property Developments UK Ltd 99. Chelsea Football Club 100. Indigo Planning 101. British Waterways 102. St James' Investments Ltd/Tesco 103. Transport for London 104. Imperial College 107. London Fire Brigade 109. Community and Voluntary Sector Association (CaVSA) 110. English Heritage-London Region 111. H&F Volunteer Centre 113. Nhs Hammersmith & Fulham 114. Brackenbury Residents Association 116. White City Residents Association 118. HAFAD and Disability Forum 119. Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings Group 121. Genesis Housing Group 122. Michael and Christine Forkin 124. Hammersmith London BID 125. Ms Susie Hack 126. Hammersmith and Fulham Labour Councillors 127. Her Majesty's Court Service (HMCS) 128. Pennard Neighbourhood watch 130. Linda Moll 131. Capital and Counties on Behalf of Earls Court and Olympia Group 132. Patricia Geary 133. Eleanor McRea 95 96 0208 753 3317 0208 753 3317 0208 753 3317 0208 753 3317 0208 753 3317 0208 753 3317 0208 753 3317