AGENDA

Meeting: Board of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development

Corporation

Date: Monday 18 May 2015

Time: 4.30 pm

Place: Committee Room 2, City Hall, The Queen's Walk,

London, SE1 2AA

Members of the Board of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation are hereby notified and requested to attend the meeting of the Board at 4.30 pm on Monday 18 May 2015 to transact the business set out below. This meeting will be open to the public, except for where exempt information is being discussed as noted on the agenda. A guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government bodies, including the use of film, photography, social media and other means is available at www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/openness-in-meetings.pdf Members of the Board: Sir Edward Lister (Deputy Chair) Julian Bell David Biggs Muhammed Butt Stephen Cowan Rahul Gokhale Sir Peter Hendy CBE

Debra Humphris William McKee Matthew Pencharz David Prout Eric Sorensen Amanda Souter

Observers: Richard de Cani Andrew Donald Fiona Fletcher-Smith Pat Hayes Juliemma McLoughlin

2

1 Apologies for Absence

2 Declarations of Interest

3 Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 April 2015 (Pages 1 - 8)

4 Matters Arising and Actions List (Pages 9 - 12)

5 Chairman's Resignation and Interim Arrangements (Pages 13 - 14)

6 OPDC Growth Strategy Submission (Pages 15 - 18)

7 Opportunity Area Planning Framework - Consultation Outcome and Programme for Adoption (Pages 19 - 104)

8 Public Sector Land Forum (Pages 105 - 112)

9 Memorandum of Understanding with London & Continental Railways (Pages 113 - 118)

10 Planning Committee Appointments and Code of Conduct (Pages 119 - 134)

11 OPDC Marketing Approach (Pages 135 - 140)

12 OPDC Business Plan (Pages 141 - 186)

13 GLA's HS2 Petitioning Items (Pages 187 - 210)

14 Any Other Business the Chairman Considers Urgent

15 Exclusion of the Press and Public

16 OPDC Growth Strategy Submission (Pages 211 - 256)

17 Date of Next Meeting

Thursday 25 June 2015 at 3.00pm in Committee Room 2, City Hall, The Queens Walk, London, SE1 2AA

MINUTES

Meeting: Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation

Board (Extraordinary meeting)

Date: Wednesday 1 April 2015

Time: 2.00 pm

Place: Committee Room 5, City Hall, The Queen's Walk,

London, SE1 2AA

Present: Boris Johnson, Mayor (Chairman)

Sir Edward Lister (Deputy Chair) Councillor Julian Bell David Biggs Councillor Muhammed Butt Councillor Stephen Cowan Rahul Gokhale Debra Humphris Simon Kirby William McKee Matthew Pencharz David Prout Eric Sorensen Amanda Souter

In Attendance: Richard de Cani Andrew Donald Fiona Fletcher-Smith Pat Hayes Victoria Hills Juliemma McLoughlin Doug Wilson James Varley, Secretariat

1 Welcome and Chair's Opening Remarks

1.1 The Chairman welcomed Members to the inaugural meeting of the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). The Chairman advised Members that it was, formally, an extraordinary meeting of the Board because, as the Corporation had only come into existence in law that day, it had not been possible for the Proper Officer to give 5 days notice of the meeting. The Chairman therefore confirmed that he had agreed that all items on the agenda for this

Agenda Item 3

Page 1

extraordinary meeting were required to be taken as urgent business, in order that the Corporation was able to function effectively as from this day forward.

1.2 The Chairman stated that the creation of the OPDC presented an opportunity to

drive significant regeneration in West London over an area of 155 hectares that could deliver over 24,000 homes and 55,000 jobs, and that the Corporation would demonstrate the capabilities of the public sector in delivering regeneration. It was the Chairmans desire that the OPDC would set new standards and benchmarks for successful outcomes in redevelopment.

1.3 The Board supported the Chairmans wish to see the Crossrail depot moved to

another site which would enhance the development potential of the area. 2 Apologies for Absence

2.1 An apology for absence had been received from Sir Peter Hendy CBE. 3 Declarations of Interest

3.1 There were no interests to be declared that were relevant to items on the agenda. 4 Appointments of Deputy Chair of the Board, Interim Chief Executive Officer,

Chief Finance Officer and Proper Officer

4.1 Victoria Hills introduced the paper which proposed the appointment of officers to take on specific statutory duties for the Corporation.

4.2 Decisions:

It was agreed that:

a) The appointment of Sir Edward Lister as Deputy Chair of the Board be approved;

b) The appointment of Victoria Hills, as Interim Chief Executive Officer of

the Corporation, until such time as the permanent Chief Executive Officer was in post, be approved;

c) Responsibility for the arrangements for the recruitment of a permanent

Chief Executive officer be delegated to the Deputy Chair of the Board in consultation with the GLAs Human Resources and Organisational Development team;

d) The appointment of Doug Wilson, Head of Financial Services, Greater

London Authority, as Chief Finance Officer for the Corporation be approved; and

Page 2

e) The Interim Chief Executive Officer be appointed as the Corporations

Proper Officer. 5 Approval of Standing Orders and Observers to the Board

5.1 The Interim Chief Executive Officer introduced the paper, which presented the

draft Standing Orders for the Corporation, the draft Scheme of Allowances for Board Members and named the proposed Observers to the Board.

5.2 Decisions: It was agreed that:

a) The Standing Orders, as set out at Appendix A to the report be adopted as the Standing Orders of the Corporation;

b) The following individuals be appointed as Observers to the Board:

Fiona Fletcher-Smith, Executive Director, Development, Enterprise & Environment, GLA;

Richard de Cani, Managing Director Planning, TfL;

Andrew Donald, Strategic Director, Regeneration and Growth, LB Brent;

Juliemma McLoughlin, Director for Planning, LB Hammersmith & Fulham; and

Pat Hayes, Executive Director Regeneration and Housing, LB Ealing; and c) The Scheme of Board Members Allowances be approved in principle,

subject to approval by the Mayor of London. 6 Approval of Committee Structure, Terms of Reference for Committees and

Scheme of Planning Delegation

6.1 The Interim Chief Executive Officer introduced the paper, which sought approval of the establishment of an Audit Committee and a Planning Committee, as well as the adoption of a Scheme of Planning Delegations which would enable the Corporation to meet its statutory obligations as a local planning authority.

6.2 Matthew Pencharz was nominated by the Chairman for the position of Chairman of

the Audit Committee, with David Biggs and Eric Sorensen also nominated as Members of the Committee.

6.3 Following a discussion of the recruitment process, and in particular concerns

expressed about the level of borough representation on the interview panel for the Chairman of the Corporations Planning Committee, and the limited time that had been available for Board Members to consider the nomination for the position of

Page 3

Chairman of the Planning Committee, it was suggested that the appointment of the Chairman of the Planning Committee could be made on an interim basis, pending further consideration and a recommendation for a the permanent appointment being made to the next meeting of the Board, due to be held on 18 May 2015.

6.4 Decisions: It was agreed that:

a) The committee structure, as set out in section 4 of the report, and the terms of reference for the committees, as set out in the appendices to the report, be approved;

b) Matthew Pencharz be appointed as Chairman of the Corporations Audit

Committee; and that David Biggs and Eric Sorensen be appointed as Members of the Corporations Audit Committee;

c) The Planning Committee of the Corporation be established on the basis

as set out in the report; d) William McKee be appointed as Interim Chairman of the Planning

Committee, pending consideration of a permanent appointment to this position at the next meeting of the Board;

e) Decisions on the appointment of the members of the Planning Committee

be delegated to the Chairman of the Board, with appointments to the Committee to be made in advance of the first scheduled Planning Committee meeting on 21 May 2015;

f) The proposed Scheme of Planning Delegations, be adopted and agreed

to be effective as form 1 April 2015; and g) The Board shall receive a report on formal appointments to the Planning

Committee and Planning Code of Conduct at its meeting in May 2015.

Page 4

7 OPDC Staff Establishment Plan

7.1 The Interim Chief Executive Officer introduced the report, which set out the details of the proposed interim staffing structure for the Corporation. Following a request from Board Members, representation on the Chief Executive Officer interview panel will be offered to Board Members.

7.2 Decisions:

It was agreed that:

a) Noting the immediate priorities for the Corporation, the interim staff structure, as set out in the report, be ratified;

b) The recruitment process for a permanent Chief Executive Officer be

approved for immediate commencement; and c) Responsibility for the preparation of a plan for a permanent staffing

establishment be delegated to the Interim Chief Executive Officer, for presentation to the Board as a matter of urgency.

8 Planning Arrangement Agreements for Handling Planning Applications in the

London Boroughs of Brent and Ealing

8.1 The Interim Chief Executive Officer introduced the report, which presented the arrangements for the handling of relevant planning applications and planning functions in the London Boroughs of Brent and Ealing by the Corporation. Whilst the Corporation was responsible for dealing with all planning applications within its boundaries, there was a shared desire for the boroughs to maintain some control over certain planning matters; the proposed Schemes of Delegation enabled this to happen.

8.2 Decisions: It was agreed that:

a) The Scheme of Delegation and Protocol for the handling of planning applications in LB Brent be approved; and

b) The Scheme of Delegation and Protocol for the handling of planning

applications in LB Ealing be approved. 9 Arrangements for Shared Services

9.1 The Interim Chief Executive Officer introduced the report, which outlined various

shared services proposals with a number of different organisations that were considered to represent an efficient use of resources for the Corporation.

Page 5

9.2 Decisions: It was agreed that:

a) The proposed arrangements for shared services between the Corporation and the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, MOPAC and the London boroughs of Brent, Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham, as set out in the report, be approved in principle; and

b) The authority formally to agree the detailed shared services

arrangements and to enter into agreements on those areas with relevant organisations on behalf of the Corporation be delegated to the Interim Chief Executive Officer.

10 OPDC Budget 2015-16 and 2016-17

10.1 The Interim Chief Executive Officer introduced the report, that set out the budgets

for the first 2 years of the Corporations existence. 10.2 Decisions: It was agreed that:

a) The 2015-16 and 2016-17 budgets be noted. 11 Administrative Financial Matters

11.1 The Interim Chief Executive Officer introduced the report, that sought the approval

the Corporations Financial Regulations, Contracts and Funding Code, Scheme of Delegations to Officers, banking arrangements and Expenses and Benefits Framework. Following debate, the Chairman signed the approval for the Corporation to obtain Banks Automated Clearing System (BACS) payment facilities.

11.2 Decisions: It was agreed that:

a) The Financial Regulations, Scheme of Delegation and Contracts and Funding Code, as appended to the report, be adopted;

b) The Expenses and Benefits Framework, as appended to the report, be

adopted in principle, subject to approval by the Mayor of London; c) The opening of a bank account for the Corporation with the Royal Bank

of Scotland be approved; signatories to the account (under the shared financial services arrangements with the GLA) are agreed to be as follows:

Page 6

Martin Clarke, Executive Director - Resources, GLA David Gallie, Assistant Director Group Finance, GLA Doug Wilson, Head of Financial Services, GLA Tom Middleton, Head of Governance, GLA Ray Smith, Senior Finance Manager, GLA Martin Mitchell, Group Finance Manager, GLA

d) It be noted that external auditors will be appointed by the successor

organisation to the Audit Commission (Public Sector Audit Appointments Limited) following consultation with the Corporation and GLA in mid-2015.

12 Approval of the Seal of the Corporation

12.1 The Interim Chief Executive Officer introduced the report. Board Members

suggested that further work should take place on the design and branding of the Corporations seal, with a report to be presented to a future meeting of the Board.

[Action: Interim Chief Executive Officer] 12.2 Decisions: It was resolved that

a) the adoption of the Corporations seal be agreed on an interim basis pending further work on the design.

13 Close of Meeting

13.1 The meeting ended at 2.35pm.

Chairman Date Contact Officer: James Varley, Board Secretary

Page 7

Page 8

This page is intentionally left blank

Subject: ActionsListMeetingdate:18May2015Reportto: BoardReportof: BoardSecretaryFornoting________________________________________________________________________Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic________________________________________________________________________

1 SUMMARY

1.1 ThispaperinformstheBoardoftheprogressagainstactionsagreedatpreviousmeetings.

2 RECOMMENDATIONS

TheBoardisinvitedto:

2.1 NotetheactionslistattachedasAppendixA.

3 APPENDICES

AppendixAActionsList.

4 BackgroundPapers

MinutesofthepreviousmeetingoftheBoard

Reportoriginator: JamesVarley,BoardSecretaryTelephone: 02079834613Email: jamesvarley@opdc.london.gov.uk

Agenda Item 4

Page 9

Page 10

This page is intentionally left blank

BoardActionsList(reportedtothemeetingon18May2015)

OutstandingActionsfromthelastmeeting

MinuteNo. Item/Description ActionBy TargetDate Status/note

6.4 ApprovalofCommitteeStructure,TermsofReferenceforCommitteesandSchemeofPlanningDelegationConsidertheappointmentofWillMcKeeasChairmanofthePlanningCommitteeatthenextBoardMeeting.

InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

18May2015

Onagendaforthismeeting.

12.1

ApprovaloftheSealoftheCorporationPresentareportonthedesignandbrandingoftheCorporationssealtoafuturemeeting.

InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

-

Onagendaforwardplan.

AppendixA

Page 11

Page 12

This page is intentionally left blank

Subject: ChairmansResignationandInterimArrangementsMeetingdate:18May2015Reportto: BoardReportof: InterimChiefExecutiveOfficerFornoting________________________________________________________________________Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic________________________________________________________________________

1 Summary

1.1 ThisreportprovidesupdateoninterimarrangementsfollowingtheresignationbytheMayor,BorisJohnson,asChairmanandamemberoftheOPDCBoardon5May2015withimmediateeffect.

2 Background

2.1 TheLocalismAct2011providesthattheMayorappointstheChairmanofaMayoraldevelopmentcorporation.On5May,theMayoralsogaveformalnoticetotheChairoftheLondonAssembly,RogerEvansAM,ofhisintentiontoappointSirEdwardtobetheChairmanoftheOPDC.

2.2 Theappointmentofthechairofafunctionalbodyisgovernedbyproceduressetoutinsection60AandSchedule4AoftheActwhichsetoutaconfirmationhearingprocessbeforetheappointmentcanbeformallymadebytheMayor.UndertheseprocedurestheAssemblyhastheopportunitytoholdahearing,within3weeksoftheMayorsformalnotification,intothecandidatessuitabilityholdtheposition,andtorequestthatpersonsattendanceforquestioning.TheAssemblymaythenmakearecommendationtotheMayorastowhetherornotheorsheshouldbeappointed.TheMayormusttakethisrecommendationintoaccountbeforeformallymakingtheappointment,althoughitisnotbindingonhim.ThereforetheMayorsproposedappointmentmaynotformallybemadeuntiltheendoftheconfirmationprocesshasbeenreached.Thishappenswheneitherthe3weekperiodhasexpired(by27May)or,withinthatperiod,theAssemblyhasmetandmadearecommendation.

2.3 Atitsmeetingon1April2015theBoardappointedSirEdwardListerastheBoardsDeputyChair.UnderStandingOrderstheDeputyChairmayexerciseallthefunctionsoftheOPDCsChairman,includingwherethereisavacancyinthepositionofchairman.UntilthenSirEdwardwillactinhiscapacityasDeputyChairtopresideovermeetingsoftheBoardandfulfilthefunctionsofChairman.

Agenda Item 5

Page 13

2.4 Intheeventthat,followingtheAssemblysrecommendations(ifany),theMayorchoosestoappointSirEdward,hewillatthatpointbecometheOPDCsChairmanandtheBoardwillbeaskedtoappointanewDeputyChairtoreplaceSirEdwardinthatrole.

3 Recommendations

TheBoardisinvitedtonotetheresignationoftheMayorasitsChairmanandmemberoftheBoardandthatSirEdwardLister,inhiscapacityasDeputyChair,willfulfilthatroleuntiltheMayorappointsanewChairmanoftheOPDCaftertheendofthestatutoryconfirmationprocess.

4 FinancialImplications

4.1 Nofinancialimplicationsimmediatelyarise.

5 LegalImplications

5.1 Thesearesetoutabove.

6 Appendices

None

7 BackgroundPapers

None

Reportoriginator: MikeLancaster,Principal,TfLLegalTelephone: 02030547920 Email: mikelancaster@tfl.gov.uk

Page 14

Subject: OPDCGrowthStrategySubmissionMeetingdate:18May2015Reportto: BoardReportof: InterimChiefExecutiveOfficerForNoting________________________________________________________________________Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic________________________________________________________________________

1 Summary

1.1 ThisreportsetsoutasummaryofthefirststageGrowthStrategythatwassubmittedtoCentralGovernmentbyOPDCon30April2015,fornotingbytheBoard.

1.2 ThefullGrowthStrategyreportisattachedasanappendixtothisreportisincludedatPart2oftheagenda,asitcontainsexemptsupplementaryinformation.Theinformationisexemptbyvirtueofparagraph3ofSchedule12AinthatitcontainsinformationrelatingtothebusinessaffairsoftheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation.

2 Recommendations

Theboardisinvitedto:

2.1 Notethesubmissionon30ApriloftheGrowthStrategyappendedtothereportonPart2oftheAgenda,whichrepresentstheOPDCsfirststagesubmissiontoCentralGovernment.

3 Background

3.1 TheHS2GrowthTaskForcewasestablishedbyCentralGovernmenttoconsiderregenerationopportunitiesaroundfutureHS2stations.Inearly2014theTaskForcemadeaseriesofrecommendationsincludingtheneedtodeveloplocalgrowthstrategiestounlockregenerationpotential.OPDC,GLAandTfLhavebeenworkingtogetherwithDepartmentsforTransport,CommunitiesandLocalGovernmentandHMTreasurytodevelopaGrowthStrategyforOldOakandParkRoyalinresponsetoGovernmentsrequest.TheGovernmentsetadeadlineof30April2015forsubmissionofthefirststageoftheStrategyfromlocaldeliverybodies(ieOPDC),whichwillbeusedtoinformdiscussionsaroundtheComprehensiveSpendingReview2015andafutureAutumnStatement.

Agenda Item 6

Page 15

3.2 TheprogrammefortakingallGrowthStrategiestothenextstageisnotclear,asitisfordeterminationbythenextGovernment.OPDCofficerswillcontinuetoupdatetheboardonnextstepsasandwhentheprogrammeismadeclearandwhendecisionsfromOPDCBoardwillberequired.

3.3 TheOldOakandParkRoyalHighSpeed2GrowthStrategysetsoutthescaleofopportunitythatcouldberealisedbythecolossaltransportinvestmentinthisarea.ThestrategyidentifiestherolethepublicsectorcanplayindeliveringtheredevelopmentoflandaroundtheproposedHighSpeed2,CrossrailandGreatWestMainLinestationsatOldOak.Thestrategybroadlyidentifiesthescaleofbenefitthisregenerationprogrammecandelivertotheeconomyandatahighlevelshowsthesizeoftheprizethatcouldbeunlockedthroughfocussedpublicsectorinvestment.Itsetsoutthatbyadoptingaclearvisionwitharobustdeliveryandinvestmentpackage,OldOakandParkRoyalcanbecomeanexemplarinhighqualityregeneration.ThisareacouldbecomeanintegralpartofLondonandmakeamajorcontributiontostrengtheningLondonsroleasaglobalcityandtotheUKseconomyasawhole.

3.4 Thechallengesassociatedwithdeliveringthisscaleofregenerationcannotbeunderestimated.In2014theHS2GrowthTaskForcenotedthatwecannotexpecttogetthemostoutofHS2simplybyfollowingabusinessasusualmodel.TheTaskForcereportidentifiedfourareasoffocustoensurewecanmaximisethebenefitsfromthisnewinfrastructure:

Getourcitiesready:On1April2015theOPDCwasestablishedasalocaldeliverybodytogovernanddriveregeneration.

Getourtransportnetworksready:OPDCisthelocalplanningauthorityforOldOakandParkRoyalandiscoordinatingtransportdeliveryinthearea.

Getourpeopleready:OPDCfullysupportseducationandskillstrainingintheUKlabourmarkettoensurewearereadytodelivernewHS2infrastructure.OPDCiskeenforaspokeoftheHS2hubandspoketrainingandskillsmodeltobelocatedatOldOakanddiscussionsarealreadyunderwaywithHS2onhowbesttoachievethis.

Getourbusinessesready:TheOldOakinterchangestationsitsadjacenttotheUKslargestindustrialestate,whichaccommodatesover2,000industrialbusinessesand44,000employees.ThereisafantasticopportunityforexistinglocalbusinessestobenefitfromandplayanimportantroleinhelpingtobuildthisnewinfrastructureandforOPDCtoinvestinitsregeneration.

3.5 TheGrowthStrategyidentifiesthosemeasuresrequiredtoachievethecomprehensiveregenerationofOldOakandParkRoyal.Thestrategyprovidesinformationonthelocalcontext,thedevelopmentprogrammeandsetsthesceneforfutureGovernmentinvestmentandsupport.

4 SummaryoftheStrategy

4.1 TheGrowthStrategysetsoutthecontextforregenerationatOldOakandParkRoyal,putsforwardanotionaldevelopmentprogrammetoidentifypotentialtimingandscaleofinvestmentneededininfrastructure,withaviewtodiscussingwithCentralGovernmentsupporttoinfundingspecificpiecesinfrastructure,identifyingoptionsto

Page 16

addressanypotentialfinancinggap,andtoensureajoineduppublicsectortomakebestuseofpublicsectorownedland.

DevelopmentProgramme

4.2 TheStrategysetsoutanotionaldevelopmentprogramme,againstwhichprojectedThecoredevelopmentareaofOldOakismadeupoffourdevelopmentzoneseachwithitsownhomesandjobsdevelopmentcapacityandassociatedinfrastructurerequirements.

4.3 Pre-2026willseeresidentialleddevelopmentfocusednorthoftheGrandUnionCanal,aroundNorthActonandontheGenesissite,whilstpost-2026developmentwillbecommerciallyledandwillbefocusedonsitesaroundthenewlyopenedHS2,Crossrail,GWMLstationtothesouththeofthecanal.Currentprojectionsshowthepotentialtodeliver9,000homesand9,000jobspre-2026with15,000homesand46,000jobspost-2026.

4.4 Therearesignificantlevelsofnewinfrastructurerequiredtounlockthisscaleofdevelopmentwithearlyprojectionsidentifyasignificantinfrastructurebillfortransport,utilitiesandsocialinfrastructure.

InvestmentandSupport4.5 OldOakwillgeneratesignificantnumbersofnewemploymentandGVAforthelocal,

regionalandnationaleconomy.TounlockthesebenefitsandsecurethecomprehensiveregenerationofOldOakandParkRoyalwillrequirecontributionsfromtheprivatesectorandpublicsectorsupportandinvestment.

4.6 TheStrategyconsidersthepotentialforusingvariousmechanismsinsecuringfundingandfinancingtounlockthisdevelopmentopportunity,includingdevelopmentcontributions,enterprisezonebusinessrates,stampduty,newhomesbonus,receiptsfromthedevelopmentofpublicsectorland,andothersourcesoffundingincludingTfLandaffordablehousinggrant.

4.7 DiscussionsareunderwaywithcentralGovernmentastotherolethewiderpublicsectorcanplayinunlockingdevelopmentandgeneratingvalue.

Recommendations

4.8 TheStrategysetsoutaseriesofrecommendationsfordiscussionwithCentralGovernmentonhowitmightbestbeabletosupportOPDC,GLA,andTfLalongwiththeotherpublicsectorlandownersindeliveringthefullregenerationpotentialinthearea.TheStrategyrecommendsseveraloptionswithregardstofunding,financialsupportandfinancing,andothercommitmentsthatGovernmentmaybeaskedtomake.

5 FinancialImplications

5.1 TheGrowthStrategyfinancialimplicationswillbereviewedinlinewiththecurrentlyset2015-16and2016-17budgets.FutureyearsbudgetrequirementswillneedtobeagreedviafurtherOPDCbudgetsettingprocess.

6 LegalImplications

6.1 NoparticularlegalimplicationsarisefromthereportatthisstageanditisconsistentwiththeCorporationslegalframework.

Page 17

7 Appendices

None

8 BackgroundPapers

None

Reportoriginator: AlexandraReitman,ProgrammeManager,OPDCTelephone: 02079834804Email: alexandra.reitman@opdc.london.gov.uk

Page 18

Subject: OldOakandParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanningFramework

SummaryofPublicConsultationResponsesMeetingdate:18May2015Reportto: BoardReportof: InterimChiefExecutiveOfficerFornoting________________________________________________________________________Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic________________________________________________________________________

1 Summary

1.1 ThisreportprovidesasummaryofthecommentsreceivedaspartofthepublicconsultationonthedraftOldOakandParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanningFramework(OAPF),whichranfora6weekperiodfrom27February14April2015.Responsesfromkeypublicsectorstakeholdershavealsobeenappendedtothisreport.

2 Recommendations

TheBoardisinvitedto

2.1 NotethesummaryofresponsestothepublicconsultationontheOldOakandParkRoyalOAPFassetoutintheattachedreport.

3 Background

3.1 In2013,theGLA,incollaborationwithTransportforLondon(TfL)andtheLondonBoroughsofBrent,EalingandHammersmithandFulhamconsultedonOldOakAVisionfortheFuture,whichdemonstratedhowlandaroundtheplannedOldOakCommonstationcouldberedeveloped.Thisdocumentwasnotaplanningpolicydocumentbutitdidsetoutanearlysharedvisionastohowthisareacoulddevelopasaresultofsignificantnewtransportinfrastructure.

3.2 TheLondonPlanconsolidatedwithalterationssince2011waspublishedbytheMayorinMarch2015.AnnexOnetotheLondonPlanidentifiesOldOakCommonasanOpportunityAreawiththecapacitytodeliveraminimum24,000homesand55,000jobs,andidentifiestheParkRoyalOpportunityAreaashavingthecapacitytodeliveraminimum1,500homesand10,000jobs.

3.3 ThedraftOldOakandParkRoyalOAPFhasbeendevelopedoverthepastyearasSupplementaryPlanningGuidance(SPG)totheLondonPlan.TheOAPF:

Agenda Item 7

Page 19

providesguidanceondesiredlanduses,infrastructurerequirementsandurbandesignmeasuresnecessarytodeliveraqualitynewneighbourhood;

looksatwaystomaximisetheconsiderableinvestmentpresentedbythedeliveryofasignificantnewHS2/Crossrailinterchange,tofacilitatelargescaleregenerationofthisarea;

exploreshowtheOldOakCommonHighSpeed2stationandsurroundingdevelopmentcouldbeproperlyintegratedwithsurroundingneighbourhoods,communitiesandtowncentres;and

helpstofosternewandimprovedpartnershipworkingbetweentheMayor,localCouncils,transportproviders,centralGovernment,landowners,localresidentsandbusinessesandpotentialinvestorstoensurethepreparationofarobustanddeliverableplan.

3.4 TheGLAconsultedonthedraftOAPFfora6weekperiodfrom27February14April2015.Toensurethatallinterestedstakeholderswereinformedoftheconsultation,thedocumentwaspublishedontheGLAswebsite,interestedpartiesandinterestgroupsontheGLAsconsultationdatabasewereemailed,apublicnoticewaspublishedinlocalnewspapersanddropinsessionswereorganisedinthesurroundingarea.

4 ConsultationCommentsReceived

4.1 Therewereatotalof3,516responsestotheconsultationonthedraftOAPF.Ofthese3,414responseswerereceivedfromsupportersofQPRintheformofastandardisedresponse.

4.2 ConsulteesrespondedonanumberofissuesrelatingtotheOAPFandtheReport,attachedatAppendixA,isstructuredaroundthefollowingthemes:

1. Generalcomments

2. Consultationandengagement

3. Introductionchapter

4. Vision

5. Objectives

6. Landuse

a) Housing

b) Retail

c) Employmentandtraining

d) Regenerationcatalyst

7. Design

a) Publicamenityspace

b) Streetsandpublicrealm

c) Buildingheightsanddensities

d) Builtheritage

e) Places/placemaking

8. OldOak

a) OldOakNorth

Page 20

b) OldOakSouth

c) OldOakHighStreet

d) OldOakCommonStation

e) NorthActon

f) GrandUnionCanal

g) ScrubsLane

h) OldOakLane

9. ParkRoyal

a) Landuse

b) Improvinginfrastructure

c) Design

d) HeartofParkRoyal

e) WesleyEstate

f) FirstCentralsite

10. WormwoodScrubs

11. Transportchapter

a) Rail

b) Roads

c) Carparking

d) Buses

e) Walkingandcycling

f) Construction

12. EnvironmentStrategy

a) Water

b) Waste

c) Airquality

d) Energy

e) Greeninfrastructure

f) Landcontamination

13. Delivery

a) Phasing

14. Publicdrop-insessions

15. QPRsupporterssummary

16. Appendices

17. Supportingevidencedocuments

4.3 Responsesfromkeypublicsectorstakeholdershavealsobeenincludedatthebackofthereport.

Page 21

5 NextSteps

5.1 PriortotheadoptionoftheOAPF,theGLAwouldfollowthebelowprocedure:i. Prepareareportsettingouthowconsultationcommentshavebeenaddressed

byGLAofficersinthefinalversion;ii. SeekapprovaloftheDeputyMayorforPlanningofthefinalversionofthe

OAPFandagreementtotakethefinalOAPFtothenextavailableMayorsPlanningmeeting

iii. PrepareMayorsreportforadoptionoftheOAPFasSupplementaryPlanningGuidancetotheLondonPlan.

5.2 Thereportsettingouthowconsultationcommentshavebeenaddressedwillbe

reportedtotheOPDCPlanningCommitteeinduecourseandtheOPDCBoardwillreceiveareportonthefinalisedOAPFinlatesummer.

6 FinancialImplications

6.1 TherearenodirectfinancialimplicationsfromthesummaryofcommentsreceivedonthedraftOldOakandParkRoyalOAPFconsultation.

6.2 AnyfurtherchangesfromthisOAPFConsultationwillneedtobereviewedforfinancialimplications.

7 LegalImplications

7.1 NoparticularlegalimplicationsarisefromthereportanditisconsistentwiththeCorporationslegalframework.

8 Appendices

AppendixASummaryofResponsestothepublicconsultationonthedraftOldOakandParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanningFrameworkandresponsesfromkeypublicsectorstakeholders.

9 BackgroundPapers

None.

Reportoriginator: TomCardis,PrincipalStrategicPlanner,OPDCTelephone: 02079835552Email: tom.cardis@opdc.london.gov.uk

Page 22

O L D O A K & PA R K R O YA L

O P P O R T U N I T Y A R E A

P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K

C O N S U LTAT I O N

S U M M A RY R E P O R T

M AY 2 0 1 5

Page 23

2TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

O V E RV I E W 3

1 . G E N E R A L C O M M E N T S 8

2 . C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D E N G A G E M E N T 8

3 . I N T R O D U C T I O N C H A P T E R 9

4 . V I S I O N 9

5 . O B J E C T I V E S 1 0

6 . L A N D U S E 11

7 . D E S I G N 1 4

8 . P L A C E S O F O L D O A K 1 7

9 . PA R K R O YA L 2 1

1 0 . W O R M W O O D S C R U B S 2 3

11 . T R A N S P O R T S T R AT E G Y 2 4

1 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T S T R AT E G Y 2 8

1 3 . D E L I V E RY S T R AT E G Y 3 1

1 4 . P U B L I C D R O P - I N S E S S I O N S 3 2

1 5 . Q U E E N S PA R K R A N G E R S S U P P O R T E R S 3 2

S U M M A RY

1 6 . A P P E N D I C E S 3 2

1 7 . S U P P O R T I N G E N V I R O N M E N TA L S T U D I E S 3 3

A P P E N D I X : K E Y P U B L I C S E C TO R S TA K E H O L D E R S

R E S P O N S E S

Page 24

3O V E RV I E W

In accordance with the Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007, Greater London Authority

(GLA) undertook a public consultation on the draft Old Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area

Planning Framework (OAPF) for a period of 6 weeks from 27 February to 14 April 2015.

This report provides a summary of the issues raised during the public consultation. It does not

set out the proposed approach to addressing these issues. Further work will be undertaken dur-

ing summer 2015 to consider how best to respond to these issues. A follow up report will be pre-

sented to Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) Planning Committee and

OPDC Board later during summer 2015. Comments received from organisations represented on

OPDC board are appended to this report.

The OAPF is a Mayoral document and would be adopted by the Mayor of London as Supple-

mentary Planning Guidance (SPG) to the Mayors London Plan, in accordance with the Greater

London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007. OPDC cannot adopt the OAPF as a Supplementary Plan-

ning Document (SPD) as there is no Local Plan in place. However, the OAPF would still carry

VLJQLFDQWPDWHULDOZHLJKWLQWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRISODQQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQVLQWKH23'&DUHDDVSPG to the London Plan, which forms part of OPDCs Development Plan.

This report is structured around the following key themes:

1. General comments

2. Consultation and engagement

3. Introduction chapter

4. Vision

5. Objectives

6. Land use

a) Housing

b) Retail

c) Employment and training

d) Regeneration catalyst

7. Design

a) Public amenity space

b) Streets and public realm

c) Building heights and densities

d) Built heritage

e) Places/placemaking

8. Old Oak

a) Old Oak North

b) Old Oak South

c) Old Oak High Street

d) Old Oak Common Station

Page 25

4e) North Acton

f) Grand Union Canal

g) Scrubs Lane

h) Old Oak Lane

9. Park Royal

a) Land use

b) Improving infrastructure

c) Design

d) Heart of Park Royal

e) Wesley Estate

f) First Central site

10. Wormwood Scrubs

11. Transport chapter

a) Rail

b) Roads

c) Car parking

d) Buses

e) Walking and cycling

f) Construction

12. Environment Strategy

a) Water

b) Waste

c) Air quality

d) Energy

e) Green infrastructure

f) Land contamination

13. Delivery

a) Phasing

14. Public drop-in sessions and other event attendance

15. QPR supporters summary

16. Appendices

17. Supporting environmental studies

Responses from key public sector stakeholders are appended to this report.

Page 26

5N U M B E R O F R E S P O N D E N T S A N D R E S P O N S E S

In total 3,517 respondents provided responses:

Respondents

Borough 5

Business 1

Group - business 2

Group - interest 10

Residents (individuals & groups) 64

Land owner or utility provider 12

Political party 2

Stakeholder statutory and other 7

Queens Park Rangers supporters 3,414

Total 3,517

2IWKHUHVSRQVHVFRPPHQWVKDYHEHHQLGHQWLHG

Responses

Borough 147

Business 1

Group - business 152

Group - interest 162

Residents (individuals & groups) 1456

Land owner or utility provider 170

Political party 42

Stakeholder statutory and other 45

Queens Park Rangers supporters 8,804

Total 10,979

K E Y I S S U E S

Key issue Number of

respondents

Lifetime Neighbourhoods

Further commitment to deliver Lifetime Neighbourhoods required

37

Housing

Provision of affordable and family housing

11

Employment and training

Securing local employment and training

23

Regeneration catalyst Support for a cultural or education use

catalyst

12

Stated support for QPR stadium relocation 3,336

Did not support relocation of QPR stadium 86

Public amenity space

-XVWLFDWLRQIRUDPRXQWRIRSHQVSDFHUHTXLUHG13

Page 27

6Building heights

Concerns regarding building heights

41

Old Oak High Street

Concerns regarding the height of buildings along the high street

20

North Acton

Concerns regarding scale of existing development

19

Grand Union Canal Tow path improvements for movement 15

Heritage and biodiversity 20

Park Royal Stronger vision sought 18

Improvements to infrastructure and ser-

vices required

17

Wormwood Scrubs

Concerns regarding impact of development and protection of Worm-

wood Scrubs

80

Transport Opposition to the widening of Victoria

Road

5

7UDIFFRQJHVWLRQFUHDWHGE\FRQVWUXF-tion and new development will negatively

impact on local transport network

33

Impact of construction transport on resi-

dential amenity

10

Waste

Waste facilities should be relocated from Old Oak and should protect

residential amenity

21

Page 28

7Page 29

8S U M M A RY O F R E S P O N S E S

1 . G E N E R A L C O M M E N T S

Overview: Generally, the production of the OAPF was welcomed by consultees and the

IXUWKHUFODULFDWLRQDQGJXLGDQFHWKDWLWZLOOSURYLGHIRUGHYHORSPHQWZLWKLQWKHDUHD$few consultees raised concerns with the overall approach taken with the OAPF and these

concerns are set out below.

The levels of supporting and non-supporting comments are:

Broad support 36

No clear position 43

Broad objection 23 (11 of which are stock responses relating to concerns regarding the

potential impact on Wormwood Scrubs)

LB Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust raised con-

cerns that the drafting of the OAPF had been rushed. LB Hammersmith and Fulham stated that

there was an absence of key supporting evidence such as Character Area Studies, Edge Stud-

ies, Retail Needs Studies and Development Infrastructure Funding Studies. LB Ealing requested

that wording be inserted clarifying that work on the OAPF is at an early stage and that further

work will be necessary before development proposals are brought forward.

LBHF asserted that the OAPF was not necessary as it did not provide any additional guidance to

that already contained in the Mayors London Plan and Councils Regulation 18 Local Plan and

they noted that the OAPF should be mindful not to set new policies.

LBHF raised concerns about the structure of the OAPF and that in particular, there should be

clarity of the differences between principles, proposals and key objectives, that there should be

a glossary to the document and that certain text within paragraphs should be transferred into

objectives and/or policies.

LBHF assert that throughout the document, Old Oak Common should be referred to as Old

Oak.

Aurora Property Group stated that the OAPF should be clear that the GLA and OPDC would

welcome development proposals that accord with the OAPF to come forward in advance of the

OPDC Local Plan adoption.

Essential Living request that the OAPF provide clear timescales for the progression of OPDCs

Local Plan, Growth Strategy and Development Infrastructure Funding Study.

2 . C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D E N G A G E M E N T

Overview: Generally consultees welcomed being consulted on the draft OAPF. Some re-

VSRQGHQWV KDG VSHFLF FRPPHQWV RQ WKH DSSURDFK WR FRQVXOWDWLRQ DQG HQJDJHPHQWwhich are set out below.

LBHF and RBKC requested that OPDC adhere to the Duty to Cooperate and continue to engage

with them as plans for OPDC progress. Page 30

9LBHF raised concerns that the 6 week consultation period was inadequate for the council to

consider and comment on the draft.

The London Assembly Labour Group expressed concerns regarding the extent and type of con-

sultation activities undertaken.

The Regents Network stated that the consultation had been unlawful.

Residents requested that a community cohesion strategy be developed for future development.

3 . I N T R O D U C T I O N C H A P T E R

Overview: The Introduction chapter to the OAPF sets out the status and purpose of the

OAPF, including the OAPFs relationship with other documents such as the Old Oak Vi-

sion and HS2 Hybrid Bill. There were some detailed comments on the Introduction chap-

ter, outlined below.

LBHF asserted that the Introduction should make reference to council adopted Supplementary

Planning Documents (SPDs) also being a material consideration for the Old Oak and Park Royal

area.

LBHF also requested that a land ownership plan be included up front in the OAPF.

LB Ealing recommended that the OAPF should identify the constraints that face Old Oak in

terms of permeability and the challenges this will create for development and recognise up-front,

the impact HS2 will have at driving change in the area.

/%+RXQVORZZHOFRPHGWKHUHIHUHQFHWRWKH*ROGHQ0LOHLQWKH2$3)DQGWKHSRWHQWLDOEHQHWVthat London Overground connections would bring for the area.

HS2 Ltd welcomed the inclusion of para 1.10, which referenced Schedule 16 of the HS2 Hybrid

Bill, but considered that the implications of this paragraph had not been carried through in the

rest of the OAPF.

Segro requested that tweaks be made to para 1.8, which outlines how OPDCs future Local

Plan would deal with the de-designation of Strategic Industrial Location, to clarify that future de-

designation of Strategic Industrial Location (SIL) land would relate to the Old Oak area, Heart of

Park Royal and non-SIL areas.

Residents requested that reference is made to the role of Neighbourhood Plans and that further

references are provided to the role that Harlesden and Neasden play as centres for the existing

community that development in the OAPF area should connect to.

4 . V I S I O N

Overview: A number of consultees made suggestions to amend the OAPFs proposed vi-

sion, which are set out below.

LBHF raised concern with the reference to new towns and the potential connotation that this

area is being designated under the New Towns Act. LBHF stated that the area should not be

considered a new town but instead an area that seamlessly integrates with the urban fabric of

the surrounding boroughs. The Grand Union Alliance and London Civic Amenity Society also Page 31

10

objected to the term new town.

LBHF also note that in parts of the document, the timescales for development are referred to as

20 years whereas in others, it refers to 30 years and that it may not be feasible for development

to be completed in the next 20 years.

LB Brent noted that the vision for Park Royal needed to be developed further.

RB Kensington and Chelsea requested that the vision references the importance of connecting

to other nearby Opportunity Areas.

The London Assembly Labour Group stated that the OAPF should encourage the regeneration

of the opportunity area as an exemplary sustainable area striving for sustainable growth eco-

nomically, environmentally, and socially and in an integrated way.

Cargiant stated that the vision would be clearer if it was made more explicit that new homes and

jobs would be served by a broad range of ancillary services and facilities such as recreation,

arts, leisure, education and health related uses.

Residents requested that Lifetime Neighbourhoods were referenced within the vision, along with

a stronger emphasis on delivering affordable housing, provision of a mix of employment uses

for local people and a commitment to addressing deprivation. Residents also noted that Old

Oak should not be considered as a New Town and that smart regeneration be explained and

GHQHG

5 . O B J E C T I V E S

Overview: Generally, consultees welcomed the objectives. Some amendments to the ob-

jectives were suggested by consultees, which are set out below.

LBHF requested that the objectives be amended to reference the need to protect and enhance

existing natural and heritage values.

5%.HQVLQJWRQDQG&KHOVHDUHTXHVWHGWKDW2EMHFWLYHEHDOWHUHGWRVSHFLFDOO\UHIHUHQFHWKHimportance of connecting to other Opportunity Areas by rail.

Aurora Property Group requested that the objectives make the pressing need for residential de-

velopment more explicit.

Quattro suggested some further wording be added to the consolidate objective to clarify the

OAPFs approach to business relocations. Segro requested that Wormwood Scrubs be put into

a separate objective from Park Royal to avoid confusion.

435UHTXHVWHG WKDW WKHREMHFWLYHVVSHFLFDOO\HQFRXUDJH WKHGHYHORSPHQWRIDQHDUO\PDMRUcatalyst use.

Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group suggested that Objective 4 could be strength-

ened to give heritage-led development a stronger emphasis and that objective 3 should refer-

ence the importance of training for local people.

Residents requested that objectives seek to deliver sustainable development and Lifetime Neigh-

bourhoods. There was broad support for a multi-use focal point with examples of cultural venues

Page 32

11

and universities stated. Requests were also stated for wording around protecting and enhancing

existing communities and town centres, alongside committing to prioritising training and employ-

PHQWRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUORFDOSHRSOHDQGGHQLQJDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWDUJHWV

6 . L A N D U S E

Overview Respondents were generally supportive of the approach taken to land use in

the OAPF. There was particular support from local interest groups.

5HVSRQVHVRQVSHFLFODQGXVHW\SHVDUHSURYLGHGEHORZ7KLVVHFWLRQIRFXVVHVRQODQGXVHLVVXHVUHODWLQJWRWKHHQWLUH2$3)DUHDRUVSHFLFDOO\WR2OG2DN0RUHGHWDLOHGFRPPHQWVRQland use in Park Royal are covered in Section 9.

A . H O U S I N G

Overview: A number of consultees felt that the OAPF should provide greater clarity on the

approach that should be taken to housing and in particular, affordable housing.

LBHF requested that the OAPF provide further clarity on OPDCs future approach to affordable

housing and how it will engage with the boroughs. LBHF asserted that any affordable housing

SURYLVLRQVKRXOGEHEDVHGRQQHHGDQGVKRXOGQRWEHSUHGLFDWHGRQWKHQDQFLQJQHHGHGIRUphysical and social infrastructure in the area.

LBHF requested that the OAPF be clear that new housing should be designed to meet the needs

of London residents, not overseas investors.

LBHF raised concerns about the target for a minimum additional 24,000 homes and that this

VKRXOGLQVWHDGEHGHVFULEHGDVDQHVWLPDWHGJXUHQRWDPLQLPXPThe Hammersmith & Fulham Liberal Democrats requested that housing should be provided by

local authorities and housing associations and stated a preference for additional housing over

new jobs.

The London Assembly Labour Group requested a stronger policy for delivering affordable hous-

ing, including ensuring that affordable housing is priced into the land value. A minimum 50%

affordable housing target was also requested with 60:40 split for social rent and intermediate

tenures.

Local interest groups wished to see greater clarity on the approach to be taken towards afford-

able housing in the area.

5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGWKDWWKHDPRXQWRIKRXVLQJVKRXOGEHMXVWLHGDQGWKDWIXUWKHUJXLGDQFHRQaffordable housing should be provided with regard to affordable housing targets, tenure and mix.

5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGKRXVLQJWDUJHWVIRUDOOWKHSODFHVZKLFKDUHGHQHGLQWKHGRFXPHQWDVVSHFLFJHRJUDSKLFDODUHDVZLWKWKHLURZQYLVLRQVDQGREMHFWLYHV5HTXHVWVZHUHPDGHIRUWKHVHto be based on delivering Lifetime Neighbourhoods.

5HVLGHQWVVRXJKWDGHQLWLRQRIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWREHSURYLGHG5HVLGHQWVDOVRFRQVLGHUHGthat the affordable housing alone will not address local deprivation.

Page 33

12

B . R E TA I L

2YHUYLHZ*HQHUDOO\FRQVXOWHHVIHOWWKDWIXUWKHUMXVWLFDWLRQDQGHYLGHQFHVKRXOGEHXQ-dertaken on retail.

RB Kensington and Chelsea requested that the OAPF provide further clarity on the appropriate

quantum of retail in the area and nature of any retail centres, LBHF and LB Brent requested that

WKH7DEOHRQSDJHZKLFKVKRZVUHWDLORRUVSDFHLQFRPSDUDEOH2SSRUWXQLW\$UHDVVKRXOGEHIXUWKHUMXVWLHGRUUHPRYHGLBHF requested that the areas in Figures 6 (Vision map) and 10 (land uses map) shown as being

appropriate for town centre uses should be shrunk and that the OAPF should not show the ap-

SURSULDWHORFDWLRQVIRUDFWLYHIURQWDJHVXQWLOWKHDSSURSULDWHTXDQWXPRIUHWDLOKDVEHHQGHQHGLB Brent asserted that any retail must not have a detrimental impact on Harlesden.

LB Ealing suggested that in order to minimise potential detrimental impacts of new retail, meas-

XUHVVKRXOGEHWDNHQWRFRQWUROWKHVL]HRIUHWDLOXQLWVDQGOLPLWWKHDPRXQWRIFRPSDULVRQRRU-space.

Residents and businesses requested that nearby existing town centres should be protected and

enhanced. Retail uses around the proposed new London Overground Station on Hythe Road

were proposed and retail uses within the Heart of Park Royal supported. Residents also sup-

ported the encouragement of independent retail.

C . E M P L O Y M E N T A N D T R A I N I N G

Overview: The approach to employment and training in the OAPF was generally sup-

ported. A number of consultees made detailed representations which are set out below.

LB Ealing requested that the Brunel Estate not be shown as being developed for mixed use de-

YHORSPHQWDQGLQVWHDGLWFRQWLQXHWREHLGHQWLHGDVD6WUDWHJLF,QGXVWULDO/RFDWLRQ6,/Quattro asserted that OPDC should provide a commitment that it will support businesses requir-

ing relocation. They also stated that the plan as currently written does not appear to support

WKHUHORFDWLRQRIQRQRIFHOLJKWLQGXVWULDOXVHV6HJURUHTXHVWHGWKDWDQ\EXVLQHVVUHORFDWLRQVwould need to undergo full and proper consultation with existing businesses.

The Hammersmith & Fulham Liberal Democrats stated support for the retention of industrial

premises and jobs.

The London Assembly Labour Group requested that further information was provided for where

VSDFHIRUGLVSODFHGHPSOR\PHQWRRUVSDFHZLOOEHORFDWHGDQGWKDWDVWURQJHUFRPPLWPHQWWRprotecting industrial land is stated (including a no net loss of industrial land). The Group stated

that the impact of development on Park Royal must be managed and requested that further stud-

ies on future growth sectors are delivered. Support was also shown the delivery of data centres.

Local interest groups supported the proposals for economic growth in Old Oak and continued

protection of SIL in Park Royal. There was some concern about the potential impact that relo-

cated businesses in Old Oak may have on businesses in Park Royal. The Grand Union Alliance

proposed a minimum target of 30% of new jobs to go to local people. The We Care Foundation

felt that many industrial units in the area were currently vacant and that there should be review

Page 34

13

of industrial land at the Park Royal Junction, Abbey Road, Premier Park area.

The Park Royal Business Group supported the approach that the OAPF has taken to employ-

ment creation in the area. In contrast, the Regents Network objected to the loss of any industrial

land in the Old Oak and Park Royal area.

Residents requested that employment and training opportunities (including apprenticeships)

should be maximised (with 30% for local people as per the Grand Union Alliance submission)

and commitments made for local people during the construction and operational phases of de-

velopment. Further guidance was requested for targets to monitor local employment and train-

LQJ WKHDPRXQWDQG W\SHVRIHPSOR\PHQWDQG WKHEUHDNGRZQRIJXUHV IRUFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGoperational jobs. An employment strategy setting out how local people will secure employment

and training was also suggested.

Residents also requested further protection of existing businesses and support for new employ-

ment and relocated businesses from Old Oak to Park Royal. Concerns were raised regarding

the lack of clarity for how local businesses within Park Royal will be supported. A request for the

removal of the Metroline Bus Depot at Willesden Junction from Strategic Industrial Location (SIL)

land was also stated.

D . R E G E N E R AT I O N C ATA LY S T

Overview: 3,414 responses were received from supporters of QPR in the form of a stand-

ardised response. The vast majority of these were in support of a football stadium acting

as a catalyst for regeneration in Old Oak. Responses from QPR supporters are dealt with

in section 15. Of the non QPR supporters who responded, there was general support for

regeneration catalysts.

QPR supported the reference in the OAPF to the potential for a large-scale use acting as a cata-

lyst for regeneration. QPR assert that a new stadium would be an ideal large-scale catalyst for

WKHUHJHQHUDWLRQRIWKHDUHDDQGWKDWVXFKDXVHZRXOGEHDEHDWLQJKHDUWDQGLGHQWLHUIRUWKHDUHD435UHTXHVWWKDWWKH2$3)LQSULQFLSOH22PDNHVSHFLFUHIHUHQFHWRWKHSURYLVLRQRIDsports facility/football stadium as part of the mix of land uses. In response to Question 4, QPR

QRWHWKDWWKHFDWDO\VWXVHVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHGDVDVSRUWVVWDGLXPCargiant considered that the emphasis that the OAPF gave to large-scale uses acting as cata-

lysts for regeneration was being overplayed. Further, Cargiant suggested that rather than large-

scale catalyst uses, a range of smaller scale uses and facilities could actually provide better

resilience and integration with a predominantly residential and employment led neighbourhood.

In addition, Cargiant alleged that imposing large-scale facilities such as football stadia on the Old

Oak area could potentially damage the emerging character of the area and such uses would also

reduce the ability of the area to deliver much needed new homes and jobs.

LB Brent and LB Ealing requested that further work be undertaken to understand how a large-

scale catalyst could be accommodated without compromising open space provision and QPR

requested that the next version of the OAPF include an image illustrating how a football stadium

FRXOGWZLWKLQWKHZLGHUPDVWHUSODQThe London Civic Amenity Society stated that they did not support proposals to build a football

stadium in Old Oak and that such a use would be incompatible with the objectives of the OAPF.

Residents supported the delivery of a regeneration catalyst, or focal point, if it was a cultural or

Page 35

14

HGXFDWLRQXVHWRKHOSGHOLYHUWKHSULQFLSOHVRI/LIHWLPH1HLJKERXUKRRGVDQGUHHFWHGWKHORFDOcharacter. Some support from residents was shown for a stadium.

7 . D E S I G N

Overview: There were a substantial number of comments on design from consultees.

LB Brent requested that the OAPF be clearer on the need for high quality architectural design,

especially for tall buildings.

A number of interest groups replicated this concern stating that high rise buildings should not be

of low quality architecture.

Historic England (formerly English Heritage) supported the collaborative approach undertaken

between the GLA/OPDC and Historic England to date.

HS2 Ltd raised concerns with principle D2d, which supports the use of TfLs Station Public

Realm Design Guidance and that this principle is unlikely to be appropriate for the needs of a

high speed station.

Residents requested that greater emphasis on Lifetime Neighbourhoods and high quality design

LVSURYLGHGWRHQVXUH2OG2DNGHQHV/RQGRQDUFKLWHFWXUHIRUWKHVWFHQWXU\A . P U B L I C A M E N I T Y S PA C E

Overview: A number of consultees made representations on the amount and quality of

open space that should be provided within the OAPF area.

LBHF stated that where the proposed green grid connects to existing open spaces this should

be done sensitively and should not detract from the spaces character and function.

LB Brent raised concerns about the green grid following key vehicular routes in Park Royal and

WKDWLWZRXOGEHKHOSIXOLIWKHJUHHQJULGZHUHGHQHGVRPHZKHUH/%%UHQWUHTXHVWHGWKDWWKHdevelopment of a green grid should be informed by a mapping exercise showing existing Sites

of Nature Conservation Importance.

LBHF, LB Ealing and LB Brent raised concerns that there does not appear to be adequate open

space provision within the Old Oak development area and that there is an overreliance on using

Wormwood Scrubs to meet the open space needs at Old Oak. LBHF requested that the size of

2OG2DN3DUNLQ2OG2DN1RUWKVKRXOGEHGHQHGQPR asserted in their representations that the quantum of public amenity space shown in the

masterplan is too large.

/RFDOLQWHUHVWJURXSVVXSSRUWHGWKHLGHQWLFDWLRQRIJUHHQDPHQLW\VSDFHLQWKH2$3)EXWIHOWthat more spaces and a greater variety of spaces in terms of size and function. Interest groups

such as the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs, Grand Union Alliance and Civic Amenity Society

noted the importance of protecting Wormwood Scrubs as part of the approach to amenity space.

The Friends of Wormwood Scrubs requested that Wormwood Scrubs should not contribute to

public amenity space provision for the development in Old Oak and that additional amenity

spaces should be shown on relevant maps.

Page 36

15

Residents expressed strong concerns for any potential development on Wormwood Scrubs.

Residents supported the green grid and the maximum delivery of open space that enabled mul-

tiple uses. Requests were made that local people should help to inform the design of new public

RSHQVSDFHVDQGWKDWRSHQVSDFHVDUHLGHQWLHGRQPDSV6XJJHVWLRQVIRUWKHXVHRISODLQ(QJ-lish and combining guidance D1 and D2 were presented. Proposals for extending the green grid

to Victoria Road, Old Oak Land and Old Oak Common Lane were also made.

Residents also requested that existing canal open spaces and Victoria Road open spaces and

VWUHHWSODQQLQJVKRXOGEHSURWHFWHGZLWKWKH0HWUROLQHGHSRWDW:LOOHVGHQ-XQFWLRQLGHQWLHGWRpotentially provide new public open space. The need for an open space needs assessment was

LGHQWLHGDQGWKDWWKHDPRXQWRIRSHQVSDFHVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHGLQFOXGLQJIRUHDFKSODFHDQGMXVWLHGZKLOHOLQNHGWRKRXVLQJGHOLYHU\,QFDOFXODWLQJSXEOLFRSHQVSDFH:RUPZRRG6FUXEVand street greening was asked to be excluded.

B . S T R E E T S A N D P U B L I C R E A L M

Overview: There was general support for the approach taken to public realm and streets

in the OAPF.

The London Assembly Labour Group requested that a stronger commitment to high quality ur-

ban design is stated.

The Grand Union Alliance interest group raised concerns about Grand Union Street and the po-

tential impact this would have on existing residential communities.

5HVLGHQWVSURYLGHGJHQHUDOVXSSRUW IRU LPSURYLQJWKHSXEOLFUHDOPDQGVSHFLFDOO\UHTXHVWHGthat walking and cycling routes should be segregated, permeability of the area is balanced with

safety and that the street greening along Victoria Road is protected. Residents also asked for a

FOHDUHUGHQLWLRQRIJUHHQVWUHHWVC . B U I L D I N G H E I G H T S A N D D E N S I T I E S

Overview: A number of consultees made representations on the OAPFs approach to

building heights and densities.

LBHF and LB Ealing asserted that the area is being overdeveloped and that the approach to

heights and densities should be more sensitive to the surrounding context. LB Ealing stated that

constraining building heights on the edges is resulting in heights being pushed up in the cen-

tre and this will cause problems in terms of transitioning heights. LBHF request that the height

comparisons in para 5.25 are removed as it is not appropriate for crude, untested examples

and suggested precedent without further evidence. RB Kensington and Chelsea replicate this

viewpoint and request that further work is undertaken to justify any tall buildings. In particular,

RB Kensington and Chelsea raise concerns about the potential impact of tall buildings on Kensal

Cemetery and the need for this to be further considered.

RB Kensington and Chelsea requested that the OAPF provides further clarity on the approach

that should be taken next to sensitive areas. This request was mirrored by LB Brent who as-

serted that the current approach was contradictory with some areas such as Willesden Junction

EHLQJLGHQWLHGLQ)LJXUHDVEHLQJERWKVHQVLWLYHDQGDSSURSULDWHIRUWDOOHUHOHPHQWVLBHF asserted that having tall buildings at entrances is over the top and lacks evidence.

Page 37

16

Historic England expressed concern regarding the promotion of tall buildings and the impact on

heritage assets.

The Hammersmith & Fulham Liberal Democrats stated support for high density development if

supported by appropriate management and levels of open space.

The London Assembly Labour Group supported building heights of 20 storeys for commercial

uses but not for affordable or family housing and that where no better alternative is available, we

recognise that tall buildings will play a role in the opportunity area. Further guidance for heights

and the sustainability of tall buildings was requested alongside a maximum height limit with low-

rise high-density typologies the preferred norm. The Group also suggested that guidance should

state that tall buildings cluster around transport nodes and then taper down to surrounding ar-

eas. Support for a local urban design scrutiny team to assess tall building proposals was stated.

QPR considered that transitions between building heights need not necessarily be gradual and

that the wording in the OAPF should instead refer to appropriate transitions between building

heights.

$XURUD3URSHUW\*URXSUHTXHVWHGWKDWDQHQWUDQFHSRLQWEHLGHQWLHGDWWKHMXQFWLRQRIWKH*UDQG8QLRQ&DQDOZLWK6FUXEV/DQHDQGWKDWDIXUWKHUHQWUDQFHSRLQWVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHGDWWKHMXQF-tion of Hythe Road with Scrubs Lane.

One local interest group stated that Government should order the closure of RAF Northolt to

avoid restrictions on building heights. Other local interest groups were concerned about the

scale and density of proposals in the OAPF. A few local interest groups were calling for height

limits of 10 storeys and stronger limits along Old Oak High Street (5 storeys) and along the

Grand Union Canal (3 storeys).

5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGWKHMXVWLFDWLRQIRUWKHOHYHORIGHYHORSPHQWDQGGHQVLWLHVVXJJHVWLQJWKDWLGHQWLHGGHQVLWLHVDFURVVWKHDUHDDUHWRRKLJK6FHQDULRVIRU OHVVGHQVHGHYHORSPHQWZHUHrequested. Residents also stated that high density development does not need to be high rise

and suggested the use of mansion blocks.

5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGWKDWEXLOGLQJKHLJKWVVKRXOGEHFOHDUO\VWDWHGDQGLGHQWLHGIRUHDFKSODFHusing 3D modelling. Concerns were raised regarding guidance providing contradicting informa-

tion regarding general increase in building heights and integrating with the surrounding area.

Residents asked for references to greater height to be removed and that the average building

height should be 5-6 storeys or 8-10 storeys and that building heights of 40-50 storeys are not

supported. They also requested that tall buildings must not impact on local communities and

should be located away from existing residential communities while stepping down from the tall

EXLOGLQJFOXVWHUV5HVLGHQWVVSHFLFDOO\UHTXHVWHGWKDWWKH2$3)VKRXOGFRPPLWWRVDIHJXDUGLQJthe amenity of local communities.

Residents also asked for development close to Wormwood Scrubs to be low rise and that build-

LQJKHLJKWVVKRXOGUHHFWWKHORZULVHUHVLGHQWLDODUHDQRUWKRI:LOOHVGHQ-XQFWLRQVWDWLRQ6SH-FLFDOO\:HOOV+RXVH5RDGUHVLGHQWVZHUHFRQFHUQHGWKDWWDOOEXLOGLQJVPD\EORFNYLHZVIURPUVWRRUZLQGRZVRQ:HOOV+RXVH5RDG%RWK:HVW$FWRQDQGWKHDUHDQRUWKRIWKHIUHLJKWOLQHUterminal were asked to be designated as a sensitive area.

5HVLGHQWVLGHQWLHGDQHQWUDQFHSRLQWDWWKHMXQFWLRQRI6WDWLRQ5RDGDQG2OG2DN/DQHEXWDOVRstated that tall buildings may not be appropriate at entrance points.

Page 38

17

D . B U I LT H E R I TA G E A N D L O C A L V I E W S

Overview: A number of consultees requested greater clarity on the approach to heritage

and local views.

LB Brent requested that further work be undertaken on the heritage assets in and around Old

Oak and Park Royal.

Historic England requested that amendments are made to the OAPF to ensure compliance with

national guidance in relation to the setting of heritage assets. Strong support was expressed for

additional work to be undertaken to inform local views. Historic England as request that further

LQIRUPDWLRQZDVSURYLGHGWRHQVXUHKRZGHYHORSPHQWUHHFWVWKHORFDOFKDUDFWHUDQGPDWHULDOV$XURUD3URSHUW\*URXSQRWHGWKDWDQDSSURSULDWHPHWKRGRORJ\IRUVHOHFWLQJLGHQWLHGYLHZVZLOObe necessary.

Local interest groups considered that there should be a greater emphasis on heritage. The

Grand Union Alliance felt that North Acton Cemetery should be referenced as a heritage asset in

the OAPF and that consideration could be given to the industrial heritage along the Grand Union

Canal. A number of interest groups supported the protection of Wormwood Scrubs as a heritage

asset. Groups also requested that local views acknowledge that the Scrubs character is sensi-

tive to tall development in Old Oak.

Residents requested that built heritage is used to inform placemaking and a survey of heritage

DVVHWVLVXQGHUWDNHQ6SHFLFFRPPHQWVIRUSUHVHUYLQJWKHKHULWDJHRIFDQDOUDLOZD\VDQGLQ-dustry were provided.

Residents asked for Wells House Road, West Acton and Midland Terrace to designated as view

points.

E . P L A C E S / P L A C E M A K I N G

Overview: Consultees were generally supportive of the approach to placemaking. A few

FRQVXOWHHVKDGVSHFLFFRPPHQWVZKLFKDUHRXWOLQHGEHORZLBHF stated that the guidance on the green grid in the design section has not been carried

through into the Old Oak Places section.

LB Brent request that further assessment be undertaken of the surrounding context to inform the

approach to design in the OAPF.

LB Ealing suggested that decking of land to support development above might be approach that

could be taken to overcome severance created by the existing infrastructure in the area.

Residents requested further emphasis and detail on how the OAPF will help to deliver Lifetime

Neighbourhoods. They also requested that each place section provides guidance for amount of

housing, open space and building heights.

8 . P L A C E S O F O L D O A K

Overview: The Old Oak chapter of the OAPF included within it a number of places which

had their own vision, objectives and guidance. There were a number of comments from

Page 39

18

consultees on each of these places and these comments are outlined below.

A . O L D O A K N O R T H

435UHTXHVWHGWKDWVSHFLFUHIHUHQFHVKRXOGEHPDGHLQ2OG2DN1RUWKWRWKHSRWHQWLDOIRRWEDOOstadium to be located here as a catalyst for regeneration.

Residents requested that guidance to deliver new public open space be provided and linked to

level of housing delivery. There were also requests for Old Oak Square to be at the heart of Old

Oak North.

Residents showed support for a focal point but concerns were raised about this being a football

stadium. Residents also proposed that where possible new roads are built underground and the

Hythe Road Station is delivered on a viaduct. Greater emphasis on delivering Lifetime Neigh-

ERXUKRRGVZDVUHTXHVWHGVSHFLFDOO\LQUHODWLRQWRVRFLDOLQIUDVWUXFWXUHResidents requested that waste sites are removed from the area.

B . O L D O A K S O U T H

LBHF requested that a further objective be added requiring development to respect and be

sensitive to the Grand Union Canal. LBHF also stated that there should be further evidence to

VXSSRUWWKHVWDWHPHQWVXFKDKLJKGHJUHHRIDFFHVVLELOLW\MXVWLHVKLJKGHQVLW\LBHF requested that the development precedent images showing tall buildings should be re-

moved from page 55.

LBHF request that reference should be made to Little Wormwood Scrubs which borders this

place and the need for its nature conservation to be appropriately considered.

RB Kensington and Chelsea requested that the OAPF makes reference here to Kensal Canal-

side Opportunity Area and the potential for future synergy between these areas.

LB Ealing requested that the boundary of Old Oak South be expanded to include the land to the

north of North Acton Central Line station.

HS2 Ltd noted that the eastern connection over the Grand Union Canal but that the OAPF is not

clear on its funding.

QPR requested that reference be made in Old Oak South to the potential for the early delivery

of the Genesis site. QPR also requested that two new objectives be added:

1. The importance of securing links between Old Oak South and Old Oak North; and

2. Encourage the early development of available sites.

Residents raised concerns for the impact of development on residential amenity and sought that

50% of housing should be affordable.

C . O L D O A K H I G H S T R E E T

LBHF and LB Ealing stated that a shoulder height of 10 storeys was too tall and that this would

UHVXOWLQDZDOOPDVVLQJDQG/%+)DOVRDVVHUWHGWKDWGHQLQJDZLGWKRIPHWUHVEDVHGRQ7I/Page 40

19

JXLGDQFHLVQRWVXIFLHQWHYLGHQFHDQGVKRXOGEHUHPRYHGLB Brent considered that Old Oak High Street should not be a through route for private vehicles.

QPR requested that greater emphasis be given to the potential for Old Oak High Street to go

over rather than under the West London Line.

Residents requested that new public open spaces are active and usable and that continental

boulevards are used as inspiration. They also asked that building heights should be no greater

than 5 storeys or 10 storeys. Requests for the High Street to have only public transport and walk-

ing and cycling and access were presented. Support was shown for segregated cycle access.

D . O L D O A K C O M M O N S TAT I O N

HS2 Ltd raised a number of concerns relating to this section; principally:

That the OAPF promotes over station development but that this is not being proposed by HS2; That HS2 are not proposing an unpaid link through the station and that showing such a link is

unsound; and

That there are not currently any proposals to relocate the IEP depot and that showing this redeveloped and a link through it is therefore unsound.

HS2 Ltd also requested that Objective 5 be reworded to clarify whether the station should be

designed to support mixed use development or whether mixed use development is sought in

support of the station. HS2 Ltd asserted that the stations primary function is an operational sta-

tion and not a retail centre.

On over station development, HS2 Ltd requested that some text be inserted clarifying that OPDC

is working with HS2 at exploring ways that such development could be provided without affecting

the cost and programme of HS2.

HS2 Ltd stated that a lot of the detailed design points in the OAPF on issues such as station ac-

cess would be determined through the Schedule 16 planning process.

LBHF requested that wording be inserted stating that any southern access to the station should

not have an adverse impact on Wormwood Scrubs. Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust and the

Grand Union Alliance local residents group did not support southern access from Old Oak Com-

mon station to Wormwood Scrubs.

Access to Wormwood Scrubs was not supported by a number of residents and groups.

Residents requested that the main vehicular entrance to the station should be provided from

Scrubs Lane to the east to mitigate impact on Old Oak Common Lane.

The Friends of Wormwood Scrubs supported the proposal for a footbridge over Old Oak Com-

mon Station rather than an underpass.

E . N O R T H A C TO N

Essential Living, the owners of the Perfume Factory site requested that the Perfume Factory

VLWHEHLGHQWLHGDVDORFDWLRQIRUDSRWHQWLDOFDWDO\VWIRUUHJHQHUDWLRQ(VVHQWLDO/LYLQJDOVRUH-TXHVWHGWKDWWKH3HUIXPH)DFWRU\VLWHVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHGDVIDOOLQJZLWKLQWKHKLJKHURUKLJKHVWdensity categories in principle OO4 and that the document should be clearer about the GLAs in-

Page 41

20

WHQWLRQVIRUWKHDUHDLGHQWLHGDVRSHQVSDFHWRWKHQRUWKRIWKH3HUIXPH)DFWRU\VLWH(VVHQWLDOLiving also raised concerns about how upgrades to North Acton station would be paid for.

Residents and local interest groups did not consider the existing development of North Acton

to be of an appropriate quality or density and viewed it to be unsympathetic to local neighbour-

hoods. Requests were made for a green corridor from North Acton to Old Oak to be formally

established and current street greening protected. Amendments to the gyratory system were

proposed to improve the public realm alongside requests for future development to integrate with

the surrounding area and not provide a cliff-edge.

5HVLGHQWVLGHQWLHGWKHQHHGWRSURWHFW$FWRQ&HPHWHU\DQGVXJJHVWHGWKHDUHDGHOLYHUVDG-vanced manufacturing and educational uses.

Concerns were also raised regarding the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporations

scheme of delegation with the London Borough of Ealing.

F. G R A N D U N I O N C A N A L

The Canals and River Trust welcomed the Grand Union Canal being at the forefront of the OAPF.

The Canals and River Trust had a number of detailed points in relation to the canal, including:

Making reference to it being a key east-west sustainable transport corridor; Being engaged in the location, delivery and maintenance strategy for any bridges crossing

the canal;

Referencing the Canals various environmental and heritage designations; Concerns regarding the provision of a path on the northern edge of the canal; Recognising the canals designation as a Cycle Quietway; and Emphasising the potential use of the canal for freight.The Canals and River Trust were particularly supportive of the OAPFs aspirations to increase

the use and access on the canal and provide the potential for new waterspaces and moorings

in the area.

/%+)UHTXHVWHGWKDW WKH*UDQG8QLRQ&DQDOEH LGHQWLHGDVKDYLQJVSHFLDOVHQVLWLYLW\ LQ WKHguidance and that the provision of tall or taller buildings would be inappropriate adjacent to the

canal.

LBHF requested that the OAPF clarify that the Grand Union Canal is designated as a Nature

Conservation Area of Metropolitan Importance and LB Ealing request that mention is made of

the Conservation Area(s) that run along its length.

QPR noted that asset that the canal provides the area and stated that use of the corridor would

need to be carefully controlled so that all residents, employees and visitors can enjoy its unique

amenity.

The London Civic Amenity Society were supportive of proposals to use the Grand Union Canal

for the movement of freight.

Residents requested that guidance for the canal should require development to be set back from

the canal edge and the tow paths have segregated cycling paths and lighting. They also asked

that building heights should be no higher than 3 storeys and that historic buildings are protected

Page 42

21

5HVLGHQWVDOVRLGHQWLHGWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIWKHELRGLYHUVLW\RIWKHFDQDODORQJVLGHXVLQJWKHFDQDOfor freight movement.

G . S C R U B S L A N E

LBHF stated that the OAPF should identify part of Scrubs Lane as being within a Conservation

Area and that to the north of Scrubs Lane, the OAPF should include reference to the need for

development to integrate with College Park.

Aurora Property Group stated that the OAPF should not preclude the potential for tall buildings

to the east of Scrubs Lane.

QPR stated that the Scrubs Lane section should make it clear that the redevelopment of Old Oak

1RUWKZLOOEHEHQHFLDOLQWHUPVRIUHGXFLQJWKHQXPEHURI+*9PRYHPHQWVDORQJWKHURDGZLWKapproximately 50% of HGV movements currently being generated by the waste sites.

Residents asked that Scrubs Lane be developed as a boulevard and stated that tall buildings

are not suitable. Suggestions were also made for a key access route to be provided into Old Oak

from Scrubs Lane and that existing businesses are protected. Support for retaining and activat-

ing the historic buildings in this area was stated.

H . O L D O A K L A N E

LB Ealing request that the policy approach to Old Oak Lane should be more ambitious and

should recognise the development potential of the area post HS2 Ltds use of their construction

compound. They suggest, in particular, that the OAPF should identify the HS2 work sites as de-

velopment sites. LB Ealing also suggest that further work should also be undertaken looking at

WKHLPSDFWRIWUDIFRQ2OG2DN/DQHHS2 Ltd requested that illustrations of the HS2 work sites should be consistent with the limits of

deviation in the HS2 Hybrid Bill.

The Grand Union Alliance interest group proposed that a new north-south street should be pro-

posed to provide relief to Old Oak Lane.

Residents stated supported for the Harlesden Bypass a proposal for a new road running east-

west through the core development area at Old Oak. Residents also requested that the area

QRUWKRIWKHIUHLJKWOLQHUWHUPLQDOLVLGHQWLHGDVDVHQVLWLYHORFDWLRQ

9 . PA R K R O YA L

Overview: Generally, consultees felt that the OAPF was too focussed on Old Oak and that

the Park Royal section warranted further work and additional detail.

LB Brent asserted that the OAPF does not put forward a strong vision for Park Royal and that

the document contains less detail than in the Park Royal OAPF (2011). LB Ealing also criticise

the OAPFs approach to Park Royal stating that the OAPF should set in place a more proactive

strategy rather than merely safeguarding SIL.

Segro stated the importance of protecting the Park Royal Industrial Estate Strategic Industrial

Location (SIL) and that all steps should be taken to avoid any gradual encroachment of non-SIL

uses into this area.

Page 43

22

Segro noted that work undertaken by their consultants has shown that the Park Royal Industrial

Estate could accommodate 75,000 jobs and that further work on employment capacity might be

necessary and that further discussion with the GLA and OPDC would be welcome.

Segro asserted that the Park Royal section warrants additional detail, in particular on the existing

businesses in Park Royal. They requested that more information is provided on the breakdown

of businesses, which would show the huge number of SMEs within the Estate, as well as large

investment companies such as Segro. In addition, they requested that the Park Royal section

should recognise that the employment offer in Park Royal is likely to be substantially different to

that in Old Oak and will generate its own demands. Further, Segro asserted that an independent

study should be undertaken on Park Royal to assess its changing growth dynamics and utilities,

transport and logistics infrastructure requirements.

5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGWKDWSODFHVSHFLFJXLGDQFHEHSURYLGHGIRUWKHZLGHU3DUN5R\DODUHDA . L A N D U S E I N PA R K R O YA L

LB Ealing suggested that OPDC should consider an Article 4 for the Park Royal Industrial Estate

to prevent change of use from industrial to residential.

/%(DOLQJDVVHUWHGWKDW3DUN5R\DOZRXOGEHQHWIURPDQLQGXVWULDODQGHPSOR\PHQWVWUDWHJ\and work on future growth sectors.

PRBG supported the protection of the Strategic Industrial Location land.

Guinness Ltd supported the continued target to deliver a minimum 1,500 homes and 10,000 jobs

EXWQRWHG WKDW WKH6WUDWHJLF ,QGXVWULDO/RFDWLRQ6,/ERXQGDU\ LQJXUHZDV LQFRUUHFWDQGrequired amending.

5HVLGHQWVUDLVHGFRQFHUQVUHJDUGLQJWKHLQWHQVLFDWLRQRIHPSOR\PHQWXVHVDQGWKHLPSDFWRQlocal amenity and the transport network.

B . I M P R O V I N G I N F R A S T R U C T U R E I N PA R K R O YA L

LB Brent request that the OAPF clarify that broadband is not the only infrastructure issue facing

Park Royal and that drainage and energy are also big issues.

35%*LGHQWLI\WKDWXWLOLWLHVDQGWUDQVSRUWLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDUHQRWVXIFLHQWWRVXSSRUWH[LVWLQJEXVL-nesses and envisaged future business growth and this should be addressed as a priority. Con-

cerns were also raised by the group regarding the potential impact of construction at Old Oak on

the local transport network.

Residents raised concerns regarding the relocation of waste uses from Old Oak into Park Royal

and that impacts on residents should be considered. Additional concerns were raised regarding

WKHLPSDFWRIDGGLWLRQDOWUDIFRQWKHURDGQHWZRUN6XSSRUWZDVVWDWHGIRUWKHVXEPLWWHG+DUOHV-den bypass proposal and further guidance for walking and cycling routes to other residential

areas and transport hubs.

C . D E S I G N I N PA R K R O YA L

Residents requested that further emphasis on utilising local heritage assets and input from local

Page 44

23

people to inform the enhancement of Park Realm was sought. Support was shown for improving

the canalside environment.

D . H E A R T O F PA R K R O YA L

LB Brent requested that the guidance identify the need for development to provide visitor accom-

modation and meeting space.

LB Ealing state that the area should not be treated as a conventional retail centre and that it

VKRXOGQRWEHGHVLJQDWHGDVDUHWDLOFHQWUHDQGZRXOGLQVWHDGEHQHWIURPDVSHFLDOSROLF\GHV-ignation as a business and service hub. LB Ealing also consider that special reference should

be made to the hospital and the dependency of residential schemes on the special requirements

of this use.

$6'$QRWHGWKDWWKHLGHQWLFDWLRQRIRSHQVSDFHRQWKHLUVXSHUPDUNHWVLWHZRXOGLPSDFWRQSR-tential housing delivery.

Park Royal Business Group (PRBG) and Segro both support the aspiration for the Heart. PRBG

DOVRUHTXHVWHGWKDWWKLVVKRXOGLQFOXGHH[LEOHDQGDIIRUGDEOHZRUNVSDFHResidents requested that development within the Heart address needs of local residents as well

as businesses and links to the Old Oak development are maximised.

E . W E S L E Y E S TAT E

Residents requested a clearer strategy for Park Royal and raised concerns that the current level

RIJXLGDQFHLVLQVXIFLHQWIRUWKH:HVOH\(VWDWHF. F I R S T C E N T R A L S I T E

LB Brent request that text be inserted requiring development at First Central to also make im-

provements to access to public transport.

Guinness Ltd requested that the more detailed guidance on building heights for the First Central

site should be reinstated in this OAPF and that the current principle PR1 fails to take account

of the existing planning consents on the First Central site. Further, Guinness Ltd requested that

amendments be made to principle PR1(d) to give greater emphasis to the potential for the site

to accommodate residential uses.

1 0 . W O R M W O O D S C R U B S

Overview: A number of representations were made by consultees in relation to the Worm-

wood Scrubs section of the OAPF.

LBHF requested that the Wormwood Scrubs section have its own vision and objectives as per

the Old Oak Places section and that Linford Christie should be shown on Figure 53 and its rela-

WLRQVKLSZLWKWKH6FUXEVFODULHGLBHF raised concerns about the indicative location for an all-through school next to Wormwood

Scrubs and the potential that the school would be used by the school, adding additional pressure

on the use of the Scrubs.

Page 45

24

LBHF requested that the OAPF should clarify the relationship between OPDC, LBHF and Worm-

wood Scrubs Charitable Trust and that LBHF be recognised in the text as a key stakeholder in

agreeing future enhancements to the Scrubs.

/%+)VWDWHGWKDWWKH2$3)GHQHZKDWWKHGHVLJQDWLRQRI:RUPZRRG6FUXEVDV0HWURSROLWDQOpen Land (MOL) means and that the OAPF should outline the approach OPDC would take to

nature conservation.

LB Brent requested that the OAPF identify more than one access to the Scrubs from the north.

The London Assembly Labour Group expressed concerns regarding the potential for Wormwood

Scrubs being overwhelmed by new users.

The Friends of Wormwood Scrubs, a local interest group, stated general support for the Worm-

wood Scrubs Strategy but raised concerns regarding sensitive enhancements to the Scrubs

highlighting that the emphasis should be on ensuring the Scrubs are more wild than tamed. The

group also requested that the role of Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust was emphasised. Only

one new access point was supported with locations suggested to the east of the proposed High

Speed 2 station or at the north western corner of the Scrubs.

The group raised strong concerns regarding the potential impact of new accesses and develop-

PHQWRI2OG2DNRQWKHFKDUDFWHUDQGELRGLYHUVLW\DVVHWVRIWKH6FUXEV6SHFLFDOO\WKHUHWHQWLRQof the embankment along the northern edge was sought.

7KH JURXS DOVR LGHQWLHG WKDW VHFWLRQV22 FRXOG FRQWUDGLFW LWVHOI E\ VHHNLQJ WDOOHU EXLOGLQJheights near the High Speed 2 station and lower building heights near Wormwood Scrubs. For

development along the current IEP depot, a maximum height of 3 storeys was suggested

Residents requested that a maximum of two new access points to Wormwood Scrubs from the

north be provided and these to be located as far east as possible on the Scrubs. Requests for

the retention of embankment along its eastern edge were provided.

Residents expressed strong concerns regarding the impact of tall buildings on the Scrubs and

considered that the biodiversity of the Scrubs would be negatively impacted on through addi-

tional access points.

11 . T R A N S P O R T S T R AT E G Y

Overview: Consultees were generally supportive of the approach outlined in the OAPF to

transport and the potential improvements to the public transport network.

LB Brent request that a wider transport study is undertaken for Park Royal.