Objections on behalf of Norwood Action Group to:
“Lambeth Local Plan proposed submission November 2013”
Summary:
This submission is with regard to the three wards that comprise Tulse Hill and WestNorwood: ThurlowPark, Knight’s Hill and Gipsy Hill. It will therefore be limited to only those matters that have a bearing on thesewards.
A)It is understood that the inspector will examine the LLPon the basis ofNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)para 182:
1a.Whether it has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate
1b.Whether legal and procedural requirements have been met
2.Whether the plan is “sound” i.e.:
a) Positively prepared, meeting objectively assessed needs
b) Justified against reasonable alternatives
c) Effective: evidence of deliverability
d) Consistent with sustainability criteria and procedure
With regards to the specified wards:
Re 1a.No evidence has been found of cross-boundary cooperation with regard to
Upper Norwood in Gipsy Hill ward (NPPF 178-181)
Re 1b.Legal and procedural requirements have not always been fully met (155)
Re 2.a) Needs have not all been objectively assessed (156, 159-162)
b) No evidence of consideration of some “reasonable alternatives” (182)
c) Little evidence of deliverability (157)
d) Sustainability barely considered (fundamental to NPPF)
B)An overall summary would be that many of the LLPproposals reflect aspirations withoutevident or likely strategy to implement them; the lack of realism conflicts with NPPF154.
C)The key evidence base“West Norwood Town Centre MasterplanMarch 2009” is unsound in concept, execution and current relevance. The Masterplan was defective in consultation in 2008 which, in any event,in part was misrepresented and other conclusions asserted. Also, some research on which it relies pre-dates the Masterplan by years.Consequently it is in large part overtaken by subsequent events. As such it conflicts with NPPF 153, 155, 158.
D)Also, the LLP is silent on:
Some obligations under the Localism Act 2011 (NPPF 17, 183-185); Environmental Issues (165); Safety (172); CIL (175);Standards (174, 177).
E)Finally, there are some errors of fact that are addressed in this submission; some of which relate to objective assessment (NPPF 156, 159-162).
Details:
As a preface to the detailed submissions below the following should be noted:
The LLP of November 2013 differs substantially from the public consultation LLP of February 2013. It is not because it significantly reflects public comments (indeed the “Schedule of written responses to the Draft Lambeth Local Plan February 2013 of October 2013” records few substantive changes in 595 pages) but reflects changes in drafting, or new content.
For example: the “new” district centre of Upper Norwood was not included in the February 2013 LLP so has not been publicly consulted. With this and other substantive changes, the November 2013 LLP can be said to have not been wholly subject to public consultation.
3.1(page 30)
Legally Compliant/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified / Effective / National Policy
States a time frame of 15 years (2015 to 2030) but only addresses the near future in almost all matters. NPPF 157 has a preferred term of 15 years, also to “take account of longer term requirements”.
Spatial Vision(page 32)
/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified / Effective
No / National Policy
States some aspirations concerning which the entire plan and supporting documents are silent as to how these might be achieved (inconsistent with NPPF 154, 6, 7):
“centres of innovation”, “skilled workforce”, “achievements of Lambeth’s young people will be widely celebrated”, “worklessness in the borough will have significantly declined”, “Lambeth will be in the forefront of tackling and adapting to climate change”, “They will be green, safe and accessible areas”, “enhanced historic buildings”.
In particular, there is no policy to achieve the following statement: “By 2030 Lambeth will be a key part of, and contributor to, central London’s thriving economy and the benefits will be shared throughout the borough.”
Recommended changes: The Spatial Vision should only include realisable objectives that are backed by appropriate strategies.
West Norwood polices commencing page 195 of LLP:
11.65(page 195)
Whilst we contend that in some respects this paragraph is inaccurate and inadequate, we believe such matters to be beyond the scope of the inspector’s remit.
Recommended changes: Requires re-drafting to accurately reflect the facts.
11.66 (page 195)
Legally Compliant/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
Factual errors: there are eight daytime bus routes and two night routes; there is no bus priority route; the area experiences moderatetraffic congestion at peak hours (notconsiderable at any time).
Whilst it is also stated “traffic dominance needs to be reduced” there are no policies to achieve this other than lights controlled pedestrian crossings currently in delivery. The area is hilly, so for many less able, car mobility is also important.
Recommended changes: Correct factual errors and omit last sentence.
11.67 (page 195)
/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified / Effective
No / National Policy
Whilst the statement regarding town centre Site 18 is accepted, the 2008 Masterplan (referred to at 11.76 as setting out “detailed regeneration proposals”) has not been implemented and since has been overtaken by events and as a consequence is unachievable.
The site is in highly-fragmented private ownership. In 2007 (when designated MDO49, becoming MDO 38 in the 2008 Masterplan) Tesco was in confidential discussion with Lambeth for regeneration of the whole or greater part of the site. Subsequently negotiations ceased and since then there have been no enabling initiatives for land assembly or indeed anything else. There are now no surviving or new strategies to enable large scale regeneration of Site 18.
Site 18 is an aspiration lacking “deliverability” so conflicts with NPPF 157. It is also described as “a vital catalyst promoting confidence and investment in the wider area”. In the absence of “deliverability”, becoming a “catalyst” is an empty aspiration that fails to underpin the wider area.
Recommended changes: Supporting documentation required that provides implementation strategy for Site 18, in particular the source of investment.
11.68 (page 195)
No / Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
No
The assertion of the listed strong business activities is entirely spurious; some elements of it were true 20 years ago or more and have been blindly carried forward to successor plans. There are no “artists and artists’ studios” other than a declining few at Parkhall Business Centre (due to the substantially increased rents of the last 5 years).
The KIBA is virtually all in private ownership. It is the largest in Lambeth but of low density and low employment despite high site occupancy. Occupancy would be lower but for a growing number of evangelical churches operating outside planning class use; also an office block and other office premises used for residential outside planning class use. Both these illegal uses lower employment potential of this area.
It has been suggested by NAG and others that the strict KIBA status be reviewed, or at least its boundaries reviewed to reflect the lack of demand for industrial / business space in this locality compared to the need for dwellings.
The claimed “number of major development sites” is spurious. There is one cleared development site of 0.35 hectare in private ownership which has stood empty for more than 15 years. It has been suggested by NAG that this could be a primary school site (subject to “site assembly” of this and adjacent land), or for dwellings (with a change of use).
For the entire KIBA, the Masterplan (page 87) projected employment of 2,400 with (page 119) S106 contributions of more than £7million but had no strategy for achievement.
As such para 11.68 is fanciful and arbitrary, in conflict with NPPF due to multiple factors including lack of objective assessment, consideration of reasonable alternatives, with no evidence of deliverability (NPPF 156-162).
Recommended changes: Correct factual errors andconfirm the policy, or develop a new policy, adding supporting implementation documentation for either case.
11.69(page 196)
/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared / Justified / Effective
No / National Policy
The statement about Lambeth owned WestNorwoodCemetery is accepted but there is no strategy to enable it to become “a major visitor attraction”. The potential of a heritage trail and presentation of Norwood’s history, both for visitors and local school pupils, is ignored. Thislack of vision and deliverability conflicts with NPPF 157.
Recommended changes: Vision and supporting implementation documents required.
11.70(page 196)Accepted
11.71(page 196)
/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified / Effective
No / National Policy
There are no projections for secondary school demand or capacity, therefore this paragraph is wholly inadequate. Historically a high percentage has been educated in adjoining boroughs (as reported in para 2.24 of the LLP: 30% of 11-15 year olds are educated out of borough; 30% of16-19 year olds in borough).
Recommended changes: Projections are needed to reflect outcomes from housing and other social policies, also other trends. School building or housing and social policies will need to be balanced and developed to provide a satisfactory outcome. The local lack of land for educational purposes is a major inhibiting factor for a rational housing policy.
11.72(page 196)
Legally Compliant/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified / Effective
No / National Policy
The same factors as 11.71 apply to primary teaching. There is silence on pre-school.
Recommended changes: as 11.71
11.73(page 196) Accepted
11.74(page 196)
/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
This paragraph does not reflect current policy which is to permit limited enlargement of the existing building to accommodate a privately operated cinema complex whilst retaining library facilities. There will not be space for “community groups, social enterprises and small and medium enterprises”.
Recommended changes: The current reality should be reflected whilst offering the drafted uses as an alternative in the event of failure of the cinema project.
11.75(page 196)
/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared / Justified / Effective
No / National Policy
This paragraph does not reflect the current status of negotiations. It is understood that Lambeth is to take over the building but funding remain joint with Croydon. There is community based governance.
Recommended changes: The current reality should be reflected.
11.76(page 196)
No / Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
The West Norwood Masterplan developed, consulted and the report authored in 2008, was partly defective in concept and execution. The professional consultants’ “fixed menu” was offered for public responses. The permitted consultation responses were degrees of “importance” from “not at all” to “very” without open options. Some majority responses were ignored and other arbitraryunconsulted alternatives assertedby the consultants and adopted by the Council.
Anacknowledgement of these matters was that the draft LLP was amended tocorrectadmitted unsupported insertions in the Masterplan.
In addition to the partly defective process, there is now very little Masterplan development policy remaining that is viable; what is viable largely lacks implementation strategy. This is the case with the two main policies: Site MDO 38 (now Site 18 in the LLP) and the KIBA.
It is acknowledged that the economic downturn that started in 2008 stopped the Masterplan in its tracks and is consequently now largely obsolete. However, the research into utility capacity was informative in the Utilities section of the Masterplan (pages 91-95). It records that gas, electricity and drainage are near their limits. Major investment and new infrastructure are required in the event of large redevelopment such as Site 18 or the KIBA but this is not reflected in the LLP.
The statement that the Masterplan “sets out detailed regeneration proposals” is therefore erroneous.
Recommended changes: It should be noted that the recession rendered the Masterplan largely inoperable and that new policies and strategies must be created also taking into account utility and infrastructure needs.
Diagram 7(page 197)
Legally Compliant/ Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
The West Norwood Commercial Area has always been synonymous with the West Norwood KIBA, the terms used interchangeably and earlier maps revealing no difference between the two. Indeed on page 248 of the draft LLP this is reaffirmed in text form.
However Diagram 7 shows differences in the south-west corner and north-east side which are not understood. The map has been described as “illustrative” and that the “Proposed Changes to the Proposals Map 2013” document defines the KIBA, but this does not explain why the West Norwood Commercial Area boundaries no longer coincide with the KIBA at the points specified.
It is further confused by the Commercial Area being described at PN7(b) whilst it is silent on the KIBA. Moreover, the KIBA at defined in Diagram 7 is greater than the Commercial Area so it is not understood how the less stringent Commercial Area policies can be contained within the more stringent KIBA area policies.
Recommended changes: The confusion regarding a low-regulated Commercial Area within a highly-regulated KIBA must be resolved, possibly removing the designation Commercial Area. Diagram 7 should then be amended accordingly.
PN7 Opening Paragraphs (page 198)
Legally CompliantNo / Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
No
The aspiration for a “vibrant district centre” is an empty one as there are no viable plans to develop the “key sites” as prescribed. The Masterplan is stated to be the guiding document. This in turn declares on page 108 that MDO 38 (now Site 19) is “fundamental to the future success of the town centre as a whole”.
The implementation strategy of the Masterplan has been rendered inoperable by events subsequent to 2008. Current policy for this site advised by council officials is for “small public realm enhancements to encourage piecemeal private regeneration”; even “there is no strategy”, “there is no money”.
With regard this latter point: PN7 states that improvements would be “secured through planning obligations”. Regarding the financial element, the Masterplan on page 119 foresaw S106 Contributions of £9.8 milliontotal (£7million from the KIBA); however, as there are no developments of any scale in consideration, the actual realisation will be modest. CIL contributions will similarly be modest. As a consequence there is no funding to enable the major aspirations.
There is no mention of regeneration of Norwood High Street (NHS) which is currently one of the most dilapidated and moribund in London. In the draft LLP this area has been identified partly as within the town centre, partly as a “local centre” (from Rothschild Street to Chapel Road), partly (on east side) undesignated. No policies are declared for this “local centre” making this currently a designation with no outcomes. Moreover, the undesignated portion is likewise devoid of policy.
The one Masterplan major development that has been actioned is Norwood Hall, financed under a PFI contract (the only one in Lambeth as declared in Annex 2 page 228 of the draft LLP).
The ambition for “taller or distinctive buildings” is potentially in conflict with the documented true outcome of Masterplan public consultation that records on page 61 of the Stage 2 Report “Everyone agreed they wanted small scale buildings (nothing over three storeys) for both residential and business enterprises, and that the buildings themselves should be sympathetically designed…”.
The aspirations for regeneration of housing estates is nowhere developed; similarly adequate school provision, also ambitions for NorwoodCemetery.
All these failings leave the statement that development will be “guided by the Masterplan” devoid of realism.
Recommended changes: PN7 requires total re-evaluation and re-drafting
PN7(a) (page 198)
Legally CompliantNo / Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
Please see preceding comments under PN7 Opening Paragraphs. In addition the commitment for car parking “be minimised” is in conflict with the Opening Paragraphs and the Masterplan, as well as the needs of those of the less able who have car use in this extremely hilly locality.
Despite the soon to be commissioned Health & Leisure Centre and the likelihood of a 5 screen cinema, traffic and parking implications need addressing but this is currently unaddressed and the LLP is silent regarding this.
Recommended changes: PN7(a) requires major re-evaluation and re-drafting
PN7(b) (page 198)
Legally CompliantNo / Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
Please see preceding comments under 11.68. In addition, the references to “taller landmark buildings… overlooking the ecology park” are spurious. Firstly there is no likelihood of an ecology park as a key part is in private ownership and operated as a car breaker’s yard; also the qualifying aspiration to provide a pedestrian and cycle link between West Norwood and Norwood Park (as described in the Masterplan) is not feasible (a school, private buildings, a railway embankment, tunnel, etc prevent the creation of a pedestrian / cycle link). In addition the proposed “taller landmark buildings” to the south-west of the proposed ecology park and a high railway embankment to the north-east would create a canyon - a gloomy, always muddy (advised due to the subterranean Rive Effra) and therefore impractical ecology park.
Recommended changes: PN7(b) requires major re-evaluation and re-drafting.
PN7(c) (page 198)
Legally CompliantNo / Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
See preceding comments under 11.74. It should be noted that there has never been a Nettlefold Theatre, only Nettlefold Hall comprising a small and large halls. Scope for a landmark building was rejected under consultation for the Masterplan but was erroneously reported as accepted. However, this has probably been overtaken by recent developments that could secure the cinema development with enlargement of the existing building.
Recommended changes: PN7(c) requires re-drafting to correctly reflect the facts
PN7(d) (page 199)
Legally CompliantNo / Sound
No / Positively Prepared
No / Justified
No / Effective
No / National Policy
The Masterplan consultation recorded no appetite for “gateway” aspirations, or for “taller landmark buildings”, or for “active frontages along either side of the railway line”, or for “a public square”. This latter item is regarded as unachievable due lack of land; however, this may have been confused with a desire for pedestrianisation of Station Rise with a street market (currently under consideration).