Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
NOTE IN ABSENCE OF A RECORDING
MATTER 6A: TRANSPORT - STRATEGY
THURDAY 9th SEPTEMBER AM
Policy 6.1 Strategic Approach to Transport
Mayor of London: The Mayor’s representative gave a general
background to the 2 documents, the Draft Replacement Plan (DRLP) and
the Transport Strategy (MTS). While consistent they won’t be identical,
with the MTS providing more detail on operational matters. There is a
need to combine consideration of the strategic network with flexibility and
to look at desired outcome rather than targets. Traffic reduction targets
are not regarded as ends in themselves. This is why there is no hierarchy
of road users.
With regard to Table 6.3 – the expectation for any project included is that
they would be completed or at least started by 2031, even if there is
some slippage in the short-term.
Campaign for Clean Air: Neither the DRLP or MTS address either the
quantum or legal timeframe for rectifying the breaches of statutory air
quality standards which must be met this year or next, if a time extension
is allowed. There is a breach by a factor of more than 2 near busy roads
in London. There is a need for 60% immediate reduction or 40% if the
time limit is extended to 2015. It is an issue of public health with 2,467
premature deaths a year. They argued for an additional bullet point
in Policy 6.1 to build on the suggested change by the Mayor: “seeking full
compliance with air quality…”
London Forum: Support what has been said about air pollution. They
reminded the Examination of their suggestion in Matter 1 of the need for
an additional objective on reducing the need to travel. The new table
addresses most of the changes they suggested. But they also sought
other points referred to in their statement, including step free access over
which they seek an addition to Policy 6.1 B, increased capacity on buses,
appropriate location for polyclinics, Bakerloo Line SE extension.
Thames Gateway London Partnership: Some key transport elements
to help growth remains unfunded.
Campaign for Better Transport supported London Forum over
emphasis on the need to reduce travel, flagging-up various possible
means.
Friends of the Earth: Feel MTS should be revised to reflect the DRLP
once it has been subjected to examination.
London Travelwatch: Highlighted the role of the bus, the workhorse of
transport in London. The existing plan was hugely supportive. MTS main
1/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
priority is supporting the use of road space for buses, but the DRLP is not.
They would like a reference in Policy 6.1 to allocation of road space for
use by bus.
LB Greenwich: had concern with particular reference omissions regarding
river crossings in Table 6.3.
Campaign for Better Transport: Worked with previous plan to ensure
the need to reduce travel was in it; one thing to adopt principle, another
to show how it will be applied. This needs to be set out, preferably in the
Plan itself, but if not in Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). There
could be a range of measures, but not explored in the Plan (e.g. local
shops).
Friends of the Earth: Policy 6.1H needs to be more specific re air quality
standards.
LB Hillingdon: Our main concern is accessing Opportunity Areas. In
particular, Heathrow OA was highlighted. They have difficulty meeting the
Mayor’s modal split targets.
Mayor of London: Need to draw a distinction between real
inconsistencies and suggestions for changes. Resources have to be
prioritised on where they can do maximum amount of good. Will return to
air quality later. There is a detailed air quality strategy being brought
forward.




London Forum’s proposed new 7th objective. We think this is a
means to achieve some of the objectives, not one in itself.
Re step-free access – This is an operational matter not suitable for
the RLP.
Policy 6.7 makes clear the importance the Mayor puts on buses.
Polyclinics – this is detail extending beyond the DRLP and health
facilities are dealt with elsewhere in the Plan. (Policy 3.18)
The Mayor is strongly supporting regeneration in East London, through
many transport proposals.
There are already policies in the DRLP emphasising the need to reduce the
need to travel, e.g. Outer London, town centres, local shops and small
shops, lifetime neighbourhoods, connection in Chapter 4.
Transport for London: Agrees that the need to reduce the need to travel
is a significant issue, will continue for the life of this Plan, but there is no
suggestion that the Mayor does not recognising the role of buses, but this
is a strategic plan for the next 20 years, whereas bus services can be
reviewed frequently on a dynamic basis, i.e. this a mainly an operational
issue.
RB Kingston: A road-user hierarchy is recommended by the Department
of Transport, so it should be re-introduced for consistency with the
2/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
national approach. It gives emphasis to sustainable and vulnerable road
users and they feel it would be consistent with other DRLP policies.
London Travelwatch: We represent all transport users so it is difficult to
support a rigid hierarchy, but buses are crucial. The issue with buses is
not just operational, but how we use them. So to drive change we do
need a hierarchy to show buses are more sustainable. An example was
given of Oxford Street whereby taxis move only a small proportion of
customers but share roadspace with buses who carry far more.
Freight Transport Association: Commercial vehicles end up being
treated as private vehicles. The presumption is in favour of buses,
although in itself a good thing, but it makes it difficult for deliveries. The
DRLP talks about supporting freight. It is equally important on the
network. They want local authorities to have more regard to kerbside
access when creating bus lanes (e.g. 24hr bus lanes and out of hour
deliveries).
Campaign for Better Transport: We strongly agree that a hierarchy
should be reintroduced. Otherwise the objective may increase traffic.
They are concerned that there will still be traffic growth because of
population growth. What is needed is a policy for maximising capacity of
roads for people, not vehicles.
Friends of the Earth: Very much support the need for a hierarchy.
Labour Members of the Assembly Planning & Housing Committee:
Emphasised support for a hierarchy. London has limited streetspace and
felt that the DRLP does not tackle this rigorously enough. Traffic is
smoothed at the expense of pedestrians. Want the Mayor, TfL and the
boroughs to work together on this.
London First: Supported the Mayor’s approach. Free flow of goods and
people is needed. It is right to have flexibility and an outcome-led
approach.
London Sustainable Development Commission: Spending cuts
emphasise the need for a hierarchy; smarter travel choices can give
better value for money. Gives certainty in approach to regeneration.
More local approach doesn’t obviate the need for a strategic role.
Monitoring is important.
Transport for London: We have to recognise the road network in
London is different to the rest of the UK in terms of pressure, intensity
and scale. There is also the difference between inner and outer London.
Use of a hierarchy would be a ‘blunt instrument’. A more flexible
outcomes approach enables them to respond to differences. There are
other policies in the MTS that would achieve the same objective.
Mayor of London: It is not mandatory to have a hierarchy. It is in the
existing plan, and advocated by many, but it reflects a different
philosophy and approach from the Mayor. Outcomes allows for a better
3/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
approach to monitoring. There is a need for strategic direction but this is
not necessarily the best way of achieving this. A hierarchy would be
inflexible and binding. The DRLP approach is more pragmatic.
Policies 6.9 and 6.10 and others elsewhere in the DRLP and in the MTS do
promote sustainable transport modes.
Detailed issues concerning commercial vehicles servicing are too detailed
and should be dealt with at local level. It is important to optimise use of
space on the roads, but there is a range of policies that support this
objective. Disagree that the plan just indulges motorists and that the
adopted plan is stronger. The DRLP will be more effective.
Campaign for Better Transport: Disagrees with TfL. The DRLP
approach leads to more traffic, what we advocate to less.
Transport for London: Referred to page 36 of the MTS and gave a brief
summary on the impact of policies on traffic projections, which highlighted
a forecast for a fall. Agreed to provide a note to show the reduction
indicated in these figures. [This was subsequently provided as ED108].
Labour Members of the Assembly Planning & Housing Committee::
A hierarchy of road-users is not a ‘blunt instrument’, but quite
sophisticated as it is simply a guide to boroughs.
There should be local flexibility in parking standards as guidance rather
than as mandatory requirements, but are not opposed to there being
standards in the DRLP in principle. The TfL Travel in London report shows
car ownership in inner and outer London and this shows why there is a
need for outer London policy to be developed on a local basis. They
believe that such principles apply to both residential and commercial
development.
London Forum: Mr Eversden stated that as a member of the Outer
London Commission, he supported flexible parking standards, but was
concerned if there was too flexibility much for residential development.
London Travelwatch: Transport users range across borough boundaries
so they support a strategic matrix based on PTALs.
London First: We oppose London-wide standards. Local authorities have
to have regard to the advice of PPS3.
Transport for London: TfL role is part local in that we are the highways
authority in some cases. PTALs are derived on a London-wide basis, so it
makes sense to have London-wide standards. Mayor of London: The
difficulty in allowing too much flexibility is the risk of losing sight of the
standards. The Outer London Commission evidence showed a particular
issue with parking for offices, there is a clear perception that this is an
important issue for economic viability. Similar with town centres, it is
more sustainable to encourage those in need of regeneration, even if
involving travel by car, as there will be shorter journeys than to centres
4/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
outside London. But with regard to residential development evidence is
not available in the same way. But one of the changes to wording of
Chapter 3 will address this issue which will be taken forward in SPG.
The Mayor strongly supports the Travelwatch points.
South London Partnership: Still have concerns over lack of sustainable
access in outer London which is constraining economic growth. They want
more investment in Tramlink and the Overground. Up to 40,000 more
jobs could be made by improving transport access in South London.
Recommend continued attention to behavioural change citing the example
of Sutton.
West London Partnership: Would like the intent of supporting town
centres in Outer London and Opportunity Areas carried forward into Policy
6.1 more explicitly. This would then reflect more clearly the intentions of
Chapter 2. It would be helpful to reflect the role, status and purpose of
Sub-regional transport plans in delivering the objectives of the London
Plan and help us to look beyond Table 6.3.
Thames Gateway London Partnership: Whilst recognising that
development might need to be phased, there are targets in the DRLP
agreed with boroughs on the understanding that transport would be
supplied. So if agreement not met, boroughs will not be able to meet
their development targets.
Mayor of London: The fact of the delay to extension on DLR (Barking)
has been taken into account when setting numbers for housing. We can
check the position when we break.
LB Barking & Dagenham: Their target in relation to Barking Riverside
will be reduced to reflect the delay in bringing this transport scheme
forward. The MTS specifically supports safeguarding. They welcomed
suggested changes to Annex 1 of DRLP re the DLR extension.
RB Kingston: High level policy needs supporting investment to be set out
so it can be seen how the Plan gives shape to aspirations, e.g. the 2.9%
growth projection for Kingston. In their view the potential would be much
greater if there were to be better transport. There is a high proportion of
car based trips in their borough and there are no specific transport
proposals to change that pattern. They request proposals are amended to
give greater strategic support to the aspirations in Chapter 2.
London Forum: In order to achieve the policy link between transport and
economy, there needs to be an extra column in Annex Table A1, that
would flag up the transport requirements clearly.
Canary Wharf Group [CWG]: We have difficulty in practice with TfL
although agreed over policy principles. It is hard for developers to plan
coherently if there is uncertainty in delivery of transport proposals. They
put in a plea for flexibility, especially to assist developers who are funding
substantial schemes such as Crossrail. They should be allowed to develop
in advance of schemes coming to fruition, rather than sitting waiting for
5/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
the infrastructure to happen. The DLR extensions are necessary to help
support growth at Canary Wharf.
Friends of the Earth: The link to road reduction traffic targets is not
strong enough. The plan needs to keep all those in the Consolidated 2008
Plan and extend and expand these. They referred to evidence given on
climate change and transport.
London First: Wished to associate themselves with the comments of
CWG, so there is a need to keep a flexible approach.
LB Bexley: They have generally low PTALs and are dependent on
transport infrastructure being brought to fruition for certainty and
deliverability of LDFs.
LB Greenwich: Echoed comments of Bexley. There is a need to ensure
that infrastructure is in place to link Opportunity Areas and Intensification
Areas to transport hubs.
Campaign for Better Transport: do not agree with Canary Wharf
Group. Transport infrastructure must be in place before development.
Major schemes coming forward without public or sustainable transport will
have catastrophic consequences for transport in the future as
unsustainable patterns of transport will become established that will be
difficult to break.
London Sustainable Development Commission: The London Plan is
the place to give a strong steer. It cannot be left to developers to create
acceptable public transport or the public sector to have to put in schemes
to catch up with development. A planned approach is necessary.
Transport for London: Canary Wharf is a good example. Ideally we
would want transport infrastructure up-front, but historically we have had
to use catch-up. But there is now very high public transport use and low
car use in accessing Canary Wharf. Mayor of London: Some Opportunity
Areas have a high degree of accessibility already. Where public transport
is needed those instances have already been identified in the text of
Annexe 1, so an additional column is unnecessary. Re the question of
outer London, this is discussed in Chapter 2, in particular Policy 2.8, and
Policy 6.1 Ad also addresses this. Developers will not invest where there
are no transport links. There has to be a high degree of certainty; a firm
indication that things will happen. The position regarding South and West
London was defended and the Mayor does not accept alternative economic
projections for South London. Transport is not the main thing holding
back South London.
LB Greenwich: There is no reference to the transport needs of
Thamesmead in Annex 1 including Greenwich waterfront transit and it
would be useful to have necessary links flagged-up there.
Mayor of London: indicated that they would be happy to talk with LB
Greenwich about this issue.
6/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
West London Partnership: Stressed that they were suggesting a
change to improve the policy wording, not seeking express additions to
investment proposals.
South London Partnership: As a matter of record, they were not saying
that lack of transport investment is the sole factor in inhibiting economic
development, just that it is significant.
RB Kingston: agreed that the policy framework for Chapter 2 has been
amended, but feel the delivery mechanism still needs clarifying unless
there is to be reliance on car-based transport in Outer london.
Mayor of London: The MTS (7.3.2 on sub-regional travel plans) is the
best place for discussion of these issues.
London Forum: I refer to Policy 6.1Ag on modal shifts. There is
evidence that the Mayor does not in fact support this. He is not
addressing car use, e.g. proposing to remove the Western Extension of
the Congestion Charging Zone. Such actions will lead to the failure of the
Plan.
Panel Chair: Noted that although this point was a fundamental issue
there would be further chances to discuss under Policy 6.11.
[12:05 – 12:25 break]
Matter 6B – Application of the Strategy
Policy 6.2 Providing transport capacity and safeguarding land for
transport (including Table 6.3)
Policy 6.5 Funding of Crossrail and other strategically important
transport infrastructure
The Chair asked all participants to introduce themselves for the benefit of
Inclusion London.
Mayor for London: The Mayor’s representative outlined further
suggested changes. He indicated that there would be a return to a
discussion of CIL in the sessions on chapter 8. He highlighted the
intention of having a separate Implementation Plan, a draft having been
produced for illustrative purposes.
Transport for London: Updated on the HS2 rail project. The Coalition
has confirmed its support. There was a possible difference in alignment
approaching London and Heathrow. There was unlikely to be any more
detail before the end of the year.
London TravelWatch: We entirely recognise that the place for detail is
the MTS but there is not a clear indication of the contribution each scheme
makes to the objectives set out. From a planning point of view they
7/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
would like to see more obvious quantification and prioritisation to the
schemes that appear in the list in Table 6.3.
Inclusion London: We are concerned that Policy 6.2 needs to be more
specific, adding extra wording after ‘accessibility’ in clause Ab to clarify
that it should refer to location and accessibility of the facility.
South Bank Employers Group: were concerned that prioritisation would
downgrade smaller projects. There is more need for a local focus.
Transport for London: All schemes are a package that needs to be
delivered to meet the Mayor’s strategy. It is difficult to prioritise, but
there are 3 time bands indicated and a differentiation between fully
funded and other schemes. Mayor for London: The list is indicative
with larger schemes provided with justification in the text of the Plan
which clarifies the priority attached to them.
Inclusion London: Outlined suggested amendments, the written text to
be provided to the Secretariat. The previous Plan had a strategic list of
stations to be made step free, a significant number have been withdrawn.
It has been shown to be of fundamental importance to disabled people
with less journeys able to be made on the Underground and linking from
the East London Line to other parts of the network. Strategically it should
be made clear that step free access will be made available. They
emphasised economic benefits such as opening up employment
opportunities.
There is a history of accessible buses in London, so bus stops need to be
made accessible too.
Action for Disability Kensington & Chelsea: echoed a lot of the points
made by Inclusion London. It should be a priority for the Mayor or he is
excluding the disabled. Inadequate transport is one of the biggest
barriers. (Procedural point)
Transport for London: There are other strategy documents. We have
addressed a range of access issues historically, the Tube being the most
challenging. Where there is the opportunity through new projects we
make it a priority. We acknowledge the issue of bus stops, but it is a
borough responsibility. The Proposal in MTS is to prioritise at strategic
points, where most useful and cost effective. Mayor of London: There is
no lack of commitment on the part of the Mayor, but we must look at
what is appropriate or helpful for the London Plan to do. What is meant
by accessibility is made clear in the Glossary. With new stations Policy
7.2 would apply. There are real limitations on how a London-wide spatial
strategy can help as it is not appropriate to have detail. Transport for
London: Upgrading all bus stops would require a commitment from all
boroughs, and TfL to a lesser degree.
Inclusion London: It is a point of principle about step free access. In
the previous plan the target was fully costed and indicative. It would
fundamentally support usability not just for disabled people but also older
8/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
people, tourists with luggage and those with young children. We propose
ring fencing money.
Transport for London: It is a cost issue for us. We do specify targets
to boroughs about bus stops. Mayor of London: We do not feel it should
be in the spatial strategy, but in the MTS. We have sought to include and
reflect on a social model of disability. See Chapters 7 and 3, and text
change in paragraph 3.3 about equal life chances for all.
[Lunch 13:30 - Resumed 14:20]
Essex CC: Policy 6.1 should contain a specific reference to working with
neighbouring authorities in a joined up approach. It is already in Policy
2.2 Clause B as a suggested change, but would like similar wording for
Policy 6.1. Proposed 6.1B wording: TfL to actively engage with Local
Authorities and associated partners in neighbouring regions.
Mayor for London: Feels that it would be redundant to mention here too
as there are already references in Policies 2.2 and 2.8 A & F and crossreferences are unnecessary as the Plan has to be read as a whole.
London Forum: Many of our members would like to see priority on bus
access. We appreciate the cost of providing comprehensive step free
access on the Tube.
Friends of the Earth: We are opposed to the weakening of road
provision criteria. It is unacceptable that material on river crossings is
being brought in via the MTS, when not included in the DRLP full
consultation. There should be no road based crossing included. Reference
was made to the TfL Panel Review on East London River Crossings of 8
July 2009. Moreover, the Inspector’s findings in his report on the TGB
application was that it was likely to increase congestion, yet paragraph
6.37 of the DRLP refers to more road based crossings.
Campaign for Better Transport: We are opposed to Policy 6.12 and
paragraph 6.37, it is a relaxation of requirements to be met for new roads
from the current plan. We see it as clearly allowing a road user crossing
to go ahead. Webtag guidance suggests that all crossing types ought to
be considered. There is a choice of whether we want a car based scheme
or for alternatives to the car to be genuinely maximised. A Thames
Gateway crossing is an opportunity to get things right.
London Travelwatch: We strongly suggest the Plan needs to include a
strategy for dealing with associated congestion. Any scheme must have
Bus priority. That is why the previous proposal was supported.
Labour Members of the Assembly: There is a need for additional river
crossings for these regeneration areas, so would like to see more detailed
references in Table 6.3. Support rewording of paragraph 6.37 and
support a crossing at Gallions Reach – it should be included in Table 6.3 in
addition to an additional crossing at Blackwall.
9/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
London First: There is a need for a crossing and our members have long
lobbied for it. We welcome the Mayor’s suggestion and Policy 6.12.
Where there are road crossings it is important that mitigation measures
are put in place. Support the approach in Policy 6.12 and new paragraph
6.18B for crossings in East London.
LB Greenwich: We welcome the inclusion of new paragraphs 6.18B and
6.37.
Friends of the Earth: Keep to key priorities for regeneration. It is not
consistent to be talking about increasing car pollution. Drew attention to
DLR Horizon 2020 study of July 2005, which indicated possible non roadbased alternatives.
Home Builders Federation: Mayor wants to deliver convergence and he
wants to build housing in East London, therefore car use will require
better networks. There needs to be an adequate road network to attract
people and enable them to access jobs. Car travel is not the problem,
look at future improvements in car technology.
Friends of the Earth: Traffic is itself a problem, with accidents,
severance, congestion, poor air quality etc, and government
acknowledges that it must be reduced.
Labour Members of the Assembly: The current road network
encourages bad habits. It is an area for which we need to plan now. A
consensus view is sought.
Transport for London: Clearly as much as possible should be done for
public transport, but we have identified a need for road investment as well
after 6 new rail crossings since the last new road tunnel in the 1960s.
The need is linked with economic regeneration. There are significant
effects if the only current tunnel is shut. It is a package, not only road
but also Crossrail and possibly a cable car. MTS has a very clear narrative
on river crossings. Balance between East and West is disparate as the
river is narrower and historically easier to cross in the West of London.
Mayor of London: The Mayor’s representative explained the time
differences between the MTS and DRLP preparation. The principle for a
new river crossing is mentioned in policy. The detail was discussed as
part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment for the MTS and that is
now proposed for insertion into the DRLP, though the Mayor fully supports
the position of the government that there can only be a limited role for
new road building.
But as there is a drive for eastwards development, it would look odd if the
DRLP did not make a reference to a new crossing. There is no
requirement on the Mayor to put forward alternatives. It is not being
introduced by the back door since as part of the MTS it was fully consulted
on.
10/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
We do not feel we should add details of wording on congestion into the
policy; and Table 6.3 has an appropriate level of detail, given the long
history of proposals to provide East London River Crossings.
Transport for London: A number of Thames Gateway Bridge alternatives
were put forward and given consideration, but in the MTS we have started
again from first principle and looked at need.
[HS2]
BAA: This is not just a national rail project but international. We favour a
hub on or near Heathrow. We support paragraph 6.18A as setting the
policy context.
60% of passengers from Manchester to Heathrow are for transfers. These
journeys are likely to continue despite HS2 if there is only an Old Oak
Common Interchange. The total journey time has to be competitive with
an interchange of good quality to secure a modal shift on the part of
travellers.
Friends of the Earth: It is more important to make a connection with
HS1 and cross-channel links, at a London terminus so we support Lord
Mawhinney’s findings.
Essex CC: We feel the proposed diversion of Overground services to
Stratford is premature at this stage; Stratford is already likely to be
congested.
LB Hammersmith & Fulham: Their representative put the case for an
interchange at Old Oak Common as relatively easy and inexpensive, and
to relieve pressure on the underground serving Euston among other
reasons.
RB Kensington & Chelsea: Promoting a station at Kensal, a
regeneration led proposal, whose potential would be enhanced with an
additional Crossrail station.
LB Tower Hamlets: We are keen to support the link between HS1 and
HS2. Thinks more people would choose this option. Suggested that it
could help prevent short haul flights such as from London City Airport.
BA: Feels Heathrow itself would be more appropriate for a hub than Old
Oak Common to serve the airport, because it would stop people having to
go into London and back out. But it is not a question of either or as both
Old Oak Common and Heathrow could have complementary roles. They
pointed out that the Mawhinney conclusions are not as FoE explained; and
details were given by BA. It is crucial how HS2 links in with the national
network. If there is to be a link with HS1 it is vital that Heathrow is
directly served as otherwise the link would be simply feeding foreign
airports.
11/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
BAA: Await CSR to see impact on funding of Airtrack. Part DfT, part BAA
funding. HS rail links into the National Rail Networks and access to
Heathrow from the West is important. In agreement with BA.
Transport for London: The government has published objectives and
mentions link with HS1. A station at Old Oak Common would reduce the
pressure on Euston and give access to Heathrow. Feels that a central
London terminus is also needed.
Mayor of London: The statement in the Plan is a holding one, the
situation may move on. He asked the Panel to make a recommendation
that the Mayor reflect on any changes in situation. (Or he would have to
make an early alteration).
LB Greenwich: would be keen to see Crossrail extension to Gravesend
being safeguarded.
LB Barking & Dagenham: We are concerned less about Table 6.3 as
about Policy 6.4. There are no explanations of what improvements will be
made, it needs to be in the reasoned justification, and our statement has
possible wording. 10,000 new homes in Barking Riverside hang of the
delivery of the DLR.
LB Tower Hamlets: we endorse and welcome the Chelsea/Hackney line
in the Plan. It will help to regenerate East London.
GSK: As a representative of west London employers they take travel plans
seriously. There is no reasonable way of getting north/south through
west London. Reference was made to RD228. The proposed relaxation of
Parking Standards for offices in Outer London is supported.
CPA: Although development reduced in 09/10 activity is now increasing
again. Based on TfL forecasts demand will exceed capacity by 2012.
They strongly support Crossrail, but in addition there is a need for further
schemes e.g. the Chelsea-Hackney link.
London Forum: Policy 6.4 does not suggest to boroughs what is required
in the intended joint working and the LDF section of 6.3 is repeated in 6.4.
They proposed amalgamation with suggested wording in their
representation.
Transport for London: It is difficult to be too prescriptive on extensions
that may be possible in East London at the moment. The MTS recognises
the need for improvement in local connectivity in East London. A review
is in hand over the Chelsea-Hackney line proposals which are currently
seen as a tube proposal rather than a heavyrail link. Mayor of London:
We will give further thought to points made regarding extensions to
transport schemes. The Chelsea-Hackney link needs to remain in the
DRLP pending the outcome of the study because of safeguarding issues.
Ballymore: CIL and delivery of Crossrail. The combined effect of
obligations and levy should not be prohibitive to bringing forward
12/13
Note in absence of a recording for 9th September 2010
development in central London. They considered that the supporting text
to the policy should include a reference to viability issues. They also
thought that better guidance is needed on the way in which the Crossrail
tariff will be applied in Policy 6.5B & C in relation to other S106 priorities.
Panel Chair: referred to Policy 8.2 which addresses these issues.
Home Builders Federation: Their concern is with the legitimacy of the
policy. It is difficult when the Coalition’s intention regarding CIL are not
yet known. Suggests strategic infrastructure projects should be brought
through CIL.
Highways Agency: There is a safety issue in Policy 6.3. The MTS has no
weight and does not directly address LDF proposals. We need a policy
that does and Policy 6.3 needs to be clearer.
London Forum: In our statement we suggest additional wording to Policy
6.4 Clause B, referring to improving transport interchanges and ‘safe
routes’.
Mayor of London: We are reluctant to reopen the debate on Crossrail, as
there was a long debate on viability at that EiP. It is recognised in Policy
8.2 and implicit in others. SPG supports this policy and addresses the
issue at length.
Safety is seen as an operational issue, but they will reflect on the point
made by the Highways Agency.
Policy on CIL is based on the current form of the Regulations. PPS12
recognises that boroughs as well as the Mayor have to plan for
infrastructure. Policy 8.3 addresses CIL with part C promising SPG to
assist the boroughs over infrastructure planning.
[Session adjourned at 5:45pm]
13/13