WEEK 4 Monday 6 September - Day 13
Short slot dealing with programming and administrative matters that may have
arisen since the adjournment on 16 July.
Policy 5.12 Flood risk management a) Is there sufficient substance in the Strategic policy as drafted to be consistent with PPS25? Should a more positive approach be taken to addressing flooding problems in parts of London that are known to be either affected by, or potentially at risk of, flooding? b) Should high flood risk areas be identified and prioritized (cross boundary) at strategic level? c) Should the policy recognize that not all infrastructure can be fully protected from risk of flooding?
Policy 5.13 Sustainable drainage d) Should the cumulative effects of “permitted development”, and the contribution from attenuation at roof level, be recognised? e) In Part A of the policy, should it be recognized that greenfield runoff rates might not always be achievable on previously developed land? f) In paragraph 5.58, should responsibilities of Thames Water be referred to?
Policy 5.14 Water quality and sewerage infrastructure g) Does the policy approach represent a suitably strategic commitment, in spatial policy terms, to the timely modernization and provision of water and sewerage infrastructure requisite for 21st Century London? h) Should the policy encourage a move away from combined drainage systems to grey water recycling and SUDS in the interests of increasing sewerage capacity and reducing flood risks? i) Should uncertainties about lack of capacity in the existing sewerage network be highlighted? Should existing and future pressures on water quality in London be recognised? j) Is it reasonable to require relevant Boroughs to support unconditionally the London Tideway Tunnels project?
Policy 5.15 Water use and supplies k) Is the Strategic policy sufficiently clear? In paragraph 5.63 is the concept of “water neutrality”, and how it is to be achieved, sufficiently well understood to be included in the Plan? l) In relation to planning decisions is clause Ba necessary given the
Code for Sustainable Homes?

m) Should the target in clause Bb of the policy be expressed more flexibly?
Proposed Participants
Mayor/GLA [2 seats]
Communities and Local Government (01)
London Councils (03)
London Boroughs - Hot-seated as necessary [2 seats]
Transport for London (37)
Arup (65)
City Property Association (82)
RTPI (89)
Regent’s Network (92)
Environmental Law Foundation/Thamesbank (116)
Surrey County Council (123)
London First (171)
Lee Valley Park Authority (114)
Just Space Network (291)
Wood Wharf (417)
Consortium of London Developers (431)
Atkins (461)
Thames Water (469)
Home Builders Federation (614)
Environment Agency (800)
London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies (845)
WEEK 4 Tuesday 7 September Day 14
(Chapter 5) London’s response to climate change (contd) including waste
Policy 5.16 Waste self-sufficiency a) Is it clear how waste minimization can be encouraged through the spatial planning system? b) Is there an unresolved conflict in the strategy between waste treatment and waste from energy (anaerobic digestion, pyrolisis, gasification and incineration plant in Table 5.1)? c) Does the policy imply a presumption against new energy from waste development using conventional burn techniques and is the policy approach contrary to statutory provisions and the guidance of PPS10 and
PPS22 governing energy and waste infrastructure development? d) Should paragraph 5.73 stipulate that for self-sufficiency the source of the waste must be in London? e) Is the target date for zero waste to landfill sufficiently demanding; alternatively, is an expectation of achieving a zero target for use of landfill overall realistic and are the target percentages for recycling different waste streams realistic? f) Is the proposed timetable for achieving self-sufficiency suitably demanding? g) Have the sustainable waste collection and disposal needs of small businesses been adequately taken into account?

h) Is the definition of managed waste in terms of solid recoverable fuel robust and achievable?
Policy 5.17 Waste capacity i) Is the proposed apportionment in the December 2009 Minor Alteration of the Plan fair and reasonable? j) Should it be made clear that the objective of proximity takes precedence over transport of waste by rail or water? And how will this objective relate to and be implemented in relation to sites outside London? k) Is greater clarity required on the amount and type of waste likely to be exported from the GLA area, to facilitate waste planning by receiving
Authorities outside London? l) In paragraph 5.80 is it appropriate for strategy to promote large centralized sites rather than small localized sites for handling waste? m) In paragraph 5.81, is too much emphasis placed on new gasification and pyrolosis technologies? n) o)
Should landfill provision be included, in line with PPS10?
Should a planning decisions section be added? In particular, is it sufficiently clear how the requisite number and type of treatment facilities will be provided to handle the waste apportionments in order to be consistent with the advice of PPS10?
Proposed Participants
Mayor/GLA [2 seats]
Communities and Local Government (01)
London Councils (03)
London Boroughs - Hot-seated as necessary [2 seats]
Transport for London (37)
South East England Partnership Board (42)
Biffa (50)
Arup (65)
East of England Local Government Association (105)
Essex County Council (99) / Hertfordshire County Council (119) / Surrey
County Council (123) Hot-seated as necessary [2 seats]
Environmental Services Association (124)
North London Waste Authority (128)
Covanta Energy (130)
West London Waste Authority (145)
WesternRiverside Waste Authority (158)
Just Space Network (291)/Friends of the Earth (620)
Express Energy (421)
Federation of Small Businesses (472)
Environment Agency (800)
Hampshire County Council (858)
Viridor (872)
Port of London Authority (885)
Policy 5.18 Construction, excavation and demolition waste a) Should the policy be supported with practical guidance on how its aims might be achieved, for example by reference to the waste hierarchy and better co-ordination of the relevant water and rail infrastructure? b) Should there be complementary reference in the policy to reduction in the use of virgin building materials?

c) Should the problem of fly-tipping be referred to, other than in paragraph 5.84? d) Should a planning decisions section be added to the policy?
Policy 5.19 Hazardous waste e) Is it the expectation that increased capacity will be provided at existing sites in preference to the identification of new sites? f) Should the Plan (and clause Bb of the policy in particular) provide for site identification at strategic rather than Borough level? g) Should there be a firm commitment to produce a Hazardous Waste
Strategy for London by a specified date?
Policy 5.21 Contaminated land and Policy 5.22 Hazardous substances and installations h) Is the objective of the policy to avoid risk of harm to human health and the environment, or to avoid the spread of contamination? i) Should abnormal costs of remediation be taken into account in LDF site specific development allocations and in the determination of applications? j) Are the policies likely to be operated in a way that constrains development unnecessarily?
Proposed Participants
Mayor/GLA [2 seats]
Communities and Local Government (01)
London Councils (03)
London Boroughs - Hot-seated as necessary [2 seats]
Transport for London (37)
Arup (65)
Regents Network (92)
G15 Housing Association (126)
North London Waste Authority (128)
Health and Safety Executive (168)
London First (171)
Thames Water (469)
National Grid Property Holdings (473)
Environment Agency (800)
London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies (845)