You are on page 1of 216

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

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

Apologies for Absence

Declarations of Interest

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

Matters Arising and Actions List (Pages 9 - 12)

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

OPDC Growth Strategy Submission (Pages 15 - 18)

Opportunity Area Planning Framework - Consultation Outcome and


Programme for Adoption (Pages 19 - 104)

Public Sector Land Forum (Pages 105 - 112)

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

2


Agenda Item 3

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:

In Attendance:

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

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


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.

Apologies for Absence

2.1

An apology for absence had been received from Sir Peter Hendy CBE.

Declarations of Interest

3.1

There were no interests to be declared that were relevant to items on the agenda.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 mid2015.

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
Contact Officer:

Date
James Varley, Board Secretary



Page 7

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 8

Agenda Item 4




Subject:
ActionsList
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
BoardSecretary

Fornoting
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

SUMMARY

1.1 ThispaperinformstheBoardoftheprogressagainstactionsagreedatprevious
meetings.
2

RECOMMENDATIONS
TheBoardisinvitedto:


2.1 NotetheactionslistattachedasAppendixA.

3

APPENDICES
AppendixAActionsList.



BackgroundPapers

MinutesofthepreviousmeetingoftheBoard


Reportoriginator: JamesVarley,BoardSecretary
Telephone: 
02079834613
Email:

jamesvarley@opdc.london.gov.uk




Page 9

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 10

AppendixA






BoardActionsList(reportedtothemeetingon18May2015)

OutstandingActionsfromthelastmeeting


ActionBy

TargetDate

Status/note


6.4

ApprovalofCommitteeStructure,TermsofReferenceforCommitteesand
SchemeofPlanningDelegation

ConsidertheappointmentofWillMcKeeasChairmanofthePlanningCommitteeat
thenextBoardMeeting.




InterimChiefExecutive
Officer




18May2015




Onagendafor
thismeeting.

12.1


ApprovaloftheSealoftheCorporation

PresentareportonthedesignandbrandingoftheCorporationssealtoafuture
meeting.



InterimChiefExecutive
Officer



-




Onagenda
forwardplan.

Page 11

MinuteNo. Item/Description




This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12

Agenda Item 5




Subject:
ChairmansResignationandInterimArrangements
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

Fornoting
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary

1.1 Thisreportprovidesupdateoninterimarrangementsfollowingtheresignationbythe
Mayor,BorisJohnson,asChairmanandamemberoftheOPDCBoardon5May2015
withimmediateeffect.
2

Background

2.1 TheLocalismAct2011providesthattheMayorappointstheChairmanofaMayoral
developmentcorporation.On5May,theMayoralsogaveformalnoticetotheChairof
theLondonAssembly,RogerEvansAM,ofhisintentiontoappointSirEdwardtobethe
ChairmanoftheOPDC.
2.2 Theappointmentofthechairofafunctionalbodyisgovernedbyproceduressetoutin
section60AandSchedule4AoftheActwhichsetoutaconfirmationhearingprocess
beforetheappointmentcanbeformallymadebytheMayor.Undertheseprocedures
theAssemblyhastheopportunitytoholdahearing,within3weeksoftheMayors
formalnotification,intothecandidatessuitabilityholdtheposition,andtorequestthat
personsattendanceforquestioning.TheAssemblymaythenmakearecommendation
totheMayorastowhetherornotheorsheshouldbeappointed.TheMayormusttake
thisrecommendationintoaccountbeforeformallymakingtheappointment,althoughit
isnotbindingonhim.ThereforetheMayorsproposedappointmentmaynotformally
bemadeuntiltheendoftheconfirmationprocesshasbeenreached.Thishappens
wheneitherthe3weekperiodhasexpired(by27May)or,withinthatperiod,the
Assemblyhasmetandmadearecommendation.
2.3 Atitsmeetingon1April2015theBoardappointedSirEdwardListerastheBoards
DeputyChair.UnderStandingOrderstheDeputyChairmayexerciseallthefunctions
oftheOPDCsChairman,includingwherethereisavacancyinthepositionofchairman.
UntilthenSirEdwardwillactinhiscapacityasDeputyChairtopresideovermeetingsof
theBoardandfulfilthefunctionsofChairman.

Page 13

2.4 Intheeventthat,followingtheAssemblysrecommendations(ifany),theMayor
choosestoappointSirEdward,hewillatthatpointbecometheOPDCsChairmanand
theBoardwillbeaskedtoappointanewDeputyChairtoreplaceSirEdwardinthat
role.
3

Recommendations
TheBoardisinvitedtonotetheresignationoftheMayorasitsChairmanandmember
oftheBoardandthatSirEdwardLister,inhiscapacityasDeputyChair,willfulfilthat
roleuntiltheMayorappointsanewChairmanoftheOPDCaftertheendofthe
statutoryconfirmationprocess.

FinancialImplications

4.1 Nofinancialimplicationsimmediatelyarise.
5

LegalImplications

5.1 Thesearesetoutabove.
6

Appendices

None

BackgroundPapers

None



Reportoriginator: MikeLancaster,Principal,TfLLegal
Telephone: 
02030547920

Email:

mikelancaster@tfl.gov.uk


Page 14

Agenda Item 6




Subject:
OPDCGrowthStrategySubmission
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

ForNoting
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary

1.1 ThisreportsetsoutasummaryofthefirststageGrowthStrategythatwassubmittedto
CentralGovernmentbyOPDCon30April2015,fornotingbytheBoard.
1.2 ThefullGrowthStrategyreportisattachedasanappendixtothisreportisincludedat
Part2oftheagenda,asitcontainsexemptsupplementaryinformation.Theinformation
isexemptbyvirtueofparagraph3ofSchedule12Ainthatitcontainsinformation
relatingtothebusinessaffairsoftheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopment
Corporation.
2

Recommendations
Theboardisinvitedto:

2.1 Notethesubmissionon30ApriloftheGrowthStrategyappendedtothereportonPart
2oftheAgenda,whichrepresentstheOPDCsfirststagesubmissiontoCentral
Government.
3

Background

3.1 TheHS2GrowthTaskForcewasestablishedbyCentralGovernmenttoconsider
regenerationopportunitiesaroundfutureHS2stations.Inearly2014theTaskForce
madeaseriesofrecommendationsincludingtheneedtodeveloplocalgrowth
strategiestounlockregenerationpotential.OPDC,GLAandTfLhavebeenworking
togetherwithDepartmentsforTransport,CommunitiesandLocalGovernmentandHM
TreasurytodevelopaGrowthStrategyforOldOakandParkRoyalinresponseto
Governmentsrequest.TheGovernmentsetadeadlineof30April2015forsubmission
ofthefirststageoftheStrategyfromlocaldeliverybodies(ieOPDC),whichwillbe
usedtoinformdiscussionsaroundtheComprehensiveSpendingReview2015anda
futureAutumnStatement.

Page 15

3.2 TheprogrammefortakingallGrowthStrategiestothenextstageisnotclear,asitisfor
determinationbythenextGovernment.OPDCofficerswillcontinuetoupdatethe
boardonnextstepsasandwhentheprogrammeismadeclearandwhendecisionsfrom
OPDCBoardwillberequired.
3.3 TheOldOakandParkRoyalHighSpeed2GrowthStrategysetsoutthescaleof
opportunitythatcouldberealisedbythecolossaltransportinvestmentinthisarea.The
strategyidentifiestherolethepublicsectorcanplayindeliveringtheredevelopmentof
landaroundtheproposedHighSpeed2,CrossrailandGreatWestMainLinestationsat
OldOak.Thestrategybroadlyidentifiesthescaleofbenefitthisregeneration
programmecandelivertotheeconomyandatahighlevelshowsthesizeoftheprize
thatcouldbeunlockedthroughfocussedpublicsectorinvestment.Itsetsoutthatby
adoptingaclearvisionwitharobustdeliveryandinvestmentpackage,OldOakand
ParkRoyalcanbecomeanexemplarinhighqualityregeneration.Thisareacould
becomeanintegralpartofLondonandmakeamajorcontributiontostrengthening
LondonsroleasaglobalcityandtotheUKseconomyasawhole.
3.4 Thechallengesassociatedwithdeliveringthisscaleofregenerationcannotbe
underestimated.In2014theHS2GrowthTaskForcenotedthatwecannotexpectto
getthemostoutofHS2simplybyfollowingabusinessasusualmodel.TheTaskForce
reportidentifiedfourareasoffocustoensurewecanmaximisethebenefitsfromthis
newinfrastructure:

Getourcitiesready:On1April2015theOPDCwasestablishedasalocaldelivery
bodytogovernanddriveregeneration.

Getourtransportnetworksready:OPDCisthelocalplanningauthorityforOldOak
andParkRoyalandiscoordinatingtransportdeliveryinthearea.

Getourpeopleready:OPDCfullysupportseducationandskillstrainingintheUK
labourmarkettoensurewearereadytodelivernewHS2infrastructure.OPDCis
keenforaspokeoftheHS2hubandspoketrainingandskillsmodeltobe
locatedatOldOakanddiscussionsarealreadyunderwaywithHS2onhowbestto
achievethis.

Getourbusinessesready:TheOldOakinterchangestationsitsadjacenttotheUKs
largestindustrialestate,whichaccommodatesover2,000industrialbusinessesand
44,000employees.Thereisafantasticopportunityforexistinglocalbusinessesto
benefitfromandplayanimportantroleinhelpingtobuildthisnewinfrastructure
andforOPDCtoinvestinitsregeneration.

3.5 TheGrowthStrategyidentifiesthosemeasuresrequiredtoachievethecomprehensive
regenerationofOldOakandParkRoyal.Thestrategyprovidesinformationonthelocal
context,thedevelopmentprogrammeandsetsthesceneforfutureGovernment
investmentandsupport.
4

SummaryoftheStrategy

4.1 TheGrowthStrategysetsoutthecontextforregenerationatOldOakandParkRoyal,
putsforwardanotionaldevelopmentprogrammetoidentifypotentialtimingandscale
ofinvestmentneededininfrastructure,withaviewtodiscussingwithCentral
Governmentsupporttoinfundingspecificpiecesinfrastructure,identifyingoptionsto

Page 16

addressanypotentialfinancinggap,andtoensureajoineduppublicsectortomake
bestuseofpublicsectorownedland.
DevelopmentProgramme
4.2 TheStrategysetsoutanotionaldevelopmentprogramme,againstwhichprojectedThe
coredevelopmentareaofOldOakismadeupoffourdevelopmentzoneseachwithits
ownhomesandjobsdevelopmentcapacityandassociatedinfrastructurerequirements.
4.3 Pre-2026willseeresidentialleddevelopmentfocusednorthoftheGrandUnionCanal,
aroundNorthActonandontheGenesissite,whilstpost-2026developmentwillbe
commerciallyledandwillbefocusedonsitesaroundthenewlyopenedHS2,Crossrail,
GWMLstationtothesouththeofthecanal.Currentprojectionsshowthepotentialto
deliver9,000homesand9,000jobspre-2026with15,000homesand46,000jobspost2026.
4.4 Therearesignificantlevelsofnewinfrastructurerequiredtounlockthisscaleof
developmentwithearlyprojectionsidentifyasignificantinfrastructurebillfortransport,
utilitiesandsocialinfrastructure.
InvestmentandSupport
4.5 OldOakwillgeneratesignificantnumbersofnewemploymentandGVAforthelocal,
regionalandnationaleconomy.Tounlockthesebenefitsandsecurethecomprehensive
regenerationofOldOakandParkRoyalwillrequirecontributionsfromtheprivate
sectorandpublicsectorsupportandinvestment.
4.6 TheStrategyconsidersthepotentialforusingvariousmechanismsinsecuringfunding
andfinancingtounlockthisdevelopmentopportunity,includingdevelopment
contributions,enterprisezonebusinessrates,stampduty,newhomesbonus,receipts
fromthedevelopmentofpublicsectorland,andothersourcesoffundingincludingTfL
andaffordablehousinggrant.
4.7 DiscussionsareunderwaywithcentralGovernmentastotherolethewiderpublicsector
canplayinunlockingdevelopmentandgeneratingvalue.
Recommendations
4.8 TheStrategysetsoutaseriesofrecommendationsfordiscussionwithCentral
GovernmentonhowitmightbestbeabletosupportOPDC,GLA,andTfLalongwith
theotherpublicsectorlandownersindeliveringthefullregenerationpotentialinthe
area.TheStrategyrecommendsseveraloptionswithregardstofunding,financial
supportandfinancing,andothercommitmentsthatGovernmentmaybeaskedto
make.
5

FinancialImplications

5.1 TheGrowthStrategyfinancialimplicationswillbereviewedinlinewiththecurrentlyset
2015-16and2016-17budgets.Futureyearsbudgetrequirementswillneedtobe
agreedviafurtherOPDCbudgetsettingprocess.
6

LegalImplications

6.1 Noparticularlegalimplicationsarisefromthereportatthisstageanditisconsistent
withtheCorporationslegalframework.
Page 17

Appendices

None

BackgroundPapers

None


Reportoriginator: AlexandraReitman,ProgrammeManager,OPDC
Telephone: 
02079834804
Email:

alexandra.reitman@opdc.london.gov.uk


Page 18

Agenda Item 7




Subject:

OldOakandParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanningFramework
SummaryofPublicConsultationResponses
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

Fornoting
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary

1.1 Thisreportprovidesasummaryofthecommentsreceivedaspartofthepublic
consultationonthedraftOldOakandParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanning
Framework(OAPF),whichranfora6weekperiodfrom27February14April2015.
Responsesfromkeypublicsectorstakeholdershavealsobeenappendedtothisreport.
2

Recommendations

TheBoardisinvitedto
2.1 NotethesummaryofresponsestothepublicconsultationontheOldOakandPark
RoyalOAPFassetoutintheattachedreport.
3

Background

3.1 In2013,theGLA,incollaborationwithTransportforLondon(TfL)andtheLondon
BoroughsofBrent,EalingandHammersmithandFulhamconsultedonOldOakA
VisionfortheFuture,whichdemonstratedhowlandaroundtheplannedOldOak
Commonstationcouldberedeveloped.Thisdocumentwasnotaplanningpolicy
documentbutitdidsetoutanearlysharedvisionastohowthisareacoulddevelopasa
resultofsignificantnewtransportinfrastructure.
3.2 TheLondonPlanconsolidatedwithalterationssince2011waspublishedbytheMayor
inMarch2015.AnnexOnetotheLondonPlanidentifiesOldOakCommonasan
OpportunityAreawiththecapacitytodeliveraminimum24,000homesand55,000
jobs,andidentifiestheParkRoyalOpportunityAreaashavingthecapacitytodelivera
minimum1,500homesand10,000jobs.
3.3 ThedraftOldOakandParkRoyalOAPFhasbeendevelopedoverthepastyearas
SupplementaryPlanningGuidance(SPG)totheLondonPlan.TheOAPF:

Page 19

providesguidanceondesiredlanduses,infrastructurerequirementsandurban
designmeasuresnecessarytodeliveraqualitynewneighbourhood;
looksatwaystomaximisetheconsiderableinvestmentpresentedbythedeliveryof
asignificantnewHS2/Crossrailinterchange,tofacilitatelargescaleregenerationof
thisarea;
exploreshowtheOldOakCommonHighSpeed2stationandsurrounding
developmentcouldbeproperlyintegratedwithsurroundingneighbourhoods,
communitiesandtowncentres;and
helpstofosternewandimprovedpartnershipworkingbetweentheMayor,local
Councils,transportproviders,centralGovernment,landowners,localresidentsand
businessesandpotentialinvestorstoensurethepreparationofarobustand
deliverableplan.

3.4 TheGLAconsultedonthedraftOAPFfora6weekperiodfrom27February14April
2015.Toensurethatallinterestedstakeholderswereinformedoftheconsultation,the
documentwaspublishedontheGLAswebsite,interestedpartiesandinterestgroups
ontheGLAsconsultationdatabasewereemailed,apublicnoticewaspublishedinlocal
newspapersanddropinsessionswereorganisedinthesurroundingarea.
4

ConsultationCommentsReceived

4.1 Therewereatotalof3,516responsestotheconsultationonthedraftOAPF.Ofthese
3,414responseswerereceivedfromsupportersofQPRintheformofastandardised
response.
4.2 ConsulteesrespondedonanumberofissuesrelatingtotheOAPFandtheReport,
attachedatAppendixA,isstructuredaroundthefollowingthemes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Generalcomments
Consultationandengagement
Introductionchapter
Vision
Objectives
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 Responsesfromkeypublicsectorstakeholdershavealsobeenincludedatthebackof
thereport.



Page 21

NextSteps

5.1 PriortotheadoptionoftheOAPF,theGLAwouldfollowthebelowprocedure:
i.
Prepareareportsettingouthowconsultationcommentshavebeenaddressed
byGLAofficersinthefinalversion;
ii.
SeekapprovaloftheDeputyMayorforPlanningofthefinalversionofthe
OAPFandagreementtotakethefinalOAPFtothenextavailableMayors
Planningmeeting
iii. PrepareMayorsreportforadoptionoftheOAPFasSupplementaryPlanning
GuidancetotheLondonPlan.

5.2 Thereportsettingouthowconsultationcommentshavebeenaddressedwillbe
reportedtotheOPDCPlanningCommitteeinduecourseandtheOPDCBoardwill
receiveareportonthefinalisedOAPFinlatesummer.
6

FinancialImplications

6.1 Therearenodirectfinancialimplicationsfromthesummaryofcommentsreceivedon
thedraftOldOakandParkRoyalOAPFconsultation.
6.2 AnyfurtherchangesfromthisOAPFConsultationwillneedtobereviewedforfinancial
implications.
7

LegalImplications

7.1 Noparticularlegalimplicationsarisefromthereportanditisconsistentwiththe
Corporationslegalframework.
8

Appendices

AppendixASummaryofResponsestothepublicconsultationonthedraftOld
OakandParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanningFrameworkandresponsesfrom
keypublicsectorstakeholders.


9

BackgroundPapers

None.


Reportoriginator: TomCardis,PrincipalStrategicPlanner,OPDC
Telephone: 
02079835552
Email:

tom.cardis@opdc.london.gov.uk


Page 22

O L D O A K & PA R K R O YA L
OPPORTUNITY AREA
PLANNING FRAMEWORK

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

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

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11 .
12.
13.
14.
15.

8
8
9
9
10
11
14
17
21
23
24
28
31
32
32

GENERAL COMMENTS
C O N S U LTAT I O N A N D E N G A G E M E N T
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER
VISION
OBJECTIVES
LAND USE
DESIGN
PLACES OF OLD OAK
PA R K R O YA L
WORMWOOD SCRUBS
T R A N S P O R T S T R AT E G Y
E N V I R O N M E N T S T R AT E G Y
D E L I V E R Y S T R AT E G Y
PUBLIC DROP-IN SESSIONS
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
S U M M A RY
16. APPENDICES
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
A P P E N D I X : K E Y P U B L I C S E C T O R S TA K E H O L D E R S
RESPONSES

Page 24
2

32
33

OVERVIEW
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 during summer 2015 to consider how best to respond to these issues. A follow up report will be presented 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 Supplementary 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 Planning Document (SPD) as there is no Local Plan in place. However, the OAPF would still carry
VLJQLFDQWPDWHULDOZHLJKWLQWKHGHWHUPLQDWLRQRISODQQLQJDSSOLFDWLRQVLQWKH23'&DUHDDV
SPG 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
3

e) 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.
15.
16.
17.

Public drop-in sessions and other event attendance


QPR supporters summary
Appendices
Supporting environmental studies

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

Page 26
4

NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS AND RESPONSES


In total 3,517 respondents provided responses:
Respondents
Borough
Business
Group - business
Group - interest
Residents (individuals & groups)
Land owner or utility provider
Political party
Stakeholder statutory and other
Queens Park Rangers supporters
Total

5
1
2
10
64
12
2
7
3,414
3,517

2IWKHUHVSRQVHVFRPPHQWVKDYHEHHQLGHQWLHG
Responses
Borough
Business
Group - business
Group - interest
Residents (individuals & groups)
Land owner or utility provider
Political party
Stakeholder statutory and other
Queens Park Rangers supporters
Total

147
1
152
162
1456
170
42
45
8,804
10,979

KEY ISSUES
Key issue
Lifetime Neighbourhoods
Further commitment to deliver Lifetime Neighbourhoods required
Housing
Provision of affordable and family housing
Employment and training
Securing local employment and training
Regeneration catalyst
Support for a cultural or education use
catalyst
Stated support for QPR stadium relocation
Did not support relocation of QPR stadium
Public amenity space
-XVWLFDWLRQIRUDPRXQWRIRSHQVSDFHUHTXLUHG

Page 27
5

Number of
respondents
37
11
23
12
3,336
86
13

Building heights
Concerns regarding building heights
Old Oak High Street
Concerns regarding the height of buildings along the high street
North Acton
Concerns regarding scale of existing development
Grand Union Canal
Tow path improvements for movement
Heritage and biodiversity
Park Royal
Stronger vision sought
Improvements to infrastructure and services required
Wormwood Scrubs
Concerns regarding impact of development and protection of Wormwood Scrubs
Transport
Opposition to the widening of Victoria
Road
7UDIFFRQJHVWLRQFUHDWHGE\FRQVWUXFtion and new development will negatively
impact on local transport network
Impact of construction transport on residential amenity
Waste
Waste facilities should be relocated from Old Oak and should protect
residential amenity

Page 28
6

41
20
19
15
20
18
17
80

5
33

10
21

Page 29
7

S U M M A RY O F R E S P O N S E S
1.

GENERAL COMMENTS

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
No clear position
Broad objection

36
43
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 concerns 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 Studies, 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 reVSRQGHQWV KDG VSHFLF FRPPHQWV RQ WKH DSSURDFK WR FRQVXOWDWLRQ DQG HQJDJHPHQW
which 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
8

LBHF 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 consultation 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.

INTRODUCTION CHAPTER

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 Vision and HS2 Hybrid Bill. There were some detailed comments on the Introduction chapter, 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)DQGWKHSRWHQWLDOEHQHWV
that 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 dedesignation 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.

VISION

Overview: A number of consultees made suggestions to amend the OAPFs proposed vision, 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
9

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 economically, 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.

OBJECTIVES

Overview: Generally, consultees welcomed the objectives. Some amendments to the objectives 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\UHIHUHQFHWKH
importance of connecting to other Opportunity Areas by rail.
Aurora Property Group requested that the objectives make the pressing need for residential development 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.
435 UHTXHVWHG WKDW WKH REMHFWLYHV VSHFLFDOO\ HQFRXUDJH WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI DQ HDUO\ PDMRU
catalyst use.
Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Buildings Group suggested that Objective 4 could be strengthened to give heritage-led development a stronger emphasis and that objective 3 should reference the importance of training for local people.
Residents requested that objectives seek to deliver sustainable development and Lifetime Neighbourhoods. There was broad support for a multi-use focal point with examples of cultural venues
Page 32
10

and universities stated. Requests were also stated for wording around protecting and enhancing
existing communities and town centres, alongside committing to prioritising training and employPHQWRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUORFDOSHRSOHDQGGHQLQJDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWDUJHWV

6.

LAND USE

Overview Respondents were generally supportive of the approach taken to land use in
the OAPF. There was particular support from local interest groups.
5HVSRQVHVRQVSHFLFODQGXVHW\SHVDUHSURYLGHGEHORZ7KLVVHFWLRQIRFXVVHVRQODQGXVH
LVVXHVUHODWLQJWRWKHHQWLUH2$3)DUHDRUVSHFLFDOO\WR2OG2DN0RUHGHWDLOHGFRPPHQWVRQ
land use in Park Royal are covered in Section 9.
A.

HOUSING

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
SURYLVLRQVKRXOGEHEDVHGRQQHHGDQGVKRXOGQRWEHSUHGLFDWHGRQWKHQDQFLQJQHHGHGIRU
physical 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
VKRXOGLQVWHDGEHGHVFULEHGDVDQHVWLPDWHGJXUHQRWDPLQLPXP
The 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 housing, 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 affordable housing in the area.
5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGWKDWWKHDPRXQWRIKRXVLQJVKRXOGEHMXVWLHGDQGWKDWIXUWKHUJXLGDQFHRQ
affordable housing should be provided with regard to affordable housing targets, tenure and mix.
5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGKRXVLQJWDUJHWVIRUDOOWKHSODFHVZKLFKDUHGHQHGLQWKHGRFXPHQWDV
VSHFLFJHRJUDSKLFDODUHDVZLWKWKHLURZQYLVLRQVDQGREMHFWLYHV5HTXHVWVZHUHPDGHIRUWKHVH
to be based on delivering Lifetime Neighbourhoods.
5HVLGHQWVVRXJKWDGHQLWLRQRIDIIRUGDEOHKRXVLQJWREHSURYLGHG5HVLGHQWVDOVRFRQVLGHUHG
that the affordable housing alone will not address local deprivation.

Page 33
11

B.

R E TA I L

2YHUYLHZ*HQHUDOO\FRQVXOWHHVIHOWWKDWIXUWKHUMXVWLFDWLRQDQGHYLGHQFHVKRXOGEHXQdertaken 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\$UHDVVKRXOGEH
IXUWKHUMXVWLHGRUUHPRYHG
LBHF 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 apSURSULDWHORFDWLRQVIRUDFWLYHIURQWDJHVXQWLOWKHDSSURSULDWHTXDQWXPRIUHWDLOKDVEHHQGHQHG
LB 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, measXUHVVKRXOGEHWDNHQWRFRQWUROWKHVL]HRIUHWDLOXQLWVDQGOLPLWWKHDPRXQWRIFRPSDULVRQRRUspace.
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 supported the encouragement of independent retail.
C.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

Overview: The approach to employment and training in the OAPF was generally supported. 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 deYHORSPHQWDQGLQVWHDGLWFRQWLQXHWREHLGHQWLHGDVD6WUDWHJLF,QGXVWULDO/RFDWLRQ 6,/ 
Quattro asserted that OPDC should provide a commitment that it will support businesses requiring relocation. They also stated that the plan as currently written does not appear to support
WKHUHORFDWLRQRIQRQRIFHOLJKWLQGXVWULDOXVHV6HJURUHTXHVWHGWKDWDQ\EXVLQHVVUHORFDWLRQV
would 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\PHQWRRUVSDFHZLOOEHORFDWHGDQGWKDWDVWURQJHUFRPPLWPHQWWR
protecting 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 studies 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 relocated 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
12

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 employment 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 development. Further guidance was requested for targets to monitor local employment and trainLQJ WKH DPRXQW DQG W\SHV RI HPSOR\PHQW DQG WKH EUHDNGRZQ RI JXUHV IRU FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG
operational 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 employment 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 standardised 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 catalyst for regeneration. QPR assert that a new stadium would be an ideal large-scale catalyst for
WKHUHJHQHUDWLRQRIWKHDUHDDQGWKDWVXFKDXVHZRXOGEHDEHDWLQJKHDUWDQGLGHQWLHUIRUWKH
DUHD435UHTXHVWWKDWWKH2$3)LQSULQFLSOH22PDNHVSHFLFUHIHUHQFHWRWKHSURYLVLRQRID
sports facility/football stadium as part of the mix of land uses. In response to Question 4, QPR
QRWHWKDWWKHFDWDO\VWXVHVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHGDVDVSRUWVVWDGLXP
Cargiant considered that the emphasis that the OAPF gave to large-scale uses acting as catalysts for regeneration was being overplayed. Further, Cargiant suggested that rather than largescale 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 largescale 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
FRXOGWZLWKLQWKHZLGHUPDVWHUSODQ
The 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
13

HGXFDWLRQXVHWRKHOSGHOLYHUWKHSULQFLSOHVRI/LIHWLPH1HLJKERXUKRRGVDQGUHHFWHGWKHORFDO
character. Some support from residents was shown for a stadium.

7.

DESIGN

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/%%UHQWUHTXHVWHGWKDWWKH
development 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
2OG2DN3DUNLQ2OG2DN1RUWKVKRXOGEHGHQHG
QPR asserted in their representations that the quantum of public amenity space shown in the
masterplan is too large.
/RFDOLQWHUHVWJURXSVVXSSRUWHGWKHLGHQWLFDWLRQRIJUHHQDPHQLW\VSDFHLQWKH2$3)EXWIHOW
that 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
14

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 multiple uses. Requests were made that local people should help to inform the design of new public
RSHQVSDFHVDQGWKDWRSHQVSDFHVDUHLGHQWLHGRQPDSV6XJJHVWLRQVIRUWKHXVHRISODLQ(QJlish 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-XQFWLRQLGHQWLHGWR
potentially provide new public open space. The need for an open space needs assessment was
LGHQWLHGDQGWKDWWKHDPRXQWRIRSHQVSDFHVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHG LQFOXGLQJIRUHDFKSODFH DQG
MXVWLHGZKLOHOLQNHGWRKRXVLQJGHOLYHU\,QFDOFXODWLQJSXEOLFRSHQVSDFH:RUPZRRG6FUXEV
and street greening was asked to be excluded.
B.

STREETS AND PUBLIC REALM

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 urban design is stated.
The Grand Union Alliance interest group raised concerns about Grand Union Street and the potential impact this would have on existing residential communities.
5HVLGHQWVSURYLGHGJHQHUDOVXSSRUWIRULPSURYLQJWKHSXEOLFUHDOPDQGVSHFLFDOO\UHTXHVWHG
that 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
FOHDUHUGHQLWLRQRIJUHHQVWUHHWV
C.

BUILDING HEIGHTS AND DENSITIES

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 centre 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 asserted that the current approach was contradictory with some areas such as Willesden Junction
EHLQJLGHQWLHGLQ)LJXUHDVEHLQJERWKVHQVLWLYHDQGDSSURSULDWHIRUWDOOHUHOHPHQWV
LBHF asserted that having tall buildings at entrances is over the top and lacks evidence.

Page 37
15

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 lowrise 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 areas. 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*UDQG
8QLRQ&DQDOZLWK6FUXEV/DQHDQGWKDWDIXUWKHUHQWUDQFHSRLQWVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHGDWWKHMXQFtion 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).
5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGWKHMXVWLFDWLRQIRUWKHOHYHORIGHYHORSPHQWDQGGHQVLWLHVVXJJHVWLQJWKDW
LGHQWLHGGHQVLWLHVDFURVVWKHDUHDDUHWRRKLJK6FHQDULRVIRUOHVVGHQVHGHYHORSPHQWZHUH
requested. Residents also stated that high density development does not need to be high rise
and suggested the use of mansion blocks.
5HVLGHQWVUHTXHVWHGWKDWEXLOGLQJKHLJKWVVKRXOGEHFOHDUO\VWDWHGDQGLGHQWLHGIRUHDFKSODFH
using 3D modelling. Concerns were raised regarding guidance providing contradicting information 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$3)VKRXOGFRPPLWWRVDIHJXDUGLQJ
the amenity of local communities.
Residents also asked for development close to Wormwood Scrubs to be low rise and that buildLQJKHLJKWVVKRXOGUHHFWWKHORZULVHUHVLGHQWLDODUHDQRUWKRI:LOOHVGHQ-XQFWLRQVWDWLRQ6SHFLFDOO\:HOOV+RXVH5RDGUHVLGHQWVZHUHFRQFHUQHGWKDWWDOOEXLOGLQJVPD\EORFNYLHZVIURP
UVWRRUZLQGRZVRQ:HOOV+RXVH5RDG%RWK:HVW$FWRQDQGWKHDUHDQRUWKRIWKHIUHLJKWOLQHU
terminal were asked to be designated as a sensitive area.
5HVLGHQWVLGHQWLHGDQHQWUDQFHSRLQWDWWKHMXQFWLRQRI6WDWLRQ5RDGDQG2OG2DN/DQHEXWDOVR
stated that tall buildings may not be appropriate at entrance points.

Page 38
16

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\IRUVHOHFWLQJLGHQWLHGYLHZVZLOO
be 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 sensitive to tall development in Old Oak.
Residents requested that built heritage is used to inform placemaking and a survey of heritage
DVVHWVLVXQGHUWDNHQ6SHFLFFRPPHQWVIRUSUHVHUYLQJWKHKHULWDJHRIFDQDOUDLOZD\VDQGLQdustry were provided.
Residents asked for Wells House Road, West Acton and Midland Terrace to designated as view
points.
E.

PLACES/PLACEMAKING

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


FRQVXOWHHVKDGVSHFLFFRPPHQWVZKLFKDUHRXWOLQHGEHORZ
LBHF 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.

PLACES OF OLD OAK

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
17

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

OLD OAK NORTH

435UHTXHVWHGWKDWVSHFLFUHIHUHQFHVKRXOGEHPDGHLQ2OG2DN1RUWKWRWKHSRWHQWLDOIRRWEDOO
stadium 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 NeighERXUKRRGVZDVUHTXHVWHGVSHFLFDOO\LQUHODWLRQWRVRFLDOLQIUDVWUXFWXUH
Residents requested that waste sites are removed from the area.
B.

OLD OAK SOUTH

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 removed 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 Canalside 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.
2.

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

OLD OAK HIGH STREET

LBHF and LB Ealing stated that a shoulder height of 10 storeys was too tall and that this would
UHVXOWLQDZDOOPDVVLQJDQG/%+)DOVRDVVHUWHGWKDWGHQLQJDZLGWKRIPHWUHVEDVHGRQ7I/
Page 40
18

JXLGDQFHLVQRWVXIFLHQWHYLGHQFHDQGVKRXOGEHUHPRYHG
LB 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 walking 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 station 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 access 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 Common 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 Common Station rather than an underpass.
E.

NORTH ACTON

Essential Living, the owners of the Perfume Factory site requested that the Perfume Factory
VLWHEHLGHQWLHGDVDORFDWLRQIRUDSRWHQWLDOFDWDO\VWIRUUHJHQHUDWLRQ(VVHQWLDO/LYLQJDOVRUHTXHVWHGWKDWWKH3HUIXPH)DFWRU\VLWHVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHGDVIDOOLQJZLWKLQWKHKLJKHURUKLJKHVW
density categories in principle OO4 and that the document should be clearer about the GLAs inPage 41
19

WHQWLRQVIRUWKHDUHDLGHQWLHGDVRSHQVSDFHWRWKHQRUWKRIWKH3HUIXPH)DFWRU\VLWH(VVHQWLDO
Living 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 neighbourhoods. 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\DQGVXJJHVWHGWKHDUHDGHOLYHUVDGvanced 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.

GRAND UNION CANAL

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.
/%+)UHTXHVWHGWKDWWKH*UDQG8QLRQ&DQDOEHLGHQWLHGDVKDYLQJVSHFLDOVHQVLWLYLW\LQWKH
guidance 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
20

5HVLGHQWVDOVRLGHQWLHGWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIWKHELRGLYHUVLW\RIWKHFDQDODORQJVLGHXVLQJWKHFDQDO
for freight movement.
G.

SCRUBS LANE

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+*9PRYHPHQWVDORQJWKHURDGZLWK
approximately 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 activating the historic buildings in this area was stated.
H.

OLD OAK LANE

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 development sites. LB Ealing also suggest that further work should also be undertaken looking at
WKHLPSDFWRIWUDIFRQ2OG2DN/DQH
HS2 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 proposed to provide relief to Old Oak Lane.
Residents stated supported for the Harlesden Bypass a proposal for a new road running eastwest 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
21

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\DODUHD
A.

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
EXW QRWHG WKDW WKH 6WUDWHJLF ,QGXVWULDO /RFDWLRQ 6,/  ERXQGDU\ LQ JXUH  ZDV LQFRUUHFW DQG
required amending.
5HVLGHQWVUDLVHGFRQFHUQVUHJDUGLQJWKHLQWHQVLFDWLRQRIHPSOR\PHQWXVHVDQGWKHLPSDFWRQ
local 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[LVWLQJEXVLnesses and envisaged future business growth and this should be addressed as a priority. Concerns 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+DUOHVden 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
22

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 accommodation and meeting space.
LB Ealing state that the area should not be treated as a conventional retail centre and that it
VKRXOGQRWEHGHVLJQDWHGDVDUHWDLOFHQWUHDQGZRXOGLQVWHDGEHQHWIURPDVSHFLDOSROLF\GHVignation 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.
$6'$QRWHGWKDWWKHLGHQWLFDWLRQRIRSHQVSDFHRQWKHLUVXSHUPDUNHWVLWHZRXOGLPSDFWRQSRtential housing delivery.
Park Royal Business Group (PRBG) and Segro both support the aspiration for the Heart. PRBG
DOVRUHTXHVWHGWKDWWKLVVKRXOGLQFOXGHH[LEOHDQGDIIRUGDEOHZRUNVSDFH
Residents 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\(VWDWH
F.

FIRST CENTRAL SITE

LB Brent request that text be inserted requiring development at First Central to also make improvements 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.

10. WORMWOOD SCRUBS


Overview: A number of representations were made by consultees in relation to the Wormwood 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 relaWLRQVKLSZLWKWKH6FUXEVFODULHG
LBHF 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
23

LBHF requested that the OAPF should clarify the relationship between OPDC, LBHF and Wormwood 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:RUPZRRG6FUXEVDV0HWURSROLWDQ
Open 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 Wormwood 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 developPHQWRI2OG2DNRQWKHFKDUDFWHUDQGELRGLYHUVLW\DVVHWVRIWKH6FUXEV6SHFLFDOO\WKHUHWHQWLRQ
of the embankment along the northern edge was sought.
7KH JURXS DOVR LGHQWLHG WKDW VHFWLRQV 22 FRXOG FRQWUDGLFW LWVHOI E\ VHHNLQJ WDOOHU EXLOGLQJ
heights 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 additional 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. This view was reciprocated by Segro.
TfL provided general support for the guidance on transport and committed to working with the
OPDC in delivering a series of studies including a Construction Logistics Strategy and Park
Royal Transport Strategy.
QPR noted that upgrades in transport infrastructure outside of development sites, particularly to
pedestrian, cycle and bus facilities and connections, should be designed to the same standards
as those being provided within development sites. QPR were also keen that an area wide travel
plan be developed for the commercial core of the Old Oak area.
Page 46
24

Local interest groups stated that the OAPF should be aiming for optimal connectivity, providing
better transport infrastructure and in particular, better local connections to surrounding neighbourhoods.
Residents asked for further information regarding assumptions in the transport modelling with
some disagreeing with the proposed scenarios. Residents also asked that the structure of the
FKDSWHUUHHFWWKHPRYHPHQWKLHUDUFK\VWDWHGLQWKH0DQXDOIRU6WUHHWVDQGLVOLQNHGWR/LIHWLPH
Neighbourhoods. Residents suggested that the transport scenarios should be more visionary
and that less focus is put on commuters and more on local communities. Concerns were raised
that too many options were presented and that the delivery of transport infrastructure should not
be at the cost of delivering new affordable housing.
A.

RAIL

Overview: Consultees were broadly in support of the proposals to enhance rail connectivity in the area.
RB Kensington and Chelsea state that the OAPF should make reference to the potential for rail
connections to Kensal Canalside and a potential Crossrail station and the opportunity this would
EULQJWRWKHDUHDIRULQWHQVLHGGHYHORSPHQW
LB Brent requested that reference should be made to the potential Crossrail link to Wembley.
The Department for Transport requested that the OAPF clarify that the Crossrail link to the West
Coast Main Line is not currently a committed scheme and that a number of proposed rail improvements would require detailed discussions with Network Rail as they would impact on live
rail infrastructure.
QPR supported the proposed upgrades to Willesden Junction station. QPR also stated that having a high quality public transport offer will be critical in terms of ensuring a high PT modal share
from development.
Local interest groups were supportive of proposals to improve rail connections in Old Oak and
Park Royal. There was particular support from the Campaign for Better Transport and London
Civic Amenity Society for proposals to provide new stations on the London Overground network.
Residents raised concerns regarding the potential impact of the Crossrail / WCML intersection
and impact on local communities and that the proposed Old Oak Common Lane Overground
station to be built early in the development before the HS2 completion. Residents stated support
for improvements to Willesden Junction Station and new London Overground Stations alongside
suggesting that support should be given for additional Overground station at Western Circus to
the south.
Residents also requested that development scenarios based on HS2 not proceeding should be
provided and further clarity on whether Old Oak Common Station would act as a terminus for
HS2 and where the location of the entrance to the station would be.
5HVLGHQWVDOVRLGHQWLHGWKDWWKHUDLOORRSDORQJQRUWKHUQHGJHRI2OG2DNDOVRSURYLGHVSDVVHQger transport and that the Dudden Hill line be reopened with a new London Overground station
proposed at Acton Lane alongside an extension to Hounslow, Hendon and Mill Hill. Residents
also requested that HS2 and Cross rail services connect to Clapham Junction

Page 47
25

Other stakeholders requested further reference to the improved connections to Heathrow Airport
and that passenger interchange is made as easy as possible.
B.

ROADS

Overview: Consultees were concerned that without adequate alternatives to travel by


private vehicles, development would put an increased pressure on the surrounding road
network.
RB Kensington and Chelsea requested that the OAPF provide further clarity on the impact that
development would have on the road network and in particular, the junctions highlighted in Figure 59.
/%%UHQWUHTXHVWHGWKDWLQSDUWLFXODUWKHUHVKRXOGEHIXUWKHUFODULFDWLRQRQWKHLPSDFWRIGHYHOopment on junction and road capacity in Park Royal.
LBHF requested that they be engaged in transport impact studies and proposals and any decision to adopt private streets.
/%(DOLQJVWDWHGWKDWFRQVLGHUDWLRQVKRXOGEHJLYHQWRH[FOXGLQJURDGWUDIFIURPVWUHHWVZLWKLQ
Old Oak.
4XDWWUR DQG 6HJUR ERWK DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH 2$3) VKRXOG HQVXUH WKDW DQ\ WUDIF UHVXOWLQJ IURP
development should not impinge on existing businesses.
The London Civic Amenity Society and Grand Union Alliance interest groups both raised concerns about the potential impact of development on the surrounding road network. Brent Cyclists
interest group stated that as much should be done as possible to minimise the number of trips
made by private vehicles.
Residents stated general support for a new road network but expressed strong opposition to the
expansion of Victoria Road as a dual carriageway and suggested that one lane should be a designated construction lane, later to be used by buses. Concerns were also raised that construction and new development will create further congestion on the road network and that current
WUDIFLVVXHVDUHQRWEHLQJDGGUHVVHG)XUWKHUVXSSRUWZDVVKRZQIRUD+DUOHVGHQE\SDVVDQG
for the eastern access road into Old Oak from Scrubs Lane with further information requested
for the new road to the north of Wormwood Scrubs.
Residents stated that road improvements should not impact on residential amenity and provided
SURSRVDOVIRU$WODV5RDGDQG&KDQQHO*DWH5RDGWREHUHFRQJXUHGIRU+*9DFFHVVDQGUHplaced by a pocket park. Residents also suggested that the taxi rank at Old Oak Common Station should be located below ground.
C.

C A R PA R K I N G

Overview: Consultees generally felt that the approach to car parking would be an imporWDQWGHWHUPLQDQWRQWKHDPRXQWRIIXWXUHURDGWUDIFLQWKHDUHD
5%.HQVLQJWRQDQG&KHOVHDUHTXHVWHGWKDWVSHFLFPHQWLRQVKRXOGEHPDGHLQWKLVVHFWLRQWR
electric vehicle charging and the importance of providing facilities for taxis to reduce idling engines.

Page 48
26

LB Brent were concerned that this section only appeared to deal with car parking in Old Oak and
that there should also be a clear strategy towards car parking in Park Royal.
QPR agreed that on-site car parking should be carefully controlled to help maximise the extent
of sustainable non-car travel. QPR also noted that importance of providing car parking facilities
for wheelchair users.
Guinness Ltd and Essential Living asserted that the approach taken to car parking in the OAPF
was not in accordance with the London Plan and should be amended.
*XLQQHVV/WGUHTXHVWHGWKDWWKHUHVKRXOGEHDQHOHPHQWRIH[LELOLW\LQDQ\FDUSDUNLQJVWDQGards, taking into account a sites location, its PTAL and its impacts on commercial viability. AuURUD3URSHUW\*URXSIHOWWKDWSDUNLQJVWDQGDUGVVKRXOGEHPRUHH[LEOHLQWKHHDUO\SKDVHVRI
development as these phases would have to be built prior to the delivery of key pieces of public
transport infrastructure.
5HVLGHQWV LGHQWLHG WKDW FXUUHQW FDU SDUNLQJ LQ 3DUN 5R\DO LV LQVXIFLHQW IRU EXVLQHVVHV DQG
should be addressed and that by stating car parking guidance the OAPF recognises that the
development will have a negative impact on the local road network.
D.

BUSES

Overview: There was broad support for the approach to improving bus connectivity in the
area.
RB Kensington and Chelsea requested that Figure 60 showing existing and proposed bus routes
should indicate which routes would be bus only and that the text should indicate the potential for
connections to Kensal Canalside Opportunity Area.
LB Brent raised the need for bus connections to also be considered in Park Royal.
1HZEXVURXWHVDUHVXSSRUWHGVSHFLFDOO\IURP2OG2DNWR+DUOHVGHQDQGWKDWDQHZFLUFXODU
bus route in Old Oak should be explored.
E.

WA L K I N G A N D C Y C L I N G

Overview: Walking and cycling was supported by consultees although concerns were
raised about the potential interaction of cycling with other modes.
RB Kensington and Chelsea raised concerns regarding a potential cycle route on the northern
edge of the Grand Union Canal and the potential impact this might have on Kensal Cemetery.
Local interest groups were strongly supportive of proposals to improve cycling in the OAPF.
Brent Cyclists and Create Streets unequivocally supported the OAPFs approach to cycling.
There was particular support for improvements to cycling along the Grand Union Canal and proposals for segregated cycleways, although some interest groups noted the negative impact that
cyclists can have on pedestrians, especially along the canal.
Residents strongly requested that development within Old Oak is well connected to the surroundLQJDUHDV VSHFLFDOO\DFURVVWKH$ DQGWKDWDFFHVVWR:RUPZRRG6FUXEVLVGHPRQVWUDWHG
WR EH XVDEOH 6SHFLF VXSSRUW ZDV VKRZQ IRU LPSURYH DFFHVV IURP 2OG 2DN DQG :RUPZRRG
Scrubs to North Acton and that this should be continued to Horn Lane. Some residents did not
Page 49
27

support access from the proposed Old Oak Common Station to Wormwood Scrubs while others
requested further discussions on the matter.
Residents supported new walking and cycling routes along the canal and elsewhere and asked
that cycle routes should be segregated and additional Quietways implemented. Concerns were
raised with the potential use of tunnels to connect transport modes.
F.

CONSTRUCTION AND FREIGHT

Overview: Consultees recognised the importance of having strategies for construction


and supporting sustainable freight movements.
HS2 Ltd request that this section clarify that control of construction logistics relating to HS2 is
a matter being dealt with through the parliamentary planning process and not through planning
policy and that the OAPF should not be used to seek changes to HS2s Code of Construction
Practice.
QPR noted that importance of managing construction activity in order to minimise impacts on
communities on and off site.
4XDWWURVWDWHGWKDWWKHLUSUHVHQFHLQWKHDUHDZRXOGEHRIEHQHWZKHQFRQVLGHULQJWKHPDQDJHPHQWRIFRQVWUXFWLRQWUDIF
Residents stated support for the use of the canal for freight purposes and the proposals for
freight consolidation centres.
Strong concerns were expressed by residents regarding the impact of construction on residential
amenity and that further commitments should be made in the OAPF to deliver a mechanism for
engaging the residents on this matter and controls on construction work. Residents asked that
the protection of residential amenity is referenced under principle T7 and that further guidance
provide to work with companies to minimise freight transport.

1 2 . E N V I R O N M E N T S T R AT E G Y
Overview: There was broad support for the inclusion of an Environment Strategy chapter
in the OAPF.
LBHF stated that the Environment chapter does not adequately deal with noise or light pollution
and that this should be included.
LB Brent requested that the Environment chapter have a strong overarching strategy for the
achievement of sustainable development.
The Environment Agency provided general support for the approach taken with some suggested
amendments in relation to waste management and green infrastructure.
The London Assembly Labour Group requested that a stronger commitment to delivering a sustainable development is made.
A.

WAT E R

Thames Water were broadly supportive of the approach taken to water in the OAPF, noting in
Page 50
28

particularly their support for the approach outlined towards Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) and the commitment towards producing an Integrated Water Management Strategy. Thames Water noted the importance, as outlined in the OAPF, of ensuring that development
manages surface water run-off as close to source as possible and that development should aim
WRDFKLHYHJUHHQHOGUXQRIIUDWHVIRUSHDNRZDQGYROXPHFRQWURO
Thames Water noted that it will be essential for development in Old Oak to avoid impact further
down the Counters Creek catchment.
Thames Water also noted that Figure 64 includes an indicative water infrastructure plan including potential pumping stations and that if any development is proposed within 15 metres of a
proposed or existing pumping station, the developer or local planning authority should liaise with
Thames Water to consider whether further assessment is required.
The London Civic Amenity Society interest group commended the OAPFs approach to water.
Residents requested that green walls/roofs and spaces be referenced in the use of water management.
B.

WA S T E

LBHF requested that development should not be shown on the Powerday site as part of the
masterplanning work as the site is unlikely to be developed.
LBHF stated that OPDC should actively seek to meet LBHFs apportionment targets and meet
any costs that the council might incur. In addition, they requested that the OAPF clarify that
LBHF are not members of the West London Waste Authority and are instead part of the Western
Riverside Waste Authority.
5%.HQVLQJWRQDQG&KHOVHDUHTXHVWHGWKDWWH[WVKRXOGEHLQVHUWHGLQWKH2$3)DJJLQJWKH
potential for the capacity of waste sites in Old Oak and Park Royal to meet RB Kensington and
Chelseas waste apportionment.
LB Brent asserted that waste site relocations should be done in accordance with the West London Waste Plan.
The Environment Agency requested a detailed waste management strategy for each building
is provided for the development management process to support sustainable management of
ZDVWH 6SHFLFDOO\ WKLV UHTXHVWHG WKDW ZDVWH PDQDJHPHQW LV FRRUGLQDWHG ZLWK ORFDO DXWKRULW\
services. The Environment Agency also suggested that the OPDC work with the London Waste
and Recycling Board to establish best practice and that discussions are undertaken with the GLA
to established a waste apportionment for the OPDC area.
Quattro stated that the OAPF is currently showing predominantly residential development on
WKH6KLHOG6LWHEXWWKDWWKH:HVW/RQGRQ:DVWH3ODQLGHQWLHVWKDWSRVW+6VFRQVWUXFWLRQWKH
ZDVWHUHF\FOLQJXVHZLOOEHUHLQVWDWHGDQGWKDWWKH2$3)VKRXOGUHHFWWKLVDVVHUWLRQ4XDWWUR
also requested that Quattro be added to the list of waste sites in para 9.6 and that the Quattro
VLWHVKRXOGEHLGHQWLHGDVZDUUDQWLQJ0D\RUDOVXSSRUWZLWKUHORFDWLRQLQSDUD
The Grand Union Alliance, a local interest group, raised concerns that any proposals for waste
sites should be carefully planned and separated from residential areas.
Residents requested that existing waste sites are relocated out of Old Oak and the wider OPDC
Page 51
29

area. Concerns were raised that the West London Waste Plan may no longer aligned to the
London Plan (March 2015) and regarding the location of a proposed school next to an existing
waste site.
C.

AIR QUALITY

LB Brent requested that the wording require developments to be air quality neutral.
The London Civic Amenity Society stated that the proposals in the OAPF were inadequate for
post-construction monitoring and mitigation.
Residents requested that the OAPF provides a commitment that a dust management plan is
developed and that in minimising air pollution this should reference residential amenity. Suggestions were made for vegetation and other innovative techniques to mitigate the impact of
construction on local residents. Residents also suggested that the section be titled Air Quality
and Noise.
D.

ENERGY

Residents raised concerns that energy guidance is not supported by an evidence base and
that further exploration of whether local energy generation created from waste would impact on
UHVLGHQWLDODPHQLW\5HVLGHQWVDOVRUHTXHVWHGJXLGDQFHUHODWLQJWRUHWURWWLQJH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUHV
E.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

The Environment Agency suggested that green infrastructure is further integrated in the built
environment to contribute to biodiversity, health and well-being, air quality and water management. They also suggested that the funding of green infrastructure is embedded in any business
planning.
Natural England requested that accessible green open spaces are delivered and that green
infrastructure is embedded within wider development. Concerns were raised regarding some
types of living roofs as having limited biodiversity value.
Local interest groups requested that greater emphasis be given to tree planting within the green
infrastructure section.
Residents requested that biodiversity surveys should be carried out and that a commitment by
local planning authorities is made to deliver new biodiversity spaces and green infrastructure.
Requests for safeguarding the biodiversity assets along the canal were also stated. Residents
support the proposal to protect Wormwood Scrubs ecology but raised concerns about the impact of new accesses onto the scrubs.
F.

L A N D C O N TA M I N AT I O N

LBHF requested that the OAPF quote relevant legislation on land contamination and provide
further clarity on why such assessments need to be undertaken. They also requested that the
OAPF references the outputs from the Integrated Impact Assessment study, which was a supporting study to the OAPF.
The Environment Agency supported the aspiration for the sustainable management of contaminated land and suggested that a soil treatment centre is established.
Page 52
30

Residents requested that the OAPF states that local planning authorities will work together to
address land contamination.

1 3 . D E L I V E RY C H A P T E R
Overview: A number of consultees made representations on the Delivery chapter of the
OAPF, which are outlined below.
LBHF stated that the OAPF should set out how OPDC plans to work with the Local Authorities
to deliver infrastructure and that the Local Authorities should be fully involved in Section 106
negotiations and co-signatories to any agreements.
LBHF stated that new infrastructure provision should not have any ongoing revenue implications
for the Council.
LBHF requested that the OAPF provide further clarity on the infrastructure required to support
development in Park Royal.
LBHF stated that the OAPF appears to favour Section 106 over CIL and that the OAPF does not
appear to consider the impacts of limitations on Section 106 obligations.
LBHF assert that the OAPF is not informed by a Development Infrastructure Funding Study
',)6 ZKLFKZRXOGQRUPDOO\LGHQWLI\VSHFLFUHTXLUHPHQWVWRVXSSRUWGHYHORSPHQW
LB Brent asserted that it cannot be assumed that existing infrastructure surrounding Old Oak
can accommodate any needs arising from development.
TfL acknowledged that a number of depots and stabling facilities will need to be relocated and
commits to working with the OPDC to deliver a long term solution. However, the Department for
Transport noted the complexities of moving such infrastructure, especially the IEP depot.
The Department for Transport noted the work on the growth strategy and supported its production.
Cargiant support the approach outlined in the delivery chapter and supported a comprehensive
approach being taken to the masterplanning of the area. They noted the importance of planning
for utility infrastructure from the outset and the need for open dialogue with utility providers.
Cargiant also noted the importance of the work that the GLA and OPDC are undertaking on the
growth strategy. Cargiant recognised the need for development proposals to be supported by
necessary infrastructure to support the needs of development, but noted that where early development proposals carry an infrastructure burden this should be recognised as part of scheme
viability.
435UHTXHVWHGWKDWSULQFLSOH'/GPDNHVSHFLFUHIHUHQFHWRDIRRWEDOOVWDGLXPDQGWKH*HQesis site.
Segro requested that the Delivery Strategy include more detail on infrastructure requirements in
Park Royal.
Local interest groups supported the provision of educational infrastructure in the area and were
supportive of proposals to relocate the Crossrail and IEP depots.
Residents raised concerns that infrastructure may not be delivered due to the current funding
Page 53
31

gap and that this may not deliver Lifetime Neighbourhoods. Residents requested that the types of
social infrastructure should be stated and that assurances should be made that this would meet
ORFDOQHHG5HVLGHQWVDOVRZDQWHGFRQUPDWLRQWKDWWKHVRFLDOLQIUDVWUXFWXUHEHLQJVHFXUHGZDV
adequate to meet the needs arising from development and would not place a burden on existing infrastructure in the surrounding areas. A request was made for the emerging Development
Infrastructure Funding Study to be made available to understand infrastructure requirements
A.

PHASING

Cargiant asserted that the current phasing was overly ambitious and that within the core area
of Old Oak North, it would be unlikely that development would start pre-2022. In contrast, QPR
asserted that the OAPF should promote development across the Old Oak area as early as possible.
QPR requested that text be inserted in para 10.13, which supports catalysts for early regeneraWLRQLGHQWLI\LQJWKDWDIRRWEDOOVWDGLXPZRXOGDOVREHDEHDWLQJKHDUWDQGLGHQWLHUIRUWKHDUHD
QPR also asserted that the delivery of Hythe Road Overground station as early as possible
would help with expediting development.
Aurora Property Group disagreed with the statement in para 10.23 that without the transport
LQIUDVWUXFWXUHLGHQWLHGLQ)LJXUH )L[HVDQG3ULQFLSOHV GHYHORSPHQWLQ2OG2DNZRXOGQRW
occur, whereas QPR supported this statement.
RB Kensington and Chelsea requested that the phasing of development on the eastern part of
North Pole Depot is brought forward to pre-2026.

1 4 . P U B L I C D R O P - I N S E S S I O N S A N D O T H E R E V E N T ATTENDANCE
Public drop-in sessions took place during March on the below days to enable local people to
discuss proposals and provide their views.
 Tuesday 10 March, 3:30pm to 8pm All Souls Church, Harlesden, NW10 4UJ
 Wednesday 11 March, 8:30am to 10:30am Holiday Inn Express, North Acton, W3 6UP
 Saturday 14 March 10am to 3pm Linford Christie Outdoor Sports Centre, Artillery Way,
W12 0DF
 Tuesday 17 March, 5pm to 8pm - Holiday Inn Express, North Acton, W3 6UP
In total approximately 180-200 people attended these events.
2IFHUVDOVRDWWHQGHGDQXPEHURIRWKHUHYHQWVWRSUHVHQWDQGGLVFXVVLRQWKHGUDIW2$3)

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 S U M M A R Y
Queens Park Ranger (QPR) supporters submitted 3,414 responses containing content. 3,333
stated support for QPR relocating to the Old Oak area with 81 responses against.

16. APPENDICES
HS2 Ltd objected to the inclusion of the GLAs petition items in an appendix to the OAPF.

Page 54
32

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
Segro assert that the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) should consider the different approaches to waste required in Old Oak versus
Park Royal. Historic England also suggested that wording regarding the setting of assets and
mapping of these should be

Page 55
33

Regeneration and Housing

Boris Johnson, Mayor of London


(Draft Old Oak & Park Royal OAPF)
Greater London Authority
Post Point 18, City Hall
Queens Walk
London SE1 2AA

Planning Policy, Ealing Council


Perceval House
4th Floor Planning Policy
14 -16 Uxbridge Road
London
W5 2HL
t 020 8825 8056
e planpol@ealing.gov.uk
Date
14th April 2015

Dear Sir or Madam,


Draft Old Oak & Park Royal OAPF
I am writing on behalf of the London Borough of Ealing regarding the draft Old Oak and
Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework and understand that the formal
consultation on the draft framework closes at 5pm on 14th April 2015.
General Comments
Ealing is broadly supportive of the proposed Vision and Objectives of the draft OAPF,
particularly where these reflect continuing joint work between the GLA, MDC and the
Boroughs. However, the current draft OAPF does not successfully translate these aims in
its detailed policies and, overall, the document seems to have been compromised by its
hurried development.
Old Oak Common itself is clearly the hub of the OAPF area, and one of the most
promising development sites in London given the prominence of the HS2 Station within
the city and the UK as a whole. Unfortunately the quality of the urban realm that is
proposed here does not seem to equal this status, and there are concerns that
development quanta are driving design and layout to the detriment of this future
community. There are serious concerns over the quality of public and open spaces at Old
Oak and the effects that this will have on quality of life for future residents. This site is
unusually constrained and isolated by road and railway infrastructure and it is essential
that it properly connects and integrates with its complex surroundings.
Park Royals importance as a source of employment and economic activity and a reserve
of land for strategically important uses is well established. The continued protection of
this area as Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) is supported, but this designation will not
insulate the area from changes brought by HS2 or the massive redevelopment planned by
the OAPF.
The publication of the Park Royal Atlas in time to inform the OAPF is welcomed, and the
current work on the Employment Land Review will provide a better basis to begin strategic
planning in Park Royal.
The recent Inspectors Report on the Further Alterations the London Plan (FALP) made
clear that it is only an interim statement on the strategic planning of London and that most
of the fundamental questions of how London will adapt to its current growth in population
and employment have yet to be answered. There is significant capacity for Park Royal
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Page 56

Regeneration and Housing

to lead the strategic discussion on the role of SIL in London and to ensure that this area of
policy is well developed in the next London Plan. It seems clear that the policy
underpinning SIL will need significant review, and similar to the changes apparent at Park
Royal, this land use will need a greater strategic lead from public authorities. With the coincidence of the OPDC local plan, the continuing shifts in employment and logistics in
London and the full review of the London Plan there will never be a better opportunity for
a plan led approach to industrial development in London.
Park Royal does not offer the development quanta of the main Old Oak site but neither
will it benefit from benign neglect. The London Plan evidence base and Ealing's own
Employment Land Review among others have identified measurable challenges to the
area's crucial employment and business services offer, and these have been exacerbated
by an unsympathetic permitted development regime. There are substantial development
opportunities for a university, health, research or other employment use to lead
development in a way that complements Park Royal's existing skills and industrial
services. Development to facilitate long-term business spinoff is an essential outcome of
the project if it is to benefit Park Royal as well as the immediate station site.
In the context of these linked concerns about the strategy for Old Oak and Park Royal
Ealing considers it is particularly important that the OAPF;
-

Acknowledges the early nature of the work on Old Oak and Park Royal and the
need for substantial progress before development proposals are brought forward.

Gives a clear indication of the particularly constrained nature of Old Oak, which is
entirely cut off both from its surroundings and the rest of the OAPF area, and
acknowledges particular challenges that this creates for the new community.

Understands HS2 and the improved connectivity that it brings will drive change
throughout the area, including Park Royal and its crucial economic role.

Detailed comments are offered below about the sub areas proposed by the OAPF.
Old Oak
Notwithstanding the outline nature of OAPF guidance, the draft OAPF seems to be both
flawed and limited in its prescriptions for the main development sites at Old Oak Common.
Old Oak is a highly constrained location for development and the main effect of this has
been to limit public and open space and drive up building heights. As it stands,
development proposed by the draft OAPF is not considered to offer the quality of
environment necessary on such an important site.
Open and green space are at a particular premium at Old Oak and while the attempts
both to link to Wormwood Scrubs and generate a continuous network of public spaces is
welcomed this effort is threated by the scale of the proposed development. Tottenham
Court Road is offered as a comparison to the main street proposed at Old Oak High
Street as having a comparable width of 25m. However, this comparison is misleading
because the planned heights, quoted as from 10 storeys at the shoulder are far in excess
of those typical of Tottenham Court Road. The Mayors own urban design advice in the
Character and Context SPG recommends the widely acknowledged rule of thumb of a 1:1
ratio of building height to street width to allow an adequate balance between street
enclosure and openness. Overall, this advice and the design guidance on pages 35-44
seems to raise expectations of development yield too high without the support of
sufficiently detailed urban design work.
Old Oak is also constrained by its surroundings with almost every edge of the
development being acknowledged as sensitive by the sub area diagrams and the
masterplan on p43. This seems to have driven a strategy of crowding taller elements
toward the centre of the site focussing on the HS2 Station and Old Oak High Street to
compensate for the development lost at the edges. Unfortunately this strategy makes a
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Page 57

Regeneration and Housing

transition between the heights at the centre of the site and its edges even more difficult to
accomplish, and there are considerable concerns about the treatment of development
adjacent to existing residential enclaves at Wells House Road and Old Oak Lane.
There is little attempt to address the proposals that have been made for a stadium on the
site despite the very public nature of QPRs recent proposals. It is understood that this
specific proposal may have gone quiet or even fallen through but the OAPF is
dangerously vague on how a stadium application would be treated and does not
acknowledge the knock-on effects that it will have. The Key Objectives for Old Oak North
and para 5.34 of the supporting text both mention the desirability of a stadium as a
catalyst use, however the land take is not understood as having much of an impact on the
rest of the proposed development scheme. Amenity space is already scarce in Old Oak
and would be significantly reduced by a stadium, limiting the development potential of the
site as a whole. It is important that the OAPF is clear about this reduction in development
capacity both to secure high quality development and to make explicit to potential
applicants the costs of this type of development.
The conception of Grand Union Street as a strong, continuous route through Old Oak is
welcomed but this also serves to highlight the limited success in overcoming severance
between the development area and its surroundings. Old Oak remains bisected and
entirely circumscribed by railway lines and it is notable that no use of decking is proposed
in the OAPF to overcome this constraint at key points. Decking is far from a universal
solution but the lack of amenity space at Old Oak and the excess of railway lines suggest
it is worth active consideration. Work commissioned by Ealing found that decking at North
Acton could be economic while at the same time funding the improvement of the
underground station, and it is noted that White City OAPF also incorporates decking as
part of the urban design strategy.
Planned highways and road access points seem also to work counter to the aim of
improving integration between Old Oak and its surroundings by encouraging high usage
arteries that risk being dominated by vehicular traffic. The aim to divert as much traffic as
possible to public transport and pedestrian/cycle modes is strongly supported by Ealing,
and these should be further backed up by active limits on the number of parking spaces
provided and pedestrianisation of streets. There is a unique opportunity to set an
example at Old Oak not merely for low car housing but for a low car settlement with a full
range of functions and broad accessibility to the whole city. Conversely, failure to achieve
very low car parking provision and car transport usage at a site which is the centre of so
much public transport investment will damage the prospects of traffic reduction schemes
all over London.
The need for bus access to Old Oak is understood and supported, however the very
extensive highway network that is envisaged by the draft OAPF will also be difficult to
support in a high density development. In the absence of other measures to improve the
quality of the built environment, and public space in particular, consideration should be
given to the exclusion of road traffic from more of the streets in Old Oak, this will increase
the space for pedestrians and cyclists, and compensate in part for the cramped nature of
the site.
Treatment of the Brunel Road industrial estate is vague and seems to be a hangover of
earlier iterations of the OAPF in which the Overground link was presumed to cut through
this site. Given that this will not now occur, and development at this location is dependent
on the completion of development adjoining the Scrubs, it is Ealings view that this site
should not now be marked for release from SIL.
The emphasis at para 5.12 on the local nature of retail at Old Oak is welcomed.
Development resulting from the OAPF should not result in changes of the retail hierarchy
in West London or impact on the development of neighbouring town centres. Measures
should be taken to control the size of units and in particular restrict the development of
comparison retail.
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Page 58

Regeneration and Housing

It is noted that the boundaries of the Old Oak South area appear to run across those of
the sub areas in the current scheme of delegation between Ealing and the OPDC. It is
suggested that the Old Oak sub area is expanded to include the land immediately north
of the Central Line at North Action so that the delegation sub areas match the character
sub areas set out in the OAPF.
North Acton
Ealing is pleased that its continued success in securing regeneration in this area is
acknowledged by the delegation of applications back to the Borough. The Old Oak
development and particularly the improved connectivity that will result from the proposed
Overground station offer considerable opportunities to continue this growth. Development
here has been generally organic, working with the established grain of the streets and
emphasising small floor plates that increase permeability. The gyratory road layout in
this area is a longstanding constraint in improving circulation and the pedestrian
environment and Ealing is currently working with TfL to explore less disruptive
alternatives.
North Acton has an established and highly successful concentration of student housing,
and this is seen as a first step toward securing a potential university use. Ealing has
noted elsewhere the need for an industrial and employment strategy for Park Royal and
teaching and research functions here could function as a catalyst of development much
as a stadium is suggested to do at Old Oak. The preference in Para 5.60 for a greater
mix of residential uses is noted but seems rather perfunctory given the large number of
conventional residential units already built or at the application stage and the lack already
noted of a broader strategy for Park Royal.
Grand Union Canal
The aspiration for active uses and environmental improvement of the canal is supported
but explicit mention should be made of the Conservation Area that covers its full extent.
Finding a scale of development that responds to the canal will be very difficult in the Old
Oak area and at the edges of Old Oak where this core links to the rest of the blue
network.
Old Oak Lane
The lack of plans for Old Oak Lane is characteristic of the failure of the OAPF to set out a
clear strategy for employment uses in Park Royal as a whole. This area is both sensitive,
being home to two conservation areas in the form of the Grand Union Canal and the
railway cottages, and a focus of significant change due to the clearing of the industrial
sites during HS2 construction. Existing uses are predominantly road transport based, with
a large bus garage among the current occupiers, and reflect a currently poor
environmental quality and isolated location. This however will change radically by the
time the HS2 construction sites become available in 2026, with direct access via Midland
Terrace to the planned Overground Station, improved transport links and urban realm
immediately to the north at Willesden Junction, and numerous pedestrian and cycle links
to Old Oak and North Action. In this context it is inadequate simply to say that the SIL
designation will be safeguarded and that current industrial uses will be replaced. It is
clear that the profile and character of this area will have significantly improved and it will
have gained the capacity to support much higher density and value employment uses
than is currently the case.
It will constitute, along with the sites north of the mixed uses at North Acton Station, part
of a transition zone of more intensive employment uses that are still within easy walking
distance of railway links, and the more extensive and road traffic based uses in the
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Page 59

Regeneration and Housing

centre of Park Royal. The Old Oak Lane sites in particular are subject to assembly and
clearing due to HS2 construction works and the failure to set out a strategy for
environmental and economic improvement therefore has a double opportunity cost. It is
acknowledged that the ELR is currently being completed and that this will provide a better
basis for strategic planning in Park Royal, however, the low ambition expressed for this
area sets a dangerous precedent for future iterations of the plan.
Old Oak Lane is also very exposed to the consequences of increasing road traffic that will
result from development around the HS2 Station and there are concerns over the road
access point proposed in this area. Traffic impacts on Old Oak Lane Conservation Area
are a longstanding problem and detailed proposals should make every effort to limit traffic
growth and mitigate its effects.
With regard to terminology it is recommended that the term Island Triangle is avoided as
it lacks both widespread recognition and geographical precision. Old Oak Lane
Conservation Area is defined in policy and the term is used in Ealings adopted Local
Plan.
Park Royal
The treatment of the Park Royal SIL in the draft OAPF is disappointing and reflects the
overly hurried nature of the documents preparation and a lack of strategic perspective on
this vitally important business and employment area of London. Part of this appears to
derive from the misconception of Strategic Industrial Land as a safeguarding designation.
This is not a good understanding of the policy and it is notable that the London Plan
makes no use of this term in relation to SIL. Safeguarding implies either the restriction of
development in an area or its retention for a specific project, such as the HS2
safeguarding sites currently defined within Park Royal. Neither of these usages is a good
way of conceiving of the role of planning in industrial and employment areas in London,
which is a complicated mix of securing the industrial baseline of land supply, allocation of
strategic functions such as waste necessary to support the running of the city, and driving
the growth of business and economic development. While the draft OAPF makes
reference to these roles separately, it is clear that the need to bring them together at Park
Royal has not driven the plans for this area.
Relocation within Park Royal of the existing uses at Old Oak is one of the important ways
that these two areas can support each other during the current period of change.
However, the proposed hierarchy expressed at para 5.8 which preferences relocation
within Park Royal, then West London, Greater London, and finally the South East of
England1, misunderstands both the needs of business and the role of planning. Locking
uses within a given area or imposing a bureaucratic sequential test on their movement
serves neither an industrial baseline nor an economic development function. If the
operational needs of a business that serves London do not require that it locates within
the city then that is a decision that the business itself is best placed to reach, and one
which benefits London as a whole. Equally, if land-hungry uses are displaced by more
efficient employment and economic uses then this provides clear economic benefits.
There is, as was mentioned in the general comments at the beginning of this
representation, a clear need for SIL policy to evolve and Ealing does not underestimate
the work that needs to be done to achieve an employment land strategy that can
encourage economic growth and the efficient use land while maintaining essential service
and logistic uses. However, the draft OAPF does not seem to acknowledge this need and
leans on the extant SIL to support development at Old Oak without harnessing strong the
impulse of change affecting Park Royal.

It is also unclear whether this is intended to refer to the South East region or the greater South
East including the East of England region, and why this should be an objective of the plan.
Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Page 60

Regeneration and Housing

A significant spatial aspect is already apparent in the effects that HS2 will have on
industrial uses in Park Royal. Those sites, mainly in the east of the SIL, which will benefit
from new transport infrastructure and a relationship with the hub of business, services and
population at Old Oak will be subject to significant intensification. The OAPF already
notes the benefits that this can offer to the small businesses that form the backbone of
Park Royal. However there is no mention of the need to shape this change by targeting
particular business sectors in which there is existing strength or significant opportunity
and which can help business clustering, the provision of incubator and shared facilities,
and the development of growth sectors.
Several of the sites in Park Royal, such as the retained SIL north of North Acton Station,
and the HS2 construction sites at Old Oak Lane, offer specific development opportunities
for flagship tenants that can bring new sectors to Park Royal.
It is not enough simply to draw a line around Park Royal, protect it and consider that the
job is done. If the OAPF makes no case for the strategic importance of Park Royal, that is
to say of its role as an agglomeration of businesses that benefit by their proximity and
their relationship to surrounding uses, then there is little basis for the growth and change
in the area.
It is also strongly recommended that the OPDC pursues an Article 4 direction as soon as
possible to prevent the fragmentation of the SIL that will result from the plethora of recent
permitted development rights attaching to the office and industrial premises that make up
the bulk of properties in Park Royal.
Heart of Park Royal
The treatment of Park Royal Neighbourhood Centre as a conventional town centre, and in
particular the residential component that this incorporates, is a misconceived hangover
from the previous Park Royal OAPF which should no longer be maintained given the very
different circumstances of the current planning framework. The Heart of Park Royal area,
which is split between Ealing and Brent, is acknowledged as a concentration of untypical
uses within Park Royal, particularly in the form of Middlesex Hospital. Its important
potential role as a service centre for surrounding businesses is welcomed but it is not a
conventional town centre suitable for mixed uses and this approach can only succeed in
fragmenting the SIL. The OAPF should take advantage of the rationalisation of SIL
boundaries arising from HS2 construction and the refinement of SIL policy to consolidate
the core of Park Royal and so far as is possible remove conflicting uses.
The town centre strategy at Park Royal centre is now mature and these sites have been
available to mixed residential proposals for some years. Despite this, no large-scale
mixed-use proposals have materialised of the sort that would deliver the facilities and
environmental improvements needed and this, in Ealings experience, reflects a lack of
developer interest for town centre mixed uses in this area. To maintain the presumption
in favour of residential will only encourage small-scale speculative changes of use that
deliver little environmental benefit while constraining core industrial uses and delivering
poor residential amenity. Proposals for the Heart of Park Royal should instead make
clear the exceptional nature of the existing hospital and the dependency of residential
schemes on the special requirements of this use. It is strongly recommended that the
town centre designation is removed and replaced with a special policy area for a business
and service hub facilitated by environmental and transport improvements.
Minor and technical comments
Page

Comment

Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Page 61

Regeneration and Housing

13

The labels should read Ealing Broadway not Ealing Station,


Southall not Southall Station

22

Box L2: the sentence beginning There will be opportunities


should have one repetition of where possible deleted.

105

Fig 65 currently identifies all existing sites in the Old Oak area, but
only shows the allocated sites in the wider Park Royal area.

Yours sincerely

Steve Barton
Planning Policy Manager
Regeneration and Housing
t 020 8825 8056
e bartons@ealing.go.uk

Printed on 100% Recycled Paper

Page 62

Brent Civic Centre


Engineers Way
Wembley
Middlesex HA9 0FJ
TEL
FAX
EMAIL
WEB

020 8937 1049


020 8937 5207
cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk
www.brent.gov.uk

REF: MDC/BRENT
14 APRIL 2015

Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
Greater London Authority
Post Point 18
City Hall
The Queens Walk
London
SE1 2AA
Dear Mr Mayor
RESPONSE TO OLD OAK AND PARK ROYAL OPPORTUNITY AREA
PLANNING FRAMEWORK CONSULTATION
The London Borough of Brent strongly supports the proposal to bring forward
the comprehensive regeneration of Old Oak and Park Royal in line with the
objectives outlined in the Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF).
However, the Council feels the OAPF must be amended to ensure the
surrounding communities and Park Royal businesses fully benefit from the
regeneration of this area. The Councils key areas of concern are summarised
below and a detailed response attached as Appendix A.
Park Royal
The OAPF does not establish a strong vision for Park Royal. It is not informed
by an understanding of the range of issues currently impacting on businesses
operating in Park Royal, or opportunities for its future development. Unless
the Park Royal chapter is greatly improved, the existing Park Royal OAPF
must be retained, as without it there will be an absence of detailed planning
guidance for this area.
Harlesden
Reference to improved links to Harlesden is welcomed. It is crucial that links
to the town centre are strengthened to enable businesses and residents to
benefit from the regeneration of Old Oak.
The proposal to redevelop Willesden Junction station is also welcomed.
Willesden Junction station needs considerable early improvements and
investment if it is to provide a credible gateway to Old Oak and this must be a
1
Page 63

shared delivery priority for regeneration in the area. The redevelopment of


Willesden Junction will be critical to creating improved links to Harlesden.
It must be ensured Old Oak High Street complements Harlesden town centre,
and is not detrimental to its viability. It is therefore essential the quantum of
retail floorspace is identified through a Retail Needs Study which takes into
account existing levels of provision. Reference to comparable developments,
such as Vauxhall Nine Elms which includes 60,000sqm of retail floorpsace,
prejudges the outcome of the Retail Needs Study and should be removed.
Vaxuhall Nine Elms does not adjoin a district centre and is therefore not a
relevant comparison.
Design quality
Although it is an objective to secure best practice in architecture and urban
design this is not reflected in the OAPF. The design chapter is not informed by
an analysis of the existing context and places little emphasis on design quality
and placemaking. In places the guidance is contradictory; for example,
Willesden Junction station is bounded by sensitive areas, where the guidance
states lower heights will be appropriate, but it is also identified as appropriate
for higher elements due to its accessibility. London Plan policy 7.7 states tall
and large buildings should generally be limited to centres that have good
access to public transport; however, this is just one aspect of the policy to be
considered. It needs to be made clear that building heights around Willesden
Junction should be informed by a detailed analysis of the surrounding context,
in particular the impact on the two storey town houses to the north. In
accordance with London Plan policy tall buildings should be required to
achieve the highest standards of architecture.
Transport Network
The transport studies which have informed the OAPF focus on Old Oak.
Given the significant pressure the scale of development will place on junctions
in the surrounding area further analysis is required on the need for
improvements to the wider road network. It is disappointing this information
was not available to inform the framework, as without it the OAPF does not
set out a clear strategy to address capacity issues. It also lacks clarity on how
bus routes, and the walking and cycling network will improve connectivity
within Park Royal.
Social infrastructure
The aim must be to create a truly sustainable development which offers a high
quality of life for residents. To achieve this it is essential sufficient social
infrastructure is secured. Assumptions are made around expanding existing
facilities in the surrounding area, including schools and emergency service
infrastructure. It cannot be assumed that existing infrastructure has capacity to
expand to accommodate the needs which will arise from development at Old
Oak. This needs to be ascertained through detailed discussions with service
providers. In the case of Brent Council, the primary schools within the
surrounding area do not have scope for further expansion.

2
Page 64

Furthermore, from the illustrative masterplan it appears much of Old Oak will
be deficient in green space when assessed against benchmarks in the
London Plan. Given the density of development proposed it is crucial sufficient
amenity space is secured to provide opportunities for recreation.
Investment in High Speed 2 and Crossrail provides a unique opportunity to
redevelop Old Oak and regenerate Park Royal. Brent Council agrees these
areas have a crucial role to play in delivering housing and jobs for the benefit
of wider London. Accordingly, given the areas status Old Oak should be an
exemplar for future development in London. The OAPF has been developed
to an ambitious timetable. The Council trusts future timescales will allow for a
more collaborative approach, and enable the development of a policy
framework focused on securing best practice.
Yours sincerely

Cllr Muhammed Butt


Leader of the Council
CC: Christine Gilbert, Chief Executive
Andy Donald, Strategic Director Regeneration and Growth
Aktar Choudhury, Operational Director, Planning and Regeneration
Sir Edward Lister, Chief of Staff and Deputy Mayor GLA

3
Page 65

Appendix A

Para/Page
Figure 3,
page 10

Comment
It is recognised that the Figure is seeking to provide a simple
understanding of the existing and future relationship between
planning documents that will be a material consideration in the
determination of planning applications in the area covered by the
OAPF, however, this figure is misleading for a number of reasons.
Firstly it fails to recognise the status of existing adopted policies of
the development plans of the respective London boroughs within
which it sits. Until the adopted OAPF is replaced by the proposed
Mayoral Development Corporations Local Plan these plans are still
part of the Development Plan for the purposes of S38 of the 2004
Act.
Secondly it appears to suggest that the OAPF has fed into existing
Borough Local Plans. The dashed line between the OAPF and Core
Strategies should be removed or the relationship between the OAPF
and future plans be clarified in a better way.
In addition, Core Strategies and Development Plan Documents are
components of Local Plans. Supplementary Planning Documents
should sit below Core Strategies and Development Plan Documents,
as they supplement these policies. For accuracy and simplicity the
diagram should be amended to include one box for Borough Local
Plans, rather than three separate boxes for Core Strategies/Local
Plans, Supplementary Planning Documents and Development Plan
Documents.

1.9, page 11

The MDC can choose to adopt documents post its establishment on


the 1st April. Brent Council has been assured the West London
Waste Plan will be taken to the MDC Board for adoption. Therefore it
is not the case that DPDs would only have the material weight
contingent with the stage that the document reached upon the MDCs
establishment. This needs to be clarified here.

Figure 4,
page 13

The focus of this figure is very much on links to South London. At


present this figure does not illustrate how HS2 will link to wider
routes to the north west and east, and therefore the wider benefits
for North London. Overground links via Willesden Junction towards
Watford Junction, Barking and Stratford need to be illustrated here.

Vision, page
16

Harlesden is a district centre in the London Plan town centre


classification.
4. Consolidate: Greater emphasis should be placed on enhancing,
rather than merely safeguarding nearby amenity assets which may
well benefit from additional investment to realise their full potential.

Design
Strategy,
page 25-29

Although policy D3 states buildings should be mindful of their


context, the OAPF includes no analysis of the character of the
surrounding area. This analysis should form the basis of the design
strategy. Without such analysis the design strategy provides generic
policies which are not specific to Old Oak and Park Royal. In
determining appropriate heights and densities it needs to be
acknowledged the OAPF area is not in a Central London context. It

4
Page 66

also falls within two Outer London boroughs. To the north the Old
Oak is bounded by low density two storey terraced town houses on
Tubbs Road, to the east St Marys Cemetery, to the south
Wormwood Scrubs and to the west North Acton and two storey
terraced properties. This context differs significantly to opportunity
areas such as Nine Elms therefore a different approach is needed.
This chapter should be more focussed on achieving design quality.
Suggest restructuring this chapter around the following themes:

Figure 10,
page 23
Para 4.1,
page 26
Figure 13,
page 26
Figure 14,
page 27

Architecture and Townscape how will the development be


integrated into its setting? How functional and attractive will
the development be?
Movement & Legibility how will the development be
accessible for all? Will it encourage public transport use?
Will it be well connected to important destinations and
routes?
Space & Enclosure will the development reinforce the
building line or erode it? Will it enclose the streets or public
space?
Mixed uses and tenures what will the development do to
promote mixed uses and tenures?
Adaptability and Resilience how could the development be
adapted to a new use or uses if conditions change, for
example commercial to residential or vice versa. Will the
development contribute to tackling climate change, for
example SUDS, green roofs, solar panels, etc.
Resources and Efficiency will the development use
resources efficiently in construction and operation?

Employment uses have been omitted from the key.


An explanation is needed of what is meant by green grid. Text
should cross-reference figure 14.
It is not clear what this figure is illustrating.
The proposed green grid appears to follow the line of the highway
network. It is unclear how such a route could make a significant
contribution to green infrastructure. The green grid should be based
on an assessment of existing biodiversity including Sites of
Importance for Nature Conservation and Wildlife Corridors, and be
developed with a view to enhancing these existing links. It would be
more appropriate for the canal, along which improved green space is
proposed, forms part of a green grid.
The extension of a green grid from Willesden Junction to Harlesden
Town Centre via Station Road is supported. There is an opportunity
to build on existing tree planting to further enhance this as a green
link.

D3, page 28

D3 states proposals should deliver greater heights and densities


than the surrounding existing context. It is appreciated that there is a
need to optimise land use; however, taken out of context this
suggests a blanket increase in densities across Old Oak. As
identified later in the OAPF Old Oak core area is surrounded by
sensitive locations, including a number of conservation areas. As set
out in point c buildings should be mindful of their context, therefore

5
Page 67

greater heights and densities may not be appropriate on all sites.


Part a of policy D3 should therefore state proposals should deliver
greater heights and densities than the surrounding existing context,
where appropriate.
D3 is not consistent with London Plan policy 7.7 (Location and
Design of Tall and Large Buildings), as it does not fully reflect the
criteria in this policy. The policy states tall buildings are to
incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials and
should not affect their surroundings adversely in terms of
microclimate, overshadowing, noise and reflected glare. Tall
buildings are only to be considered in areas whose character would
not be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall building.
Reference is also needed to the London Plan density matrix. Greater
guidance is also required as to how tall buildings integrate with
surrounding buildings and the public realm at street level. The SPG
is to supplement the London Plan, and accordingly D3 should reflect
the criteria in London Plan policy 7.7.
The OAPF identifies sensitive locations in the surrounding area but,
in accordance with London Plan policy 7.7, it should also identify
sensitive, appropriate and inappropriate sites for tall buildings within
Old Oak and Park Royal. This will need to be informed by a detailed
design analysis and greater understanding of the local context.
D4, page 28

D4 needs to be based on an understanding of the heritage assets


within and bordering the OAPF area. Through discussions with
English Heritage and the boroughs the contribution of these assets
needs to be assessed to ensure they are conserved in a manner
appropriate to their significance. In particular within Brent there are
examples of industrial heritage in Park Royal and on land
surrounding Willesden Junction. The council would want to be
actively involved in assessing the significance of these buildings with
a view to reviewing the local list.
D4 should include reference to proposals enhancing built heritage
assets and their setting, in accordance with London Plan policy 7.8.

4.4, page 28

This omits Canal Cottage on Twyford Abbey Road, which is locally


listed.

D5, page 28

Specific place guidance is needed for Park Royal. At present the


policies within the Park Royal chapter are not sufficient to ensure
development at Park Royal contributes to placemaking.

5.3, page 32

It is noted London Plan policies on levels of affordable housing will


apply. Brent has one of the most acute set of housing needs in the
whole of London. It is essential that Old Oak plays its part in meeting
this housing need and the council expects a full range of genuinely
affordable housing product within the new developments and for
Brent to have significant nomination rights into the scheme. The
Council expects the Local Plan to set policies to secure an
appropriate housing mix in terms of affordable, tenures and size.

5.10 page 34

Whilst recognition of the relationship of proposed new retail


floorspace to Harlesden Town Centre is welcomed, greater emphasis
should be placed in the OAPF on the need for good connections and
complementary role by changing the last sentence in the 2nd bullet

6
Page 68

5.11, Page
35

Figure 20,
page 37

point to Retail near to Willesden Junction should must also connect


in to retail provision in Harlesden Town Centre and complement its
offer.
As stated in the OAPF it must be ensured retail development
complements existing centres such as Harlesden, and is not
detrimental to its viability. It is therefore essential the quantum of
retail floorspace is identified through a Retail Needs Study which
takes into account existing levels of provision. The inclusion of a
table with comparable developments and the quantum of retail
proposed prejudges the outcome of the Retail Needs Study and
should be removed. Old Oak is bounded by Harlesden District
Centre and is in close proximity to the Wembley Opportunity Area
and Shepherds Bush Metropolitan Centre. In contrast there are no
district, major or metropolitan centres in close proximity to Vauxhall
Nine Elms, therefore in this context there is a need for significant
retail floorspace. This development is therefore not comparable due
to its very different context.
Reference is included to the potential for a variety of large scale
uses, such as a football stadium. The illustrative masterplan does not
allow for a use of such a scale. If such a proposal did come forward
there would be significant implications for the provision of open
space, employment levels and the form and function on the route
network. This would render the illustrative masterplan and much of
the OAPF unworkable. Further masterplanning work is needed to
provide adequate guidance should such a scheme come forward.
The route layout in the illustrative masterplan creates triangular
blocks. These are inefficient and can limit the type of development.
Has consideration been given to the feasibility of building over the
railway tracks? Alternatively the layout of the street network, in
particular Old Oak High Street, should be looked at again to ensure
efficient use of space.

Figure 23,
page 38
Design
Chapter,
Page 36 44

Figure 20,
page 37

This figure would benefit from labelling to give it context.


It is an objective of the Development Corporation to ensure world
class architecture, place making and urban design. This objective is
not reflected in the OAPF. There is little emphasis on design quality
and placemaking. The relatively self-contained nature of Old Oak
core area provides a unique opportunity to create a new sustainable
high quality place which is an exemplar for future development in
London. As a starting point the design strategy should set out how
world class architecture will be achieved and the mechanisms and
innovative approaches which will be put in place to require
developers to achieve the highest design quality.
The public civic space shown on the figure adjacent Willesden
Junction is unclear as it is obscured by text.

Figure 24 and These illustrative cross sections need to correspond to a plan view
25, page 41
with the cross sections labelled on them.
OO4, page
42

Willesden Junction is bounded to its north and west by sensitive


areas, where the guidance states lower heights will be appropriate,
but it is also identified as appropriate for higher elements due to its
accessibility. This is contradictory and in practice it is unclear which
guidance will take precedence.

7
Page 69

London Plan policy 7.7 states tall and large buildings should
generally be limited to centres that have good access to public
transport; however, this is just one aspect to be considered. It needs
to be made clear in OO4 that building heights at Willesden Junction
should be informed by the surrounding context, in particular the
impact on the two storey town houses to the north. In accordance
with London Plan policy 7.7 it should state tall buildings are to
incorporate the highest standards of architecture and materials and
should not affect their surroundings adversely in terms of
microclimate, overshadowing, noise and reflected glare. Tall
buildings are only to be considered in areas whose character would
not be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of a tall building.
The SPG is to supplement the London Plan, and accordingly OO4
should reflect the criteria in London Plan policy 7.7 and acknowledge
appropriate heights cannot be determined until a thorough design
exercise is undertaken.
OO4 should cross reference policy D3 on building heights and
densities.
It is unclear what is meant by longer term views in OO4, part c. If
this is the views identified in figure 27 this needs to be made clear.
Para 5.25,
page 42

The inclusion of height comparisons from other opportunity areas is


not useful, as these heights are based on their context. Although it is
not stated which opportunity areas the heights relate to it is assumed
it is opportunity areas within Central London, whereas much of the
OAPF area falls in Outer London boroughs. Heights in Old Oak
should be based on a detailed analysis, including consideration of
local context and views. It would be of greater benefit to reference
the London Plan density matrix.

Q5, page 42

Where do you think entrance points in Old Oak should be?


Station approach will be a key entrance to Willesden Junction and
the Old Oak core area, and as such exemplary architectural
standards should be sought in this location. However, it is not
accepted in all cases taller elements are acceptable at entrance
points. Taller elements should be subject to the requirements of
London Plan policy 7.7 and relevant policies in the OAPF.

Figure 26,
page 43

To the east of Old Oak core area properties within a 0.5km radius
are identified as sensitive to tall buildings, whilst to the north only
properties within 0.2km. Given the area to the north is dominated by
two storey town houses, and of a similar character to properties to
the east and for example more likely to be impacted upon by
shadowing, there is no logic to this distinction. The area identified as
sensitive to the north needs to be extended and must encompass
Harlesden Conservation Area.

OO5, page
44

Greater clarification is required as to what informed by local views


means. To be consistent with London Plan policy 7.7 OO5 needs to
state proposals should not adversely impact on local or strategic
views. To enable the MDC Planning Committee and officers to
determine if OO5 has been satisfied developers proposing tall
buildings should be required to submit a views study and 3D model.
This requirement should be included in supporting text.

8
Page 70

Reference needs to be included to the role taller buildings have in


acting as a landmark from the surrounding area.
5.26, page 44

First sentence needs rewording. Delete for the.

Figure 27,
page 44

Includes some listed buildings in the surrounding area, but omits the
following:Church of our Lady of Willesden, List Entry ID 1064217
Stonebridge Park Public House, List Entry ID 1078882
Brent Viaduct, List Entry ID 1078890
Roundwood Park, List Entry ID 1001556
Church of St Matthew, List Entry ID 1359020
Church of St Mary, List Entry ID 1359036

Key
objectives,
page 48

The objectives for Old Oak North currently lack any reference to
impact on the surrounding residential communities. Key objectives
for this area should include Development should be mindful of
existing residential communities to the north including on Tubbs
Road, Station Road and Nightingale Road. In objective 5 specific
reference should be included to improving links with Harlesden, to be
consistent with the overarching vision to benefit Harlesden centre.

Old Oak
North, Figure
29, page 49

The vision set out in the OAPF is to create a well connected


neighbourhood that is integrated into its surroundings. With this in
mind access arrangements to the plots of land off Scrubs Lane and
Harrow Road needs to be resolved. At present these parcels of land
appear to be isolated from both Old Oak and Harlesden, and it is
unclear how they connect to the surrounding route network. Given
that there are proposals for residential development on these sites
and commercial premises fronting onto Scrubs Lane, consideration
needs to be given to how servicing and residential access will be
balanced. In turn the impact this will have on Scrubs Lane and
junctions in Harlesden Town Centre needs to be considered.
To fully integrate these plots into the surrounding area a vehicular
access is needed from Harrow Road to Willesden Junction. There is
also an opportunity to link the premises to the pedestrian and cycle
network with a link via Clifton Road.
Station Road is the most direct access from Old Oak to Harlesden
Town Centre. To ensure links to Harlesden are enhanced it is crucial
Willesden Junction station is orientated to front Station Road and
promote onward links to Harlesden.
In addition the following amendments are needed to figure 29 for
clarity and consistency:

Land fronting High Street Harlesden should be identified as a


sensitive edge in this figure, as it is in figure 26.

The form of route from Willesden Junction to Harrow Road


needs to be shown, as this is not an existing link.

As with figure 34 should include arrows indicating links to


surrounding area including Harlesden Town Centre.

From the shading it is not clear if the space in front of

9
Page 71

Willesden Junction station is civic or green amenity space.


5.34, page 50

This paragraph states non-residential uses could connect into


Harlesden Town Centre. It is crucial links to the centre are
strengthened to enable businesses and residents to benefit from the
regeneration. To accord with the OAPF vision to benefit Harlesden
non-residential uses must connect to Harlesden Town Centre.
Emphasis should also be placed on improving connections through
enhancements to signage and public realm, alongside
redevelopment of Willesden Junction station.

5.47, page 56

Reference is included to East Village, however no further reference


is included to this area in the document. For this reference to be
relevant an image or description of East Village is needed.

5.48, page 56

Typical London High Street uses needs defining. This could include
a range of uses including takeaways, pawnbrokers and betting
shops.

Figure 39,
page 56

Figure 39 indicates the majority of Old Oak High Street, which is


approximately 1.5km long, would be in active commercial use. It is
questioned if this is viable, as without a significant draw the town
centre will primarily serve residents, employees and commuters.
Proposals for Old Oak High Street need to be refined once a Retail
Needs Study and viability testing has been undertaken. It may be
more realistic to focus town centre uses in frontage adjoining the
station.

Figure 40,
page 57

This figure should include arrows indicating links north to Harlesden


Town Centre.

Grand Union
Canal, page
62 63

This figure indicates a significant quantum of active frontage along


the canal. It is questioned if this is viable, particularly given the scale
of commercial development proposed along Old Oak High Street.
There are numerous examples of waterfront schemes in London
where such commercial units have remained vacant. To ensure this
is not the case at Old Oak the quantum needs to informed by market
testing. It may be more appropriate to focus such active uses along
sections of the canal adjacent Old Oak Station which will benefit from
a higher level of footfall.
This figure omits a proposed north-south connection across the
canal shown in the previous Park Royal OAPF figure 26.

Scrubs Lane,
Figure 45,
page 64-65

As commented in relation to Old Oak North it is unclear how the


development fronting Scrubs Lane will be accessed and serviced.
Further work is required to establish how these plots will connect to
the wider route network.

Park Royal,
page 70-77

Brent Council is disappointed that this section does not go further to


set a strong vision for Park Royal. The guidance for Park Royal lacks
detail, and is a step back from the current Park Royal OAPF. It is a
concern that when this OAPF supersedes the current Park Royal
OAPF existing detailed guidance will be lost. Unless this chapter is
greatly improved the existing Park Royal OAPF must be retained.
Further work needs to be undertaken with Brent and Ealing Council
and the Park Royal Business Group to strengthen this chapter. This

10
Page 72

chapter needs to be informed by an understanding of the issues


currently impacting on businesses in Park Royal. Reference is made
in passing to the need for improvements to the road network, public
transport and broadband connectivity, but there is no clear strategy
for how these issues will be resolved, particularly as the Transport
Chapter omits Park Royal. Issues which need to be acknowledged
and addressed through the OAPF include the need for meeting
space and hotel development to serve businesses, and a strategy to
improve feelings of safety and security.
This section should also draw on the Park Royal Atlas and
Employment Land Demand Study to provide greater context and
help inform a vision for Park Royal. This should include an outline of
businesses sectors currently operating within Park Royal, and
projected future growth sectors and opportunities.
Figures on current employment levels should be included to act as a
base line when monitoring employment growth against London Plan
targets. Employment figures are referred to in the transport chapter
but not here.
Park Royal
PR1: Land
use, page 70

In accordance with Brents Core Strategy Policy CP12 PR1 should


state residential development at First Central will be supported where
it enables the delivery significant public transport improvements. This
is included in paragraph 6.7 however PR1 refers only to walking and
cycling access.
In addition to the intensification of land, the use of Park Royal can be
optimised by allowing for 24 hour operation. Park Royal is largely
isolated from residential development and therefore lends itself to
such practices. To support this policies need to allow businesses to
operate flexibly, having regard to surrounding uses, and also ensure
the creation of a safe environment.

PR2:
PR2 includes reference to improvements to the road network being
Infrastructure, focused along four main roads, however, as acknowledged in the
page 73
transport chapter detailed work is required to identify the full extent of
transport impacts across Park Royal and also identify how adverse
impacts will be mitigated. This chapter should acknowledge that
further work is required, and that this will provide greater clarity on
where improvements are needed. The focus of improvement works
will therefore be subject to the outcome of this work. This policy
could potentially limit the extent of improvement works unless this
reference is included.
The current Park Royal OAPF includes a plan of existing and
proposed strategic routes and connections across Park Royal. This
is a useful diagram which provides clarity to developers. PR2 only
includes reference to the introduction of pedestrian and cycling
routes along main roads and the Grand Union Canal. This is a
reduction in routes when compared to the current OAPF, and would
result in reduced permeability across Park Royal. If a modal shift is to
be achieved which takes pressure off the existing road network, it is
crucial pedestrian and cycle connections to existing stations are
improved. Figure 26 from the current Park Royal OAPF should
therefore be updated and included in this chapter, and connections
sought on this basis.

11
Page 73

Specific reference is included to broadband connectivity; however,


there are capacity issues in Park Royal with other forms of
infrastructure particularly energy and drainage. This needs to be
acknowledged in PR2. A cross reference is needed to the
environment strategy and delivery strategy chapters, which propose
further studies to identify how capacity issues will be addressed.
PR3: Public
Amenity
Space, page
74

The table in PR3 suggests amenity space will only be sought in the
Heart of Park Royal. Opportunities should be sought to secure
amenity space across wider Park Royal as part of developments to
provide an attractive working environment.

PR4: Streets
& Public
Realm, page
74

For Park Royal to remain competitive it is important it provides a high


quality and attractive environment for businesses and their
employees. The design chapter for Park Royal lacks detail, and does
not place enough focus on high quality design. It should be
expanded to include the following:

Heart of Park
Royal, Page
76 - 77

Gateways and entrance points as set out in the current Park


Royal OAPF page 55 - 59.
Existing tall buildings and locations appropriate for tall
building using figure 27 in the existing Park Royal OAPF as a
starting point.
Buildings should address the street and have defined
entrances.
Developments should deliver an attractive public realm, with
space for employees, to create a desirable work environment.
Proposals should include integrally designed landscaping and
coordinate landscaping with adjoining sites to maximise local
amenity.
Public realm should be designed to improve feelings of
safety, incorporating adequate lighting and following secured
by design principles.
Streets should be legible and incorporate signage.
As far as is possible buildings should be designed flexibly so
they can adapt to meet changing needs as business evolves,
particularly where being built speculatively.
In accordance with London Plan policy 5.10 development
should incorporate urban greening. The quality of the
environment at Park Royal is to be improved through tree
planting, soft landscaping, green roofs and walls. Green
infrastructure can deliver multiple benefits in terms of air
quality and as part of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems.

This chapter needs to be informed by a greater understanding of the


current and future context, including the future of Asda and
Middlesex Hospital.
There are current capacity issues at road junctions in the Heart of
Park Royal. A wider transport study is needed to identify how these
issues can be addressed. In addition there is a need to improve
public transport and pedestrian/cycle links to relive pressure on the
road network.
As stated previously Park Royal is lacking in good quality meeting
space and hotel accommodation to serve businesses. A key
objective for the Heart of Park Royal should be to provide these
facilities to serve businesses.

12
Page 74

Q7, page 76

Where do you think new housing, and/or amenity space, could be


located within the Heart which wouldnt impact in the protected
industrial land?
Policy PR3 of Brent Councils Site Specific Allocation DPD allocates
land off Acton Lane for hospital expansion and an element of key
worker or supported housing where this benefits from proximity to the
hospital. Conventional residential development will not be acceptable
in this location.
Key worker housing has already been delivered and there is an
existing consent in place for extra care housing on land next to the
Victoria Centre on Acton Lane. Application number 13/1296.
A suitable transition will be required between the Strategic Industrial
Location and supported housing.

T1, page 84

Brent Council welcomes acknowledgement of the need to improve


capacity and access at Willesden Junction station. Willesden
Junction Station is a critical commuter station for Brent residents and
for many years to come will be the primary public transport gateway
to the Old Oak regeneration area. Willesden Junction station needs
considerable early improvements and investment if it is to provide a
credible gateway to Old Oak and this must be a shared delivery
priority for regeneration in the area. The redevelopment of Willesden
Junction will be critical to creating improved links to Harlesden. The
reconfigured station should be orientated to include a more direct
access on to Station Approach. This would also enable sites
surrounding Willesden Junction to be brought forward for
development.
Reference is made to a potential link from Crossrail to West Coat
Main Line (WCML) potentially stopping at Wembley Central. This link
would be of significant benefit to both Brent residents and the
delivery of regeneration at Old Oak, therefore stronger emphasis on
the importance of this link is required. In general terms, this link
would allow Brent to be better interconnected with the rail network,
reduce time savings on travel and ease congestion at Euston. The
council is concerned without this link commuters will instead drive to
Old Oak or Willesden Junction to access the station, placing further
pressure on the road network and car parking provision. As the
transport chapter indicates if the road network around Old Oak and
Park Royal is to cope with the increased level of development it is
crucial the use of public transport is facilitated.

T2, page 88

Brent council welcomes the inclusion of an east-west highway link


from Old Oak Lane to Harrow Road. This will improve east-west
connectivity and has potential to alleviate pressure on Tubbs Road.
Should Old Oak High Street be made a vehicular route there is a risk
it would become a through route for the surrounding residential
development. Retaining this route as pedestrian, cycle and bus only,
would create a pleasant environment and help further promote the
use of sustainable modes of transport.
This omits Park Royal. Given the transport issues already facing
Park Royal and the increased pressure due to development at Old

13
Page 75

Oak it is crucial Park Royal is fully considered. The existing Park


Royal OAPF Transport Strategy should act as the starting point.
Figure 55,
page 85
Para 8.24,
page 88

T3 Car
parking, page
90

Typo in title proposed


As stated further analysis is needed to identify where improvements
are required on the surrounding network. It is disappointing this
information was not available to inform the OAPF, as it may well
have implications for the proposed route network. It is crucial it is
clear what improvements are required and how they will be
delivered. This must be set out in the Local Plan and taken account
of in calculating CIL.
If this section in its entirety only applies to Old Oak, as seems to be
the case, this needs to be made clear. Clarification is needed as to
which car parking standards will be applied at Park Royal, including
in First Central and the Heart of Park Royal. In considering parking
levels at Park Royal current reliance on vehicles needs to be a shift
due to improved public transport.
The car parking levels proposed for Old Oak appear to only allow for
disabled parking and therefore be promoting car free development. If
this is the case this needs to be made clear.

T4, page 90

The strong demand for taxis and private hire vehicles around the Old
Oak station will place significant pressure on the transport network.
The OAPF needs to be informed by an understating of where the
main drop off and pick up points will be. From the OAPF it is unclear
to what extent taxi and private hire vehicles have been factored into
the transport study.

Figure 59,
page 91

Figure 59 is entitled road junctions experiencing delays. It needs to


be made clear if this is based on current situation or as a result of
scale of development at Old Oak.

T5 Buses,
page 92

Text refers to improving bus connections linking Old Oak and Park
Royal to the surrounding area, however, the supporting figure does
not include Park Royal. To address pressure on the road network
there is a need to improve bus links throughout Park Royal,
particularly connections to stations. Figure 24 of the current OAPF
includes an existing and proposed bus network. This should be
updated and included here.
For neighbouring areas such as Harlesden to benefit from the
regeneration at Old Oak it is crucial frequent bus links between the
two areas are secured. It is not sufficient to identify the roads which
buses will navigate alone. There needs to be a clear strategy to
promote frequent bus services which connect to the surrounding
area. This figure should indicate bus routes and their destinations.
Figure 24 in the Park Royal OAPF is indicates how this could be
illustrated. Supporting text needs to emphasise frequent services will
be secured.

T6 Walking,
page 95

To improve connectivity there needs to be investment not only in Old


Oak but also to the pedestrian and cycle network in the surrounding
area. Figure 61 does not indicate how links will be secured in Park
Royal. See previous comments on Park Royal section, page 73.

14
Page 76

In addition links to Wormwood Scrubs are limited to one access


point. A further access point is required for residents living to the
east.
An explanation of mini Holland is required.
Environment
Strategy,
page 102107

Although the vision for Old Oak and Park Royal is for the creation of
a sustainable new town, the OAPF lacks any sustainability
standards. The environment strategy chapter should include a strong
strategy for the achievement of sustainable development.

E1 Water,
page 102

In addition to flood risk reference should be included to drainage


capacity and surface water flooding.

E2 Waste,
9.8, page 104

Any relocation should also be in accordance with the West London


Waste Plan where it falls within this area. In the first instance
relocations should explore the suitability of relocating to designated
and existing waste sites, as identified in the Waste Plan.
Waste management, including the provision of recycling facilities,
can be challenging in high density developments such as that
proposed at Old Oak. To ensure developments contribute to meeting
recycling targets and achieve the highest levels of sustainability clear
guidance is required and innovative solutions should be sought. In
this regard the London Waste and Recycling Board have recently
produced useful guidance on Waste Management Planning Advice in
New Flatted Properties. In agreeing schemes it is important the MDC
work with borough Waste and Recycling Units, who will ultimately be
responsible for servicing the developments.

9.18, page
107

Development proposals that give rise to air pollution will be


encouraged to find mechanisms are put in place to ensure they are
air quality neutral. This needs to be worded more strongly to be
consistent with London Plan policy 7.14 which states development
proposals should be at least air quality neutral and not lead to
further deterioration of existing poor air quality. The majority of the
OAPF area is in an Air Quality Management Area therefore there
needs to be a strong onus on ensuring air quality does not
deteriorate further.

9.22, page
108

The Energy strategy will be used rather than should be used to


inform local plan.

E5 Green
It would be beneficial to include a map showing existing Sites of
Infrastructure, Importance for Nature Conservation and Wildlife Corridors, and the
page 109
proposed green grid to indicate where enhancements could be best
focused to improve ecological connectivity. This would also give an
indication to developers of ecological and nature conservation areas
to be enhanced and retained. Consideration should be given to how
the proposed green grid in the OAPF area links to the wider All
London Green Grid.
Figure 70,
page 119

Typo key a little more flex on location and design.


Harlesden should be labelled on map.

Para 10.29,
page 120

Reference should be included to the opportunity for a Crossrail link


to Wembley.

15
Page 77

10.35, page
122

All schools within the OAPF area must provide high quality facilities
and aim for educational excellence. If social infrastructure is not of a
sufficient standard this will place pressure on existing infrastructure
in neighbouring boroughs. Brent believes that all new school
provision needs to be to the highest educational standards possible.
To this end we are anxious about the specific proposal for an all
through four form entry primary and secondary school. The Borough
already has a number of all through schools and our current policy
is to review progress in respect of educational standards within these
schools before committing support for further all through
arrangements.
Furthermore the indicative location of the school indicates the school
would lack facilities and sports provision, instead relying on the
Scrubs for open space. There is a clear potential for conflict here as
the Wormwood Scrubs Strategy indicates its ecology is to be
protected and enhanced. As there is no access to the Scrubs from
the east school groups would have to access the nearest playing
pitch provision via Scrubs Lane, a busy A road. This is not a
workable solution.
The OAPF includes reference to the need for a one form entry
expansion of an existing primary school. The closest school in
proximity to the north of Old Oak, Harlesden Primary School,
expanded from 1 form entry to 2 form entry in September 2014. The
school would not withstand further expansion. The schools within the
wider planning area have already expanded or are faith schools not
controlled by the council. Therefore there is no capacity for further
expansion.
The future Local Plan must allocate school sites, taking into account
the need to provide high quality facilities, and the existing pressure
on schools in the surrounding area.

10.38, page
122

Expansion of existing ambulance stations, police stations and Park


Royal Fire Station within Brent must be subject to further detailed
discussions with service providers and the council. Account needs to
be taken of providers service delivery plans.

10.40, page
122

Emphasis needs to be placed on achieving a standard of residential


development which provides a high quality of life. When assessed
against open space benchmarks in the London Plan much of Old
Oak core area will be identified as deficient in open space. In
accordance with London Plan policy 7.18 open space needs to be
better planned for. A greater emphasis should therefore be placed on
securing amenity open space within developments, and these
standards must be set out in the OAPF. In addition play space
standards should be set out here.

10.45, page
124

The measures proposed to secure employment opportunities for


local people, both during and post contraction is welcomed. This is a
key priority for Brent Council. There is an opportunity to engage with
local colleges, including the College of North West London which
provides construction and building services training.

Appendix 2,
page 8

Diagram showing movement north-south and view of station omitted.

16
Page 78

Appendix 3,
page 11

Reference to Canal Cottage a locally listed building within Park


Royal is omitted.

17
Page 79

Page 80

Page 81

HS2officerinformalcommentsonearlydraftOldOak&ParkRoyalOAPF17Feb15


Page 82


1

Section
Para1.10RelationshipwiththeHS2hybrid
Bill

Figure20IllustrativeMasterplan

Figure23OldOakGreenGrid

Figure34OldOakSouth

1

Comment
HS2Ltdwelcomestheinclusionofthisparagraphwhichrecognisestheprocessthroughwhichthe
HS2workswillbeauthorised.Howevertheimplicationsoftheparagraphhavenotbeencarried
throughtotherestofthedocumentasitstillseekstocontrolandsetpoliciesformatterswhichare
beyondthescopeofthedraftOAPFasthesewillbedeterminedbyParliamentinitsroleas
planningauthorityforHS2.UntilthisiscorrectedHS2Ltdbelievesthatsignificantsectionsofthe
draftOAPFareunsoundbecausethepoliciesandobjectivesoftheOAPFarenotrobustor
deliverable.ToaddressthisthisparagraphshouldstatethatthepoliciesintheOAPFwillapplyto
HS2worksonlyinsofarastheyarerelevanttothematterforapprovalandtherelevantgroundsin
Schedule16totheHS2Bill.
ThemasterplandrawingseemstoindicatethattherewouldbedevelopmentovertheHS2station
box.HS2Ltdisproposinganopenboxstationwithnodevelopmentabove.Themasterplanand
anypoliciespredicateduponitarethereforeunsoundastheydoreflecttheschemeproposedby
thepromoterofHS2.

TheindicativemasterplanappearstoshowthatthepreferredroutetoWormwoodScrubswouldbe
throughtheHS2Station.HS2Ltdhaspreviouslyexplainedthattheproposedschemedoesnot
includeanunpaidroutethroughthestation(i.e.accessthroughthestationwillbeforfarepaying
passengersonlyandtherewillnotberoutesforthepublicatlarge).Ifthemasterplanmakesthis
assumptionthenitisnotasoundbasisforpolicy.

ThemasterplanwillalsonotbeasoundbasisforpolicyiftheroutetoWormwoodScrubsis
predicatedontheremovaloftheIEPdepotascurrentlythereisnoproposaltotakethewestern
endofNorthPoledepotoutofrailwayuse.Inorderforthemasterplantobesounditshouldallow
forroutestoWormwoodScrubsintheeventthatthewesternendofNorthPoledepotremainsin
railwayuse.ItshouldbenotedthattheendingoftheIEPcontractisnotsynonymouswiththesite
nolongerbeingrequiredforrailwayuse.
ThefiguredrawingdoesnotshowthattheHS2stationboxisanopenboxandappearstohave
developmentoverthebox.HS2Ltdisproposinganopenboxstationwithnodevelopmentabove.
Thefigureandanypoliciespredicateduponitarethereforeunsoundastheydonotreflectthe
schemeproposedbythepromoterofHS2.

ThefigureappearstoshowthatthepreferredroutetoWormwoodScrubswouldbethroughthe
HS2Station.HS2Ltdhaspreviouslyexplainedthattheproposedschemedoesnotincludean
unpaidroutethroughthestation.Ifthisassumptionismadeinthefigurethenitisnotasound
basisforpolicy.

ThefigurewillalsonotbeasoundbasisforpolicyiftheroutetoWormwoodScrubsispredicated
ontheremovaloftheIEPdepotascurrentlythereisnoproposaltotakethewesternendofNorth
Poledepotoutofrailwayuse.Inorderforthemasterplantobesound,thefigureshouldallowfor
routestoWormwoodScrubsintheeventthatthewesternendofNorthPoledepotremainsin
railwayuse.ItshouldbenotedthattheendingoftheIEPcontractisnotsynonymouswiththesite
nolongerbeingrequiredforrailwayuse.
ThefiguredoesnotshowthattheHS2stationboxisanopenboxandappearstohavedevelopment
overthebox.HS2Ltdareproposinganopenboxstationwithnodevelopmentabove.Thefigure
andanypoliciespredicateduponitarethereforeunsoundastheydonotreflectthescheme
proposedbythepromoterofHS2.

ThefigureappearstoshowthatthepreferredroutetoWormwoodScrubswouldbethroughthe
HS2Station.HS2Ltdhaspreviouslyexplainedthattheproposedschemedoesnotincludean
unpaidroutethroughthestation.Ifthisassumptionismadeinthefigurethenitisnotasound

HS2LtdofficercommentsonearlydraftOakOld&ParkRoyalOAPF.HS2Ltdmaymakefurther/moreextensivecommentsinresponsetotheformalconsultation.

HS2officerinformalcommentsonearlydraftOldOak&ParkRoyalOAPF17Feb15


Section

OldOakSouthKeyObjective6(page52)

5.39and5.42

OldOakHighSt(page56)

Figure41:OldOakCommonStation

2

DesignStrategyD2(page26)
d.
strengtheningtheidentityand
legibilityofstations(accordingwithTfL
StationPublicRealmDesignGuidance)and
towncentres.

OldOakCommonStation(page58)
KeyObjectives

Page 83

2


4

5

6

SectionPlacesOldOakCommonStation
(page58)
Keyobjective5
OldOakCommonStation(page58)

Comment
basisforpolicy.

ThefigurewillalsonotbeasoundbasisforpolicyiftheroutetoWormwoodScrubsispredicated
ontheremovaloftheIEPdepotascurrentlythereisnoproposaltotakethewesternendofNorth
Poledepotoutofrailwayuse.Inorderforthemasterplantobesound,thefigureshouldallowfor
routestoWormwoodScrubsintheeventthatthewesternendofNorthPoledepotremainsin
railwayuse.ItshouldbenotedthattheendingoftheIEPcontractisnotsynonymouswiththesite
nolongerbeingrequiredforrailwayuse.
TobesoundtheobjectiveshouldrecognisethatthereisnotaproposalfortheHS2stationto
provideanunpaidnorthsouthrouteovertheGreatWesternMainline.
TheseparagraphsshouldclearlyrecognisethatthereisnotaproposalfortheHS2stationto
provideanunpaidnorthsouthrouteovertheGreatWesternMainline.Inlightofthistheplan
shouldbecleareronalternativeroutes.SuchroutesneedtoworkiftheIEPdepotisnotmoved
otherwisetheplanisnotdeliverableandhenceunsound.AdesirefortheIEPdepottobemoved
cannotbeconsideredarobustbasisforplanningpolicyforthearea.
WhileHS2LtdrecognisestheimportanceofthelinkoverthecanalitisfeltthatastheOAPFisnot
clearonthefundinganddeliveryofthelinkthereisnosoundbasisforitsinclusion.Bothactive
andpassiveprovisionof/forthebridgeareoutsidetheHS2scope.
ThefiguredoesnotshowthattheHS2stationboxisanopenboxandappearstohavedevelopment
overthebox.HS2Ltdisproposinganopenboxstationwithnodevelopmentabove.Thefigure
andanypoliciespredicateduponitarethereforeunsoundastheydonotreflectthescheme
proposedbythepromoterofHS2.

ThefigureappearstoshowthatthepreferredroutetoWormwoodScrubswillbethroughtheHS2
Station.HS2Ltdhaspreviouslyexplainedthattheproposedschemedoesnotincludeanunpaid
routethroughthestation.Ifthisassumptionismadeinthefigurethenitisnotasoundbasisfor
policy.

ThefigurewillalsonotbeasoundbasisforpolicyiftheroutetoWormwoodScrubsispredicated
ontheremovaloftheIEPdepotascurrentlythereisnoproposaltotakethewesternendofNorth
Poledepotoutofrailwayuse.Inorderforthemasterplantobesound,thefigureshouldallowfor
routestoWormwoodScrubsintheeventthatthewesternendofNorthPoledepotremainsin
railwayuse.ItshouldbenotedthattheendingoftheIEPcontractisnotsynonymouswiththesite
nolongerbeingrequiredforrailwayuse.
TheplanshouldrecognisethatTfLGuidancemaynotalwaysbeappropriatefortheneedsofahigh
speedstationandthatappropriatepublicrealmdesignwillbeagreedthroughtheSchedule16
process.Asdraftedtheplanistooprescriptive.


Thissectionmakesanumberofstatementsinrelationtodesignquality.HS2hasmadeanumber
ofcommitmentsinrelationtoitsdesignstrategyintheHS2InformationPaperD1:DesignPolicy.It
issuggestedthatanystatementsinrelationtodesignqualityreflectthisInformationPaperasitwill
setthecontextforthedesignprocess.Theinformationpapercanbefoundat
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374846/_Design
_Policy_.pdf
Itisunclearastothemeaningofsupportinthiscontext.Theplanshouldclarifywhetherthis
meansthestationshouldbedesignedtosupportmixedusedevelopmentinitsenvironsorwhether
mixedusedevelopmentissoughtaspartofthestation.
TheindicativemasterplanappearstoshowthatthepreferredroutetoWormwoodScrubswouldbe

HS2LtdofficercommentsonearlydraftOakOld&ParkRoyalOAPF.HS2Ltdmaymakefurther/moreextensivecommentsinresponsetotheformalconsultation.

HS2officerinformalcommentsonearlydraftOldOak&ParkRoyalOAPF17Feb15


Page 84

Section
KeyObjective1

7

SectionPlacesOldOakCommonStation
Keyobjective6

5.52

5.53

8

5.54

5.55

5.55

5.55

5.57

3

Comment
throughtheHS2Station.HS2Ltdhaspreviouslyexplainedthattheproposedschemedoesnot
includeanunpaidroutethroughthestation(i.e.accessthroughthestationwillbeforfarepaying
passengersonlyandtherewillnotberoutesforthepublicatlarge).Ifthemasterplanmakesthis
assumptionthenitisnotasoundbasisforpolicy.

AshasbeenpreviouslystatedthecurrentdesignofthestationatOldOakCommondoesnotallow
forOSDandthereisnoproposaltoincludeOSD.HS2LtdhaspreviouslyprovidedtheGLAand
BoroughswithindicativecostsforprovidingfutureproofingforOSD.OSDonthesitewouldhavea
significantimpactontheventilationfromtheadjacenttunnelsandthetemperatureinthestation.
Anyadditionalventilationrequiredalongtheroutetomitigatethiswouldincuradditionalcoststo
theproject.Thematterofpotentiallydesigningthestationtoallowfordevelopmenthasbeen
includedintheMayorofLondonspetitionandisthesubjectofongoingnegotiations.However
sucharequirementisbeyondthescopeofSchedule16totheHS2Billandcannotberequired
throughtheplanningprocess.Itisthereforenotimplementableasarequirementandshouldbe
removedfromthedraftOAPF,otherwisetheplanwillbeunsound.

Ifitisfeltthatshouldareferencetooverstationdevelopmentberequired,theplanshouldbe
amendedtosayItmaybepossiblefortheHS2stationtosupportsomeoverstationdevelopment
andtheMDCisexploringhowthiscouldbefacilitatedwithoutaffectingthecostandprogrammeof
HS2.
Whilethestationwillprovidesomeretailandassociatedusessuchascafestheplanshould
recognisethatthestationsprimaryfunctionistobeanoperationalstationandthatthisisthe
driverfortherequirementsanddesignofthestation.
Thissectionmakesanumberofstatementsinrelationtodesignquality.HS2hasmadeanumberof
commitmentsinrelationtoitsdesignstrategyintheHS2InformationPaperD1:DesignPolicy.Itis
suggestedthatanystatementsinrelationtodesignqualityreflectthisInformationPaperasitwill
setthecontextforthedesignprocess.Theinformationpapercanbefoundat
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374846/_Design
_Policy_.pdf
Toberobusttheplanneedstoacknowledgethesubstantialcostsassociatedwithsuchprovision
andidentifypotentialfundingforthesecostsifitistobecredible.
WhileHS2LtdremainsindiscussionwiththeGLA/MDCoverthisissuetheplanshouldacknowledge
thatthecurrentproposalsdonotincludeanunpaidlinkthroughtheHS2station.Ultimatelythe
OAPFdoesnothavetheabilitytorequiresuchanunpaidlinkasthisisamatterforParliamentand
thepetitioningprocesstodetermine.
HS2Ltdhaspreviouslyexplainedthattheproposedschemedoesnotincludeanunpaidroute
throughthestation(i.e.accessthroughthestationwillbeforfarepayingpassengersandtherewill
notberoutesforthepublicatlarge).Thereforethenumberofverticalmovementsonsucharoute
isnotrelevanttothedesignasnosuchrouteisproposedbyHS2Ltd.
TheparagraphwillalsonotbeasoundbasisforpolicyiftheroutetoWormwoodScrubsis
predicatedontheremovaloftheIEPdepotascurrentlythereisnoproposaltotakethewestern
endofNorthPoledepotoutofrailwayuse.Tobesoundtheparagraphshouldallowforroutesto
WormwoodScrubsintheeventthatthewesternendofNorthPoledepotremainsinrailwayuse.It
shouldbenotedthattheendingoftheIEPcontractisnotsynonymouswiththesitenolongerbeing
requiredforrailwayuse.
Thisisnotmaterialtoplanningpolicy.TheOAPFisnotalobbyingtoolfortheParliamentary
processanditiswhollyinappropriateforplanningpolicytobeusedinsuchaway.Thecorrect
approachwouldbetoamendtheOAPFintheeventthatthepetitionprocessdoessecurematerial
changes.


HS2LtdofficercommentsonearlydraftOakOld&ParkRoyalOAPF.HS2Ltdmaymakefurther/moreextensivecommentsinresponsetotheformalconsultation.

HS2officerinformalcommentsonearlydraftOldOak&ParkRoyalOAPF17Feb15


Page 85

Section

9

5.55Scrubs,whichiscurrentlydifficultto
access.

10

5.55

11

OldOakCommonStation(general)


13


SectionNorthActon
VictoriaRoadandWalesFarmRoadareboth
heavilyusedrouteswithconsiderablenoise,
lightandairqualitypollution.Aspartofthe
proposedHS2works,roadandbridge
wideningwouldcreateadditionalspaceto
provideimprovedfacilitiesforcyclistsand
buses.
Sections:ConstructionFreight,Deliveriesand
ServicingandUsingRailandCanalin
ConstructionLogistics(page97)


14

4

15

Appendix2PetitionsagainsttheHS2Bill

16

General

Comment
Page11makesnoreferencetopetitioning.
WhileHS2LtdremainsindiscussionwiththeGLA/MDCoverthisissuetheplanshouldacknowledge
thatthecurrentproposalsdonotincludeanunpaidlinkthroughtheHS2station.Ultimatelythe
OAPFdoesnothavetheabilitytorequiresuchanunpaidlinkasthisisamatterforParliamentand
thepetitioningprocesstodetermine.
ThedetailedlocationsofthestationentranceswillbedeterminedthroughtheSchedule16
planningprocess.However,asitiscurrentlyunclearastowhetherthedraftplanexpectstheHS2
stationtoprovidearouteoverthecanal.HS2Ltdcanagainconfirmthestationwillnotincludea
routeoverthecanal.
WhileanearliersectionofthedraftOAPFreferstotheHS2BillandSchedule16tothatBillwhich
willestablishtheplanningregimefortherailwaytheconcomitantarrangementshavenotbeen
madetothissection.IfthissectionisnotdraftedinlightofthearrangementsintheHS2Billitwill
notbeimplementableandhenceunsound.

ThescopeoftheHS2worksisdescribedintheHS2ESandthepowerssoughtintheHS2Bill.These
worksarethosenecessarytobuildandoperatetherailwayandmitigateitseffects.HS2workswill
notprovidegeneralenhancementstothehighwaynetwork.

TheHS2workswillbesubjecttoapprovalundertherelevantplanningandhighwaysregimesofthe
HS2Bill.

ThesesectionsseektoimposerequirementsonHS2regardingconstructionlogistics.HS2requests
thatthissectionisamendedtoreflectthatHS2sobligationsinthisregardaresetbythe
Parliamentaryprocessandnotthroughplanningpolicy.

SimilarlythedraftOAPFshouldnotbeusedtoseekchangestotheCodeofConstructionPracticeas
thatisfinalisedthroughtheParliamentaryprocess.

TheplanneedstobeupdatedtoreflecttheapprovalprocessforHS2ifitistoberobust,deliverable
andsound.TheOAPFshouldnotbeusedasatoolforlobbyingandshouldinsteadrecognise
ParliamentsroleasplanningauthorityforHS2.
TheprocessforconsideringpetitionsagainsttheBillisSelectCommitteenottheplanningprocess.
Thereisnojustificationforincludingasummaryofpetitionsinanappendixtothedocument.
ShouldtheoutcomeofnegotiationsortheSelectCommitteeprocessaltertheHS2schemethenthe
draftOAPFshouldbealteredtoreflectthat.HS2Ltdrequeststheappendixberemovedasitisnot
materialtoplanningandinappropriateinthiscontext.
AsthelimitsofdeviationmaychangethroughtheBillprocesstheOAPF,asitdevelops,willneedto
ensureitisconsistentwiththelatestBilllimits.Insomeinstances,theillustrationofHS2worksites
intheOAPFisincorrect(forexamplep82).Itshouldbeensuredthattheseareconsistentwiththe
limitsintheBill.

HS2LtdofficercommentsonearlydraftOakOld&ParkRoyalOAPF.HS2Ltdmaymakefurther/moreextensivecommentsinresponsetotheformalconsultation.

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham


Planning Division, Transport and Technical Services
Hammersmith Town Hall Extension, King Street, London W6 9JU
Tel:
Email:
Web:

020 8753 1081


planning@lbhf.gov.uk
www.lbhf.gov.uk

13 April 2015
Boris Johnson
Mayor of London
(Draft Old Oak & Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework)
Greater London Authority
Post Point 18
City Hall
Queens Walk
London SE1 2AA

Dear Mr Johnson,
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Comments in response to
Old Oak and Park Royal OAPF Draft For Public Consultation
I am writing with regard to the OPDCs public consultation on the Draft Old Oak and
Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning Framework. The council is concerned that the
OPDC is rushing the process without adequate time to consider and comment on the
document which has changed significantly since the Vision was drafted in February
2012.
The council is not convinced that an OAPF is required for the Old Oak Common
Opportunity Area in advance of a Local Plan to be prepared by the OPDC. The draft
OAPF provides no additional material policy guidance to that already included in this
councils draft Local Plan and the Mayors London Plan adopted in March 2015. The
councils draft Local Plan includes emerging policies for the Old Oak Common Area
that fully reflect Opportunity Area policy included in the London Plan March 2015. The
draft OAPF is not considered fit for purpose and serves no purpose. Notwithstanding
the comments above, the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham have the
following comments in response to the draft documentation::
General Comments
It would be useful for the reader if there was clarification of the differences between
the boxes highlighting principles, proposals and key objectives. There does not
seem to be a consistent approach throughout the document regarding these
terms, for example is WS1 regarding Wormwood Scrubs a proposal, principle or
objective?
The supporting text in the OAPF, in a number of cases, includes a requirement or
a key point. This text should be transferred to the key objective/principle boxes in
order to give it appropriate weight (see also comments below on Document
Status). Some examples of this are:

Page 86

Juliemma McLoughlin
Director for Planning
Transport and Technical Services

o Paragraph 5.10 last sentence


o Paragraph 5.50
o Paragraph 5.55
o Paragraph 5.61- second sentence

The document would benefit from a glossary of terms to provide more clarity,
particularly in relation to the key points and requirements, for example definition of
green grid and also the approach to sensitive areas identified in the Urban Design
Strategy. .
A number of the Figures in the document are so vague that they are relatively
useless, for example Figures 15 and 16.
The document needs to be checked so that the area is referred to as Old Oak and
not Old Oak Common.

Supporting Documents
There is an absence of key supporting evidence such as Character Analysis
Studies, Edges Studies, Retail Needs studies and DIFs etc. to adequately support
the OAPF which results in a high level Vision document and is short of being
detailed enough to serve as supplementary planning guidance. The council
suggests that the OAPF is not adopted but instead serves to inform the OPDCs
Local Plan.
Document Status
Para 1.1 states that This draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF)
provides supplementary detail to the planning policies contained within Mayor of
Londons Further Alterations to the London Plan (2014) in the form of
Supplementary Planning Guidance (hereafter referred to as SPG). However, the
Mayor should be mindful not to allow the document to stray into making new
policies. The purpose of SPG is to support statutory development plans, not act as
an alternative to the development plan.
Para 1.1 following last sentence add This OAPF has been prepared in
accordance with the Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007 and the
National Planning Policy Framework.
Para. 1.9 considers the relationship of the draft OAPF with other local authority
planning documents. However, the paragraph fails to acknowledge the existence
of adopted SPD which will be a material consideration in determining planning
applications.
Figure 3 - needs to clearly set out which documents will have weight in
determining planning applications from 1 April and which will fall away.
Document Purpose
P.12 - the document states that Old Oak could evolve and change over the next
30 years. However in the opening paragraph of the Vision, it is stated that over
the next 20 years (the area) will make a major contribution to strengthening
Londons role. Clarification of timescales is necessary here and throughout the
draft OAPF because what can be achieved over 30 years will be far different than
over 20 years. In particular, the proposed 24,000 homes will not be achieved within

2
Page 87

20 years. This council considers that by 2035 an indicative total of 6000 new
homes will have been built in the Old Oak Core Area (OOCA).
Para 1.16 The Golden Mile.add - in Brentfordis also in the vicinity

Vision
The first paragraph of the Vision states that Old Oak and Park Royal will be a
sustainable New Town, but in the 4th paragraph the document states that Old Oak
will be a new, well connected neighbourhood. Reference to New Town implies
that this might be designated under the New Towns Act, which is presumably not
the case. These are two different concepts and require clarification. The council
considers that the vision should not refer to Old Oak being a new town, rather it
should integrate seamlessly with the urban fabric of the surrounding boroughs. The
OOCA and Park Royal should have a symbiotic relationship with these boroughs,
for example sharing services and contributing to each others needs. The Mayor of
London will of course be aware of the Duty to Cooperate and the duty on councils
to engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in maximising the
effectiveness of Local Plans relating to Strategic matters which may impact on at
least two planning areas including in connection with infrastructure which is
strategic. This Duty will fall upon the MDC. This council considers that the area
should not be a sustainable new town and everything possible, including meeting
the requirements of the Duty, should be done to ensure that it performs as one
piece of the jigsaw of areas that make up London.

24,000 New Homes


The proposed minimum of 24,00 new homes over 20 years will not be achieved.
Officers considers that by 2035 an indicative total of 6000 new homes will have
been built in the Opportunity Area.
The document should confirm how National Planning Policy requirements on
housing especially with regard to affordable housing will be met by the OPDC.
affordable housing provision should be based on need, and the social
infrastructure should be provided to meet this need. The amount of affordable
housing should not be predicated on the level of physical and social infrastructure
in the area. The council wishes to be fully engaged in objectively assessing
housing need.
Needs to be clear that that new housing should be designed to meet the needs of
London residents and not overseas investors who may leave new housing
unoccupied for long periods.
4th Para. add dates for delivering the 24,000 homes & 55,000 jobs by. When
could this happen.. by 2050?
How will this new part of London compare/relate to other Opportunity areas in
West London/ across London?
P.17, Figure 6 - The council considers that Figure 6 is misleading and requires
amendment and this is also true of Figure 10 Land Uses. In particular, the large
area shown as the focus for town centre uses gives the impression that there
could be a mega-sized town centre stretching over approximately 1/3 of the
OOCA. Notwithstanding the broad definition of town centre uses, the geographical
spread of town centre uses within the OOCA will not be on this scale. Subsequent

3
Page 88

policy, particularly para.4.1 would imply that higher densities and taller buildings
would be appropriate over the whole of this town centre area.

Also in Figure 6, the green grid symbol leading into Wormwood Scrubs and St
Marys Cemetery gives an impression of a significant incursion into these areas of
open space (see also Figure 23). Both areas of open space are subject to policies
that protect open space, as well as the character of these areas, and any
proposals affecting these areas must be designed and implemented in such a way
that does not detract from their character and function.

There is no provision in these sections to protect and enhance the existing natural
and heritage values in the area (Wormwood Scrubs and the Grand Union Canal in
particular). It is suggested that suitable amendments are made. The council
considers that protection of existing natural /heritage values is not the same as
safeguarding the nearby amenity assets such as Wormwood Scrubs referred to
in Point 4 of the Objectives.

Existing Land Use


Landownership Map needs to sit in this section or early on in the main body of the
document.
Para. 3.3 should refer to Figure 9 not Figure 6.
P. 21, Figure 9 explain HF2, E9 etc. in key.
P. 22, L3: Wormwood Scrubs - whilst this council welcomes the statement that
the Wormwood Scrubs Charitable Trust will be involved in agreeing changes, it
considers that Hammersmith and Fulham Council should also be specifically
mentioned. Wormwood Scrubs is a West London resource and many borough
activities are carried out there. This is also a Duty to Cooperate issue as it relates
to infrastructure which affects more than one authority.
P.23, Figure 10 expand on potential for catalyst - explain why this is
considered a catalyst.
Figure 10 - Dotted red line around Kensal OA needs explanation in the key.
P.28, D5 Place making section needs to recognise existing communities on the
edge of Old Oak, e.g. College Park, and the impact that the new development will
have on these communities and ensure that these areas are enhanced and a
sense of place fostered.
Design Strategy
P.26 D1: Public Amenity add point that Proposals should be designed to
address ongoing maintenance and have no revenue implications on the local
authority.
P.26 D1: Public Amenity iv) : refer to Grand Union Canal
P.26, Figure 12 what do the green lines on the edge of buildings represent and
what do the green lines in the street represent?
P.26, Streets and Public Realm add point to address point that Proposals
should be designed to address ongoing maintenance and have no revenue
implications on the local authority.
Figure 14: The green grid: difficult to read the existing connections.

4
Page 89

Figure 14: key shows new and existing amenity spaces. St Marys Cemetery is not
defined as an existing amenity space and the plan needs to be amended.
P.28, D3 Building Heights & Densities a) - add where appropriate at the end of
point a)
P.28, D3 Building Heights & Densities a) - add should be carefully managed
after Greater heights
P.28, D3 Building Heights & Densities c) - at end of sentence add and local
and wider townscape views.
P.28, D4 Built Heritage - Proposals should also seek to enhance place making.
P.28, sensitive locations needs explanation here or in a glossary on
approach to defining sensitive edges/ locations as its not clear.
P.28, para 4.4, last sentence: needs to refer to working with Local authorities (as
well as English Heritage) in designating conservation areas and a Local List.
Diagram 15 and Diagram 13 should sit next to each other on the same page to
make sense.
P.28, D5: Place making: Retitle Places
P.29, Figure 16- Labelling the map is probably more helpful then having a key.

Old Oak Strategy Land Use


P.32, i. The Vision document stated up to 24,000 homes how is this justified
and how can this be delivered over the 20/30 year life of the plan? Suggest that
this is amended to less prescriptive and to read around or estimated at 24,000
new homes.
Page Old Oak
P.32 OOA1 point a. Amend to read Proposals should contribute towards the
comprehensive regeneration of the Old Oak Area to help deliver:..
Para. 5.1 - 5.3. The Mayor will appreciate that planning for housing is a strategic
matter and subject to the Duty to Cooperate. Under this Duty councils should
engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis in maximising the
effectiveness of Local Plans relating to Strategic matters which may impact on at
least two planning areas. Confirmation of how National Planning Policy Framework
and National Planning Policy Guidance requirements on housing will be met by the
MDC would be helpful, especially with regard to housing issues such as
affordability it would assist both the MDC and other boroughs in ensuring
requirements relating to the Duty to Cooperate and to objectively assessed need
are met.
Para.5.2 should make clear that new high quality housing should be designed to
meet the needs of London residents and not overseas investors who may leave
new housing unoccupied for long periods.
Para. 5.3 - the document states that The Local Plan would also set a level of
affordable housing for this area. This required level of affordable housing will need
to take account of the level of physical and social infrastructure needed to support
this level of development. The council considers that this sentence gives the
wrong emphasis affordable housing provision should be based on need, and the
social infrastructure should be provided to meet this need. The amount of
affordable housing should not be predicated on the level of physical and social

5
Page 90

infrastructure in the area. The council wishes to be fully engaged in objectively


assessing housing need.
As with Figure 6 (see above comments), Figure 18, although intended to be
general, gives too much geographical emphasis to town centre uses. The council
considers that any new centre in this area should fit in with the surrounding town
centre hierarchy. There should not be a new megasized town centre. The figure
implies that 1/3 of the Old Oak Common area (excluding Wormwood Scrubs) will
be in town centre uses. The draft OAPF says itself that Town centre uses should
be located close to areas with the greatest pedestrian flows and accessibility
namely around public transport hubs and along main streets therefore these
uses should not be shown spread out over 1/3 of the area.
Para. 5.11 - The council notes that the document states in that The future level of
retail will be assessed in greater detail through a Retail Needs Study that would be
undertaken as part of a future Local Plan by the proposed Old Oak and Park Royal
Mayoral Development Corporation (OPDC). Under the Duty to Cooperate this
council would wish to be fully involved in all aspects of this study.
P.34, para 5.1 refers to comparable this should refer to other opportunity
areas rather than the term comparable unless you can explain why they are
directly comparable
P.35, Table - add Old Oak at the top so you clearly see the difference against the
other opportunity areas
P.35, Table how are they comparable to Old Oak when VNEB is in CAZ?

Design Strategy
General Comments
Building Heights , Massing and Density
There are concerns that the site as a whole is being over developed, the heights
eluded to around the site are not desirable and are considered to be much too tall
for their London context. Any development here needs to integrated into this part
of west London. Tall buildings in particular will be visible from all over London,
therefore it is essential that these tall buildings are marking a place with an real
and unique identity. Ideally this would be some form of publically accessible use
such as a stadium. There is a danger that Old Oaks only identity would be as a
high rise housing development.
The proposed massing is not coherent with appropriate scale of a High Street.
These heights need better justification.
There is a lack of townscape justification for taller buildings at the entrances.
Greater massing at gateway sites have already been highlighted at the public
transit nodes. Having taller buildings at entrances too is over the top and lacks an
evidence base. These sites maybe suitable for some buildings of architectural
value, however increased massing at some of these sites could be harmful to the
character of Scrubs Lane, the conservation areas and surrounding views and
urban fabric. The site should seamlessly integrate into the surrounding context.

6
Page 91

Edges
The aim of developing a sense of place at Old Oak is supported. Making a
meaningful place which connects to the surrounding townscape will be one of the
main challenges. In this respect, it is important that the new development has a
dialogue with the surroundings, particularly at the edges, and that the scale and
form of the adjoining townscape is taken into the site, rather than the new scale of
the wider redevelopment brought to the edges.
The successful transition at the edges would help in assimilating the new scheme
into the wider area. The new development would have a greater potential to be
seen as a new part of the existing wider townscape context, rather than one that
has been imposed on the area. The form, scale and grain of the local townscape
should be taken across this area, to achieve a more comfortable transition at the
edge. This would confine the impact of the proposed grander scale beyond
towards the centre of the site, to mid and long distance views, leaving the local
townscape relatively unharmed.
The scale of the proposed new buildings in this area needs to be significantly
reduced, and their form should allow for both physical and visual permeability at
the edges, rather than present a wall of building which would serve to detach the
new development from its context to the detriment of both.

P.37, Figure 20- the dotted lines around white colour areas next to HS2 station
need to be explained in key.
P.38, table set out the size of the spaces required.
P.38, 002: Public Amenity Space - There is inadequate recognition of the Nature
Conservation Area of Metropolitan Importance designation along the Grand Union
Canal and the potential impact of greater recreational use on this nature
conservation area. This table needs to set out size of space required and the
guidance/ standards which need to be applied to provision of the space.
P.38 and 39- reference to station squares in table on page 38 but key in Figure
23 page 29 refers to public civic spaces.
P.38, c) - add but will explore opportunities for appropriate greening after the
words hard landscaping
P.29 Figure 23 need to show station square/ public civic space to the north of
the Hythe Road station (as well as the south side).
P. 40, table 003: Streets and Public Realm a. Old Oak High Street and Old
Oak Common Station.
o Setting a 25m width will encourage developers to push for inappropriate
heights along the High Street. Proper consideration has not been given to
how this one street width will impact on the way other streets will look
across the rest the development.
o Whilst the TfL and other guidance to support the 25m is given and
considered by GLA officers to be evidence - it is not. It is guidance which
can be applied as good practice but here it needs to be considered in
relation to the wider comprehensive development of this specific site. LBHF
officers suggest taking out this figure and completing urban design studies
required to support the Local Plan before including a figure for width or
height in the OAPF.

7
Page 92

o It would be helpful to show the streets(described in text in the table) on a


plan

P. 41, figure 24: Illustration showing High Street cross section These figures
are too prescriptive and dont allow for flexibility and should be removed.
Figure 25: Illustration showing indicative eastern elevation of Old Oak High
Street This figure is not a fair reflection of the site as its shown at the widest
point and does not show topography/ level changes. This cross section indicates
massing that has not been tested.
P.42, Para.5.23 state that This guidance presents the current position
what is the current position based on?
P. 42, table 004: Building Heights and Density i.e. sensitive areas should
specify the highly sensitive Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. Not only is it a
heritage asset but also a much used public space, recreational facility and
thoroughfare. It provides a valued breathing space in the city and should be
protected from being overshadowed by buildings to the south. Building heights on
both sides of the canal need to respond sensitively to the narrow width of the
canal.
P.42, ii. Old Oak High Street - The onus would be on the developer to justify their
proposals with their supporting studies. Approximate 10 storey height is extremely
tall and is not coherent with appropriate scale of a High Street. These heights are
not typical of a High Street anywhere in the UK and need better justification. 10
storeys at shoulder height is likely to result in a wall massing - which also
contradicts the statement below in ii) 2nd Para.
Para. 5.24 Entrance Points The presence of an entrance is not a sound
justification for a tall building. Reference to entrances being defined by buildings
which could be of some height should be removed. Entrance points within the
OAPF should seek good architectural quality not just at entrances but throughout
the site. A paragraph also needs to be inserted here about the edges of the
site.
Para. 5.24 Entrance Points delete and there may be opportunities for taller
elements.
Para. 5.25 Height Comparisons Delete this text as it is not appropriate for
crude, untested example and suggested precedent. Heights at other Opportunity
Areas doesnt justify heights at Old Oak. Each Opportunity Area is unique and in
different parts of London. Examples of heights arent named and is misleading.
Using the same broad brush approach for each OA fails to respond to local
context, this should be removed.
Consultation questions Q5 This is a leading question and also fails to ask a
question about building heights and densities.
P.43, Figure 26 add word Harlesden next to station logos. The figure is titled
Building Heights and densities but doesnt show heights. Retitle as sensitivities.
Q6 - Yes - View from Scrubs near northern edge looking north at the station site
P. 44, figure 27: Local views these should show the direction of the view.
P.44, d after ground level activities add taking into account daylight, sunlight
and overshadowing issues.

8
Page 93

Old Oak North


P.48: The council considers that a key objective for Old Oak North should be
integrating the MDC area with the existing College Park area. It is important that
this residential area on the boundary of the OOCA benefits from the regeneration
that will take place in the opportunity area. In addition, given that other Figures in
the draft OAPF have identified green grid symbols extending across Scrubs Lane
into St Marys Cemetery, it is surprising that there is no reference in this section.
P.49, Figure 29: Powerday and EMR site boundaries are not shown but it is
premature to show a street within the Powerday site in Figure 29 given that the
OAPF indicates that Powerday may remain on its existing site. Explanation of why
these sites are a potential catalyst for regeneration needs to be set out.
P.50, Figure 29a & Para. 5.36: Square add size in the text and reference to
any proposed development to provide X size park to the north of the canal in para
5.36
Old Oak South
The council notes key objective 9 on page 52 that development should provide
an edge and new access points into Wormwood Scrubs whilst respecting its
character and ecological value. The open space is of course Metropolitan Open
Land and common land.
The key objectives should also acknowledge the need to respect the canal, which
has conservation area status and is designated as a nature conservation area of
metropolitan importance in the councils Local Plan.
P.52, key objective, 7 relocation of depots state date.
P.53, Figure 34
o outline the boundary of the Shield Site, IEP depot, Crossrail depots etc. (this
is where a land use/ landownership plan at the beginning of the document
would help)
o the edge along the southern side needs to be shown as sensitive right up to
borough boundary to the east.
o Key to show what do the white dotted areas on the plan represent.
o Wormwood Scrubs and little Wormwood Scrubs should be marked on
o Boundary of Wormwood Scrubs should be marked on so it is clear that the
proposed road is not on the Scrubs land.

P. 54, para 5.40 Such a high degree of accessibility justifies high density...
need evidence to support this statement PTAL as well as and contextual urban
design studies.
P. 54, para 5.40 reference to Genesis and North Pole depot sites - need to be
shown on figure 34 or refer to map in Delivery section that identifies development
sites.
P.54, text box This statement is not supported by evidence. Delete as there is
no explanation as to why these are considered precedents and directly
comparable to Old Oak.

9
Page 94

Old Oak Common High Street


P. 56, Key Objectives 4 and 7 25m street widths considered much too wide and
too prescriptive. Increased building heights are likely to create a poor quality
pedestrian environment and tall buildings may create sunlight penetration issues
for the public realm.
Para. 5.46 - last sentence needs rewording. A balance needs to be struck to
create a usable active space that is an efficient thoroughfare for pedestrians and
cyclists
Para. 5.49 prevailing shoulder height implies that other heights on the high
street will be even taller. This heights are inappropriate.
P 57, figure 39 Tottenham Court Road is not a comparable road as its prevailing
shoulder height is 6 floors with some taller elements. There arent any UK
examples of the proposed heights. This new high street typology needs more
research and a robust evidence base.

In respect of active frontages in the MDC area, it is important that the location,
scale and offer of the frontages reflects the function of the area as a place to live,
work and move through, and as a major transport interchange. At present it
appears that active frontages have been drawn quite widely without first
establishing the scale of retail need in the area.

The OAPF fails to adequately recognise the role of established retail centres in the
surrounding area, such as Shepherds Bush Metropolitan centre, which will also
play an important role in providing facilities for the incoming population of the area.
Whilst it is important that the area can sustain itself in terms of local amenities,
there must be acknowledgement in the OAPF that the new development in this
area must integrate with its surroundings.

It is anticipated that the transport interchange for Hs2 will incorporate convenience
retail and other uses for people travelling through the area. How this complements
the offer proposed on the high street should be carefully considered in order to
achieve the appropriate blend and positioning of town centre uses. The future
management of the proposed town centre uses is also an important consideration
in order to retain diversity and balance in the offer being provided.

Old Oak Common Station


P.58 - Key Objectives - Expand to include need for through route to Scrubs Lane
and provide emergency access.
P.58, Para 5.54 - Heights, Scale , massing needs to be mindful of impact om
Wormwood Scrubs
P.58, Para 5.55 southern access need to acknowledge that the access would need
to be designed sensitively and not have any adverse impact on Wormwood Scrubs.
Figure 41 explain white dotted plots of land. Add Wormwood Scrubs.
Grand Union Canal
P 62, Grand Union Canal - the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area is
historically important and are distinctive in character. Any development that meets

10
Page 95

these needs to be sensitive to their character and any massing within the site
needs to be sensitive to the views from it.
key facts - needs to recognise that the Grand Union Canal is Nature
Conservation Area of Metropolitan Importance.
Vision need to make reference to conservation area status and respecting its
location.
Figure 43 - The photo of Kingsland Basin is not a good example of canalised
development in a Nature Conservation Area
Para. 5.68 refers to the need to work with Canals and Rivers Trust. However, there
are other important bodies, such as the Environment Agency and English Heritage.
Para. 5.71 delete last sentence which starts -however, there will be opportunities
for taller elements. Any developer should provide justification for taller buildings
and it is unnecessary for the document to make this statement.
Figure 44, the bridges across the canal in the old oak area should be red in colour.

Scrubs Lane
P.64, Key Facts needs to acknowledge that it is partially in a conservation area
P.64 need to mention relation to College Park residential area and the need to
integrate in a sustainable way with College Park - which is adjacent to OPDC
boundary.
P 64, Scrubs Lane - The character of Scrubs Lane needs to be protected. It is
located next to St Marys Conservation Area and has an industrial character that is
unique to the site. The proposed extension to the conservation area reflects this.
Key Objectives 5. add and SUDs at the end of point.
Key Objectives 9. add pedestrian/ vehicle before the word entrances
P.65, Figure 45 should also recognise that St Marys Cemetery is a nature
conservation area of metropolitan open space. As stated in the comment for Old
Oak North, it is surprising not to see any symbol for the proposed green grid in this
figure .
Figure 45 Sensitive edges approach to sensitive edges needs to be set out as
in supporting text - not clear from diagram.
Wormwood Scrubs Strategy
The council is concerned that Wormwood Scrubs will be used to provide open
space to support Old Oak development proposals and developers will fail to
provide adequate open space north of the Grand Union Canal (an area which is
identified in LBHFs Core Strategy to be deficient in access to open space). Heavy
reliance on the Scrubs to provide recreational space for intensified development
would adversely affect the character and amenity of the Scrubs. The OAPF must
set out amount of open space and play space that needs to be provided by
proposed development (within the development sites north of Wormwood Scrubs)
to ensure there isnt an over reliance on Worm wood Scrubs as the amenity space
for the significant increase in projected new homes and people in the area.
Identifying the location of a potential new school on the edge of the Scrubs
suggests that the Scrubs would be used by the school. Playing field requirements
for new schools to support the 24,000 new homes would be another pressure on
the Scrubs.

11
Page 96

Under the proposed arrangements WSCT would work with LBHF regarding
Lindford Christie Stadium but with the OPDC for the Scrubs where the related
sports facilities are located. The OAPF needs to recognise this relationship.
Although not a Place this section needs some key facts clearly setting out
ownership, relationship of the OPDC to the Wormwood Charitable Trust, site size,
MOL designations, Wormwood Scrubs Act etc.
As currently drafted, this section is relatively short and would benefit from further
development. In particular, more emphasis could be given on nature conservation.
Hammersmith and Fulham council have designated the Scrubs as a nature
conservation area of Borough-wide Grade 1 importance and the council would
encourage the MDC to replicate this designation in the emerging Local Plan for the
MDC Area.
The council supports the inclusion of a reference to the Metropolitan Open Land
(MOL) designation of the Scrubs in the supporting text of this section, but an
acknowledgement of what this actually means would be beneficial, for example in
such locations there is a general presumption against development.
Other sections in the draft OAPF have a vision and key objectives, but these are
missing for Wormwood Scrubs. To ensure consistency of approach with other
sections, the council considers that a Vision is required. In accordance with the
Duty to Cooperate, the council would expect to be consulted and engaged on this
matter. In this context, the council would like to see Hammersmith and Fulham
included by name in point (f) on page 80.
Whilst just outside the MDC boundary, there is no mention of Little Wormwood
Scrubs in the Strategy. Little Wormwood Scrubs is a Local Park and an area that
is designated by Hammersmith and Fulham as a nature conservation area of
Borough-wide importance, and the OAPF and emerging Local Plan should make
sure that nature conservation in this area is appropriately considered. The same
would also apply to St Marys Cemetery which is also a protected nature
conservation area to the east of the MDC boundary.
Relationship to Linford Christie Stadium and the linked activities need to be
recognised.
P.80, Para 7.5, 5th bullet point needs to include Little Wormwood Scrubs
P.81 Figure 53 needs to show:
o Linford Christie Stadium
o Little Wormwood Scrubs
o Boundary of Wormwood Scrubs needs to clearer to show that the proposed
road does not encroach on scrubs.

Transport Strategy
The OPDC should work closely and in partnership with the council in the
developing transport impact studies and in developing transport related proposals
for the area. Any proposals should aim for the maximum proportion of journeys to
be made by walking, cycling or public transport, and adequate measures should be
taken to mitigate any possible adverse impacts on the local road network.
It is understood that the OPDC have the powers to adopt private streets as part of
eth public highways. LBHF would want to be involved in any decision to adopt
highways and this should be reflected in the drafting of the OAPF.

12
Page 97

Environment Strategy
Waste
The EMR and Powerday waste sites are located in the north of H&F and both sites
fulfil the councils waste apportionment needs. The proposed MDC would cover
both these sites and the GLA plan to relocate both facilities to elsewhere within
Park Royal. The MDC would have its own waste apportionment target, that would
be based on the percentage of land taken from each Local Authority. In H&F, this
would result in a 20% reduction in the boroughs waste apportionment target but
through our Local Plan, we would be unable to identity either the Powerday or
EMR waste sites as contributing to this need. For this reason the council considers
that the OPDC should actively seek measures to meet the councils waste
apportionment targets and meet any costs which the council may incur.
Discussions with the GLA/MDC have been ongoing for nearly two years
on this issue and we are still no further forward regarding an agreement
The Draft OAPF should set out a clear policy on waste apportionment reflecting the
comments above.

The council considers that the section should make it clear that Hammersmith and
Fulham is not part of the West London Waste Authority, but is within a different
waste authority. This council requests that discussions are held with the GLA
and/or MDC and with the other boroughs in the Western Riverside Waste Authority
as soon as possible and on an ongoing basis to ensure that a satisfactory outcome
regarding waste is achieved. Consideration of preparing and undertaking joint
approaches for the preparation of planning policies, for example on waste, is a key
part of the Duty to Cooperate.

Para. 9.25 Green Infrastructure states that the core development site itself
should be designed to accommodate as much of the day to day recreational
demand as possible. The council agree with this statement and consider that this
principle should apply to all forms of infrastructure, physical and social.

Land Contamination & Remediation


P.110 Section E6: This section is just a description of the stages for the
assessment and remediation of land contamination. It contains no context for why
such assessments are done and it contains no guidance for the development of
that area. It should include reference to other legislation relevant to land
contamination, notably Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, relevant
Local Authorities Policies and specific industry standards and codes of practice.
The draft OAPF document (page 6) states that the Integrated Impact Assessment
(IIA) and other documents have been used to inform the content of this planning
framework. Section E6 poorly reflects the consideration given in the IIA to land
contamination. For example, the IIA identifies the following points which have not
been included in the draft OAPF document:
oThe role of the NPPF in addressing land contamination (para 1.22); Note: the
NPPF is not mentioned in the draft OAPF document.
othat land contamination and its remediation will have cumulative impacts (para
3.49);

13
Page 98

othe risks associated with contamination during construction (para 3.56);


othe risks to water resources, notably groundwater (Table 3.13); and
othe need to mitigate impacts on good quality soils from development (Table 6.1).
Other subjects in the IIA which are related to land contamination but have not
been considered in the draft OAPF document include water resources and
demolition.

Sections 5, 6 and 7: Old Oak Strategy, Park Royal Strategy and Wormwood
Scrubs Strategy - These sections are inconsistent in their content and style. For
example, the subsection on the area of Old Oak North (page 48) identifies that
land is expect to be contaminated and remediation works will be required. The
other sections and sub-sections do not even include such a basic assessment.

Noise
Noise (which also includes vibration) is barely mentioned within the main document
or supporting reports: with the exception of a short general statement within the
Integrated Impact Assessment draft document (section 3.70-3.73, pp 61-62 which has very basic information on the existing noise levels in the area), and a
brief acknowledgement that noise during the construction phases will have an
impact in the short-term, and a single comment on page 61 of the main OAPF
document (in relation to noise from two roads in North Acton), there is no
substantial information or comment on noise.
Whilst detailed information would not be expected at this stage, it would not be
unreasonable to expect some over-arching principals, proposals or strategy to
have been developed and included within the Environment Strategy of the main
document (alongside air quality, for example).
The development opportunity clearly has implications in terms of noise:
o Noise from construction activity in the opportunity area affecting receptors
neighbouring the area, and future occupants of the area as the work on
differing phases progress.
o Noise generated by existing sources of noise (rail, road, industry, both within the
opportunity area and adjoining it) affecting areas of new residential and
commercial occupiers.
o Noise from new sources of noise affecting existing neighbouring receptors and
any proposed new residential and commercial occupiers.
Clearly these issues will need to be considered in detail as the project progresses,
but a statement outlining what any proposals for the project should seek to achieve
in terms of creating an acceptable noise environment for new and existing
occupants would be expected along with further information on the likely adverse
impacts. Any noise proposals should align with the Noise Policy Statement for
England and the NPPF, as well as other London-wide and local policies regarding
noise, and look to achieve the established WHO and British Standards healthbased standards.

14
Page 99

Light
With regard to light, there is no mention of this within the documents and a
statement acknowledging that lighting, in terms of any new source of light affecting
existing or future occupants, will be considered is desirable.
Delivery Strategy
Figure 72/para.10.40 Social infrastructure. There does not appear to be
adequate open space/public amenity space shown. The allocation seems to be
very reliant on Wormwood Scrubs and on areas designated as Nature
Conservation Areas. There needs to be a clear statement or policy indicating the
amount of open space that will be sought as part of the development. Paragraph
needs to be expanded to state that infrastructure needs to be designed and
delivered so that there is no financial burden on the local authority.
P.114. In DL1, bullet point b, suggest replacing ensure with demonstrate as a
proposal cannot reasonably ensure joined up working. Also in bullet point c,
suggest deleting everything after public sector assets as this repeats what is said
in DL1 bullet points a and b.
P. 114, Para. 10.1 does not mention transport infrastructure, which is a key item of
infrastructure (see para 6.6 and PR2 on page 73).
P.118, DL2. The specific identified infrastructure and/or infrastructure
improvements needed in Park Royal as listed in relevant OAPF proposals are not
identified in Fig 70. It is unclear why this is the case as the identified infrastructure
needed in the Park Royal area quite clearly satisfy the fixes criterion referred to in
paragraph 10.22.
P. 118, para 10.21 Needs to emphasise that the that physical infrastructure such
as bridges, roads, improvements to train stations provide access and help to
unlock potential development sites.
The OAPF appears to favour the use of S106 obligations and correspondingly
understates the role of CIL as the mechanism for the MDC to provide the required
infrastructure (e.g. Policy DL2 and the Transport policies). Moreover, the OAPF
does not appear to consider the impacts of the impending limitations on the use of
S106 obligations in seeking the identified infrastructure, which by their scale are
generally more suited to being provided via CIL.
Figure 70 add logos for stations
Figure 71 add logos for stations
Social Infrastructure
The OAPF is not informed by a DIF study, which would normally identify specific
requirements to support development, the council is not in a position to respond
other than to say that we would like to work closely in developing the DIFs work
and agreeing and prioritising infrastructure.
The OPDC must work closely and in partnership with the council to ensure that any
proposals are designed to consider ongoing maintenance and that they do not
have an implication on revenue budgets

15
Page 100

S106/ CIL
The OAPF appears to favour the use of S106 obligations and understates the role
of CIL as the mechanism for the MDC to provide the required infrastructure. The
OAPF does not appear to consider the impacts of the impending limitations on the
use of S106 obligations in seeking the identified infrastructure, which by their scale
are generally more suited to being provided via CIL.

From 1 April LBHF still continues to manage all services but will no longer be the
CIL setting and charging authority and therefore could have new infrastructure
imposed upon it without the revenue to adequately deliver the service. LBHF will
have no input into the prioritisation of infrastructure although it will inherit and be
responsible for this infrastructure when the OPDC is dissolved.

The OAPF need to recognise the role of the council and set out how it intends to
work with the council to deliver infrastructure and any impact on services arising
from this infrastructure. LBHFs ability to promote and comply with its council wide
duties will be severely undermined with a negative effect on how the council
properly and appropriately discharges its functions and how it is perceived to be
operating. e.g.
1. Affordable housing provisions, including nomination rights of occupiers on
its housing register, viability review mechanisms are of paramount
importance to the councils role as housing authority.
2. Highway Authority a) highways works agreements often secured through
the planning obligation (being equally a site specific mitigation measure but
also requiring the permission of the highway authority). ; b) provisions
relating to the construction, dedication and adoption of highway and
changes to road systems will require the councils signature as highway and
road authority;
3. Education Authority provisions relating to education facilities will be critical.
4 Local authority for Public Health provisions relating to health care and
community facilities will be important
5 Local authority responsible for open space through open space byelaws;
and byelaws generally, open space provisions will be of importance
6 Local authority responsible for safety of sports stadia;
7 Economic and employment provisions council key role in developing
provisions to secure apprentices, training and contracts for local providers in
relation to development. Its involvement in negotiating the terms of the
s.106 agreement will be important to promote the councils core objectives.

The council is concerned that:


o it cannot ensure the best outcome for our residents
o Any infrastructure secured by OPDC would not fully consider councils
financial position or factor in budgetary constraints.

The council needs to be fully involved in discussions concerning proposals which


could potentially impact on any council services and maintain that it is essential for
the council to be co-signatories to any s106 agreements.

16
Page 101

Ongoing Maintenance and Impact on LBHF Revenue Budgets


The council would like clarification on how the OPDC intends to work with LBHF to
deliver infrastructure which will have implications on revenue budgets needs to be
addressed. LBHF want a statement added to the draft planning framework that the
infrastructure should have no revenue implications on the Borough.
The OPDC must work closely and in partnership with the council to ensure that any
proposals are designed to consider ongoing maintenance and that they do not
have an implication on revenue budgets.
Please note as part of the collaborative working with the OPDC, the council would like
to see the consultation comments and how GLA intend to respond to them prior to the
documents being made available publically on the GLA website.

Yours sincerely,

Juliemma McLoughlin
Director for Planning
Transport and Technical Services Department
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

17
Page 102

Page 103

Page 104

Agenda Item 8




Subject:
PublicSectorLandForum
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

Fordecision
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary 

1.1 ThispaperaskstheBoardtonotetheexistenceandmembershipoftheOldOakPublic
SectorLandForum,andapprovetheproposedobjectives.
1.2 TheForumhasmetthreetimestodateandhasdiscussedsharedobjectives.Sincethe
establishmentoftheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation(OPDC)itis
nowtimelyfortheBoardtoreviewthoseobjectivestocementthepartiesagreementto
workcollaborativelyandtransparentlytodeliverregenerationoftheareasidentified
withintheHS2GrowthStrategyforOldOakCommon.
2

Recommendations
Theboardisinvitedto:

2.1 NotetheexistenceandmembershipoftheOldOakPublicSectorLandForum,
includingtheCorporationsmembership;
2.2 AgreeonbehalfoftheOPDCobjectivesoftheOldOakPublicSectorLandForum;and
2.3 NotethatupdateswillbebroughttotheBoardatsuitableopportunities.
3

Background

3.1 ThecoredevelopmentareawithintheOPDCboundaryatOldOakis134hectares.
Over50percentoftheareaisinpublicsectorownership,withNetworkRailandthe
DepartmentforTransport(DfT)aretogetherthelargestfreeholderswith59haand
11harespectively.LondonandContinentalRailways(LCR)aretheDfTsagentfortheir
landholdingatOldOak.TransportforLondonhavealong(100+year)leaseonalarge
proportionofNetworkRailsland.Theremainingpublicsectorlandownersarethe
LondonBoroughofHammersmithandFulham(1ha)andproposedHS2worksites
(25ha).Thelargestofthefreeholdsitesinpublicownership,isNetworkRails,andis

Page 105

directlyadjacenttotheHS2station.Amapshowingthefreeholderownershipsis
includedinAppendixA.
3.2 In2014theinterimOPDCteamsetuptheOldOakPublicSectorLandForum,the
Forum,tobringtogetherkeypublicsectorlandownerstoprovideanopportunityfor
earlydiscussionsonthelandstrategyforOldOak.TheForummeton13November
2014,9Februaryand13April2015todiscussfirstprinciplesandwaysofworking.
3.3 TheMembersoftheForumincludealloftheknownpublicsectorlandownersatOld
Oak.Thesearecurrently:

DepartmentforTransport(representedbyLondonContinentalRailways);

NetworkRail;

TransportforLondon;

HS2;

LondonBoroughofHammersmithandFulham;and

OldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation(notcurrentlyalandowner).

3.4 Shouldotherpublicsectorlandownersbeidentified,theywillbeinvitedtojointhe
Forum.
3.5 Atthe9February2015ForummeetingtheOPDCpresentedalistofproposedshared
objectives.Theobjectivesareintendedtoprovidethetermsofreferenceforthegroup
andsetoutitsfuturedirectionoftravel.Thesharedobjectiveshavebeenupdated
followingthediscussionatthe13Aprilmeeting,andallForumMembershavebeen
askedtoprovidefurthercommentsontheobjectives.Theobjectives,listedin
AppendixB,aretheoutcomeofthediscussionstodate.
3.6 Theobjectivesacknowledgetheneedforpublicsectorbodiestofulfiltheiroperational
orfunctionaldutiesinhowtheymanagetheirland-holdings.Inthecaseofoperational
landthismayneedtobebalancedagainsttheobjectiveofmaximisinglong-termvalue
orotherobjectives.
3.7 Inparticulartheobjectivesdonotoverrideanystatutoryorregulatoryrequirements
thatForummembersmaybeunderadutytomeetasaconsequenceofeithertheirland
holdingortheirstatutoryfunctions.Anyrecommendationsforactionordecisionbythe
Forummustberoutedthrougheachmembersowngovernancearrangements.
3.8 TheForummembersrecognisethattheremaysometimesbeconflictingviewsbetween
thepublicsectorbodiesabouthowbesttosecuremaximumvalueorastoother
objectives.Indeedthedefinitionofmaximumvaluemaybeinterpreteddifferentlyby
Forummembersdependingontheirparticularoperationalorfunctionaldutiesor
obligations.
3.9 Anyfuturelandanddeliverystrategyneedstoensurethereisaclearmechanismfor
takingintoaccountupfrontcostsandlong-termbenefits.Giventhatsubstantial
financecostscouldberequiredup-fronttobringforwardpublicsectorlandfor
development,itisimportantthatthepublicsectorcanfullycaptureanyfutureend
developmentlandvalues.Thereishugepotentialforthepublicsectortounlockthe
developmentpotentialofitssubstantiallandholdingsatOldOak,anditislikelythat

Page 106

thiswillbedoneinpartnershipwiththeprivatesectorinduecourse.Howeveritremains
importantthatthepublicsectorbeinthebestpossiblepositiontocapturethevalues,
whichcouldprovesubstantialatOldOakgivenitslocationandconnectivity.
3.10 TheOPDCisstillataveryearlystageindevelopingitsdeliverystrategy.Giventhe
scaleoftheopportunityaffordedbythesignificantpublicsectorlandholdingatOld
Oak,itcouldbeadvantageousforthepublicsectorlandownerstoworkcollaboratively
indevelopingtheirrespectivestrategies.ItisthereforerecommendedthattheForum
continuestomeet,atleastquarterly,andtheBoardisaskedtoagreetheobjectives.
3.11 TheobjectiveswillberegularlyreviewedbytheInterimChiefExecutiveOfficer,viathe
PublicSectorLandownersForum.Moresubstantialupdateswillbereportedtothe
Boardasthedeliverystrategyisprogressedanddevelopedfurther.Theobjectivesdo
nottieanypartyintoafixedoutcome,suchaslandpoolingorlanddisposal.
3.12 Theobjectivesareintendedtoprovidetheframeworkfordevelopingthedelivery
strategyatOldOakandsecuringbestvalueofthesubstantialpublicsectorland
holdingsatOldOakaswellasdeliveringthebestpossibleregenerationoutcomes.
4

FinancialImplications

4.1 Therearenodirectfinancialimplicationsarisingfromthesharedobjectives,andall
financialimplicationsassociatedwiththeOPDCrolecoordinatingtheForumwillbe
accommodatedwithintheOPDCBudget.
5

LegalImplications

5.1 Allregulatoryrequirementsandconsultationprocessesforthevariouspublicsectorland
ownerswillbeadheredto.
5.2 Undersection201(2)oftheLocalismAct2011,OPDChasthepowertodoanythingit
considersappropriateforthepurposesofitsobject,orforpurposesincidentaltothose
purposes.TheobjectofOPDCistosecuretheregenerationofitsarea.Theexistence
andmembershipoftheForumwouldbeconsistentwiththepowercontainedinsection
201(2).
5.3 OPDCalsohasspecificpowersinrelationtolandundersection206oftheLocalismAct
2011including:

theregenerationordevelopmentofland;

bringingaboutthemoreeffectiveuseofland,

providingbuildingsorotherland,

acquiring,holding,improving,managing,reclaiming,repairingordisposingof
buildings,orland,plant,machinery,equipmentorotherproperty,carryingoutbuilding
andotheroperations,demolishingorconvertingbuildingsorcreatinganattractive
environment;or

facilitatingtheabove.

Page 107

TheobjectivesoftheForumareconsistentwithOPDCsspecificpowers.OPDCshould
ensurethatitsroleontheForumdoesnotfetteritsdiscretionandremainsconsistent
withitsstatutorypowerssetoutintheLocalismAct2011.
5.4 ThePublicSectorLandForumisnotacommitteeorsub-committeeoftheOPDCor
othermembersoftheForum.Anydecisionsthatarerequiredwillthereforeneedtobe
takenbytheOPDCandothermembersoftheForumasappropriateinaccordancewith
theirowndecision-makingprocesses.
6

Appendices
AppendixA:PublicSectorLandOwnershipmap
AppendixB:PublicSectorLandForumObjectives


BackgroundPapers
None


Reportoriginator: AlexandraReitman,ProgrammeManager,OPDC
Telephone: 
02079834804

Email:

alexandra.reitman@opdc.london.gov.uk

Page 108




AppendixA


OldOakCommonPublicSectorLandOwnership







Page 109

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 110




AppendixB
Objectives
PublicSectorLandForumOldOakCommon
Objectives:

TomaximisethelongtermregenerationbenefitsfromtheOldOakregeneration
potentialinlinewiththeMayorsvision

Tomaximiseoverallpubliclandvalueintheinterestoflongtermregeneration,
whilstensuringthatindividualpartiesandexistingprojectscanachievetheir
definedobjectives

TofacilitatethesubstantialconnectivityofOldOak,recognisingtheimportantrole
transportwillplayinenablingthegreatestlevelsofgrowthandmaximisingvalue


Waysofworkinganddeliverymechanisms:

Developandadoptasharedpublicsectorlandstrategythatrecognisesthescaleof
opportunityandachievesthecomprehensiveregenerationofOldOakwiththe
greatestlong-termvalueforthepublicsector

Workcollectively,wherepossible,tomaximisetheregenerationpotentialofthe
substantialrailinfrastructurelandatOldOak

Identifydeliverypartnerstoachievetheobjectives

RecognisetheimportantroleofrailinfrastructureatOldOakCommoninserving
communitiesthroughouttherestoftheUK

Communicateopenlyandshareinformation,whereappropriate,aboutmajor
concerns,issuesandopportunities

Workcollaborativelytoidentifyandminimiserisksandissues

Ensureajoinedupapproachtomanagingstakeholdersandthepublicmessage
regardingdevelopmentofthepublicsectorlandatOldOak

Recognisethatindividualpartiesmustadheretostatutoryrequirements.

Page 111

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 112

Agenda Item 9




Subject:

HeadsofTermsforaMemorandumofUnderstandingbetweenOld
OakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporationandLondonand
ContinentalRailways
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

Fordecision
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic

________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary

1.1

ThispaperproposesthattheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporationenters
intoanon-bindingMemorandumofUnderstanding(MoU)withLondonand
ContinentalRailways(LCR).

1.2

TheMOUsetsoutanagreementtoworkcollaborativelyandtransparentlytodeliver
regenerationwithintheareasidentifiedwithintheHS2GrowthStrategyforOldOak
Common.

1.3

LCRhavebeenaskedtosupporttheOPDCtodeliveritsgrowthstrategyand,aspartof
this,initiallytoidentifyallthelandissuesforDfTatOldOakCommon.Giventhe
substantialpublicsectorlandholdingsatOldOak,itisadvisablethattheOPDCseeks
toworkcollaborativelyinmattersrelatingtolandstrategyrelevantfortheCorporations
boundary.

Recommendations
Theboardisinvitedto:

2.1

AgreethatOPDCsignanon-bindingMoUwithLCRtoworkcollaborativelyand
transparentlytodeliverregenerationoftheareasidentifiedwithintheHS2Growth
StrategyforOldOak.

2.2

AgreedelegationofauthoritytotheInterimChiefExecutiveOfficertoagreethe
contentsandcompletionofthefinalMoUagreement.

2.3

NotethatfutureupdateswillbepresentedtotheOPDCBoard.



Page 113

Background

3.1

LondonandContinentalRailways(LCR)isaUKGovernment-ownedcompanythat
specialisesinthemanagement,developmentanddisposalofpropertyassetswithina
railwaycontextand,inparticular,propertyassetsassociatedwithmajorinfrastructure
projects.

3.2

LCRisalimitedliabilitycompanythatiswhollyownedbytheDepartmentforTransport
(DfT).On30September2013,LCRtookoverpropertiesheldandmanagedbythe
BritishRailBoard(Residuary)Ltd(BRBR)priortoitbeingwoundup.BRBRwas
createdin2001tomanagethemajorityoftheremainingproperties,rightsandliabilities
oftheBritishRailwaysBoard.

3.3

LCRisnowpartoftheGovernmentsHS2GrowthPartnership,adeliverysupport
vehiclethatwillworkwithlocalbodiestosupportdeliveryoftheHS2Growth
Strategies.

3.4

AtOldOak,over50percentofthelandatthecoresiteisinpublicsectorownership.
OfthelandinpublicsectorownershipatOldOak,NetworkRailandtheDepartmentfor
Transport(DfT)own59haand11harespectively.Thelargestofthesesitesisdirectly
adjacenttotheHS2station.LCRaretheDfTsagentfortheirlandholdingatOldOak.

3.5

ArecentexampleofhowLCRcanaddvaluetolargescaleregenerationprojectsisat
KingsCross,whereLCR,aspartoftheKing'sCrossCentralLimitedPartnership,along
withArgentLLPandDHLSupplyChain,madesignificantinvestmentintothe
developmenttodelivernewinfrastructure,suchasanenergycentreanddistrictheating
grid,newroads,andabridgeacrosstheRegentsCanal,aswellasmajorimprovements
tothecanalitself.AtManchester,LCRrecentlyenteredintoalandpoolingagreement
withManchesterCityCouncilandTransportforGreaterManchestertounlocknew
regenerationopportunitiesaroundtheManchesterMayfieldQuarter.

3.6


TheOPDCisstillataveryearlystageindevelopingitsdeliverystrategy.Giventhe
experiencethatLCRhaveinlandstrategy,itwouldbeadvantageousfortheOPDCto
workcollaborativelywithaGovernment-ownedcompanythatspecialisesinthe
management,developmentanddisposalofpropertyassetswithinarailwaycontext.
Thesubstantiveexperienceandlessonslearnedfromsimilarprojects,suchasthose
referencedabove,wouldprovideanexcellentbasisonwhichtheODPCcouldfurther
developitsdeliverystrategy.ItisthereforerecommendedthattheOPDCagreeshead
oftermsforenteringintoanon-bindingMoUwithLCRtoworkcollaborativelyand
transparentlytodeliverregenerationwithintheareasidentifiedwithintheHS2Growth
StrategyforOldOakCommon.AcopyoftheproposedMoUissetoutinAppendix1.

3.7

TheDfTunderstandstheimportanceofitslandholdingstothedeliveryoftheOPDCs
ambitionsandtheneedforacoordinatedapproachtopublicsectorlandholdingsasa
whole.

3.8

TheMoUwillberegularlyreviewedbytheInterimChiefExecutiveOfficer.Itisthe
intentiontobringamoresubstantialupdateorupdatestotheOPDCBoardasthe
deliverystrategyisprogressedanddevelopedfurther.TheMoUisnotlegallybinding
anddoesnottieeitherpartyintoafixedoutcome,suchaslandpoolingorland
disposal,andisintendedtoprovidetheframeworkfordevelopingthedeliverystrategy
atOldOak.
Page 114

4
4.1

FinancialImplications
TherearenodirectfinancialimplicationsarisingfromtheMoU,andallfinancial
implicationsassociatedwiththeOPDCroleassetoutintheproposedMoUwillbe
accommodatedwithintheOPDCBudget.
LegalImplications

5.1

Undersection201(2)oftheLocalismAct2011,OPDChasthepowertodoanythingit
considersappropriateforthepurposesofitsobject,orforpurposesincidentaltothose
purposes.TheobjectofOPDCistosecuretheregenerationofitsarea.Enteringinto
theMOUwithLCRwouldbeconsistentwiththepowercontainedinsection201(2).

5.2

OPDCalsohasspecificpowersinrelationtolandundersection206oftheLocalismAct
2011including:

theregenerationordevelopmentofland;

bringingaboutthemoreeffectiveuseofland;

providingbuildingsorotherland;

acquiring,holding,improving,managing,reclaiming,repairingordisposingof
buildings,orland,plant,machinery,equipmentorotherproperty,carryingoutbuilding
andotheroperations,demolishingorconvertingbuildingsorcreatinganattractive
environment;or

facilitatingtheabove.

ThetermsoftheMOUareconsistentwithOPDCsspecificpowers.OPDCshouldensure
thatitsworkingarrangementswithLCRdonotfetteritsdiscretionandremain
consistentwithitsstatutorypowerssetoutintheLocalismAct2011.
6

Appendices
AppendixA:HeadsofTermsMemorandumofUnderstanding

BackgroundPapers
None


Reportoriginator: AlexandraReitman,ProgrammeManager,OPDC
Telephone: 
02079834804

Email:

alexandra.reitman@opdc.london.gov.uk

Page 115

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 116


AppendixA
HeadsofTerms
MemorandumofUnderstanding(MoU)
Parties
OldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation(OPDC)andLondonandContinental
RailwaysLtd(LCR).

PurposeofMoU
Toworkcollaborativelyandtransparentlytodeliverregenerationoftheareasidentified
withintheHS2GrowthStrategyforOldOakandParkRoyal.TheMoUwillnotbelegally
binding.

OPDCRoles
PlanningAuthority
PotentiallandacquisitionunderCPO(ifvoluntaryacquisitionisnotpossible)
Leadonmasterplanning
Infrastructurefundingpotentiallyanddeliveryasappropriate
PreparationofHS2GrowthStrategyandinvestmentplanning
Facilitatingregeneration
TosupportLCRindeliveringtheirroles,asappropriate
Leadoncommunityandbusinessengagement

LCRRoles
ActasagentforDfTontheirland
Leadlandpoolingarrangementstobringpublicsectorlandtogetherifappropriate
ReconsiderOSDaboveHS2stationjointlywithOPDC
InformvariousOPDCstrategies
TojointlyapproachCarGianttoconsiderlandpooling
Potentialtoactasdeliveryagentforinfrastructure
ToactasinterfacetoHS2onstationdesign
TopromotepermanentacquisitionofHS2constructionsites,recognisingthe
constraintsoftheHS2acquisitionsanddisposalspolicy
ToworkwithDfTtolookatoptionsonIEPandotherdepots
ToworkwithOPDCtoidentifysuitablevaluecapturemodels

Governance
Tobeagreed,butinfirstinstancetocontinueregularmeetingsbetweenthe
parties.
Recommendationsfordecisions/actionstoberoutedthroughthenormal
governancearrangementsoftheparties.
Additionalclausestobeagreed,includingappropriateclausesthattheMoUwillnot
fetteranyplanningorotherstatutoryfunctionsetc.,terminationprovisions,
disclosureofinformation/FOIetc.


Page 117

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 118

Agenda Item 10




Subject:

PlanningCommitteeAppointmentsandProceduresandthe
PlanningCodeofConduct
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

Fordecision
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary 

1.1 ThisreportproposestheformalappointmentofWillMcKeeasamemberandChairman
ofthePlanningCommittee;updatestheBoardontheappointmentofmembersofthe
PlanningCommittee(asatdateofwriting);andproposestheadoptionofaPlanning
CodeofConduct.
2

Recommendations
TheBoardisinvitedto:

2.1 RatifytheappointmentofWilliamMcKeeasChairmanofthePlanningCommitteeuntil
theBoardsnextannualmeetinginApril2016;
2.2 NotetheappointmentsoftheadditionalPlanningCommitteemembersmadetodate
bytheDeputyChairoftheBoardinaccordancewiththeBoardsdecisiontodelegate
theappointmentofmembersofthePlanningCommittee(asapprovedatitsmeetingon
1April2015,minute6.4(e)refers);
2.3 ApprovetherulesfortheattendanceatPlanningCommitteeofSubstituteMembers
forthethreeboroughmemberssetoutinthisreport;and
2.4 AdoptthePlanningCodeofConduct(AppendixA).
3

Background

3.1 On1April2015,theBoardagreedtoestablishaPlanningCommitteecomprisinga
Chairman,oneelectedmemberfromeachofthelocalCouncils,andthreenon-elected,
non-boardmembers,tobeselectedthroughanopenandtransparentsearchprocess.
TheBoardalsoagreedthePlanningCommitteeTermsofReferenceandaSchemeof
PlanningDelegationseffectivefrom1April2015.

Page 119

3.2 TheBoardagreedtoappointWilliamMcKeeasInterimChairmanofthePlanning
Committee,pendingconsiderationofapermanentappointmenttothispositionatthe
nextmeetingoftheBoard;andthatdecisionsontheappointmentofthemembersof
thePlanningCommitteebedelegatedtotheChairmanoftheBoard,withformal
appointmentstobemadeinadvanceofthefirstscheduledPlanningCommittee
meetingon21May2015.
3.3 ItwasalsoagreedthattheBoardwouldreceiveareportonappointmentstothe
PlanningCommitteemadeinexerciseofthatdelegation.Atthedateofwritingthis
report(intimefordespatch)nonehavebeenmadebutitisexpectedthatappointments
totheCommitteewillhavebeenmadebytheDeputyChairbythetimeoftheBoards
meetingon18May,detailsofwhichwillbeprovidedinaSupplementaryReport(s).In
additionitwasagreedtheBoardwouldconsiderproposalsforaPlanningCodeof
Conductatitsnextmeeting.
3.4 Thisreportseekstofulfiltheaboverequirements.
4

Proposal
ChairmanoftheOPDCPlanningCommittee

4.1 TheChairmanoftheOPDCPlanningCommitteewillplayakeyroleinoversightofthe
Corporationsstatutoryplanningdevelopmentmanagementresponsibilities.TheChair
isaBoardMemberandprovidesalinkbetweentheBoardandPlanningCommitteeby
thisBoard.
4.2 ItisproposedthattheinterimappointmentofWilliamMcKeebeconfirmedandthathe
beappointedChairmanofthePlanningCommitteeonapermanentbasisuntilthe
BoardsnextannualmeetinginApril2016.
UpdateonappointmentofPlanningCommitteemembers
4.3 InadditiontotheChair(WillamMcKee)theBoarddecidedthatthePlanningCommittee
istoconsistofsixfurthermemberswhoarenotmembersoftheBoard:threelocal
councillors(onefromeachborough)andthreeotherrecruitedmembers.Following
totheBoardslastmeetingthethreeboroughswereinvitedtonominateoneelected
membereach,plusnamedsubstitutemembers,tobeappointedtotheCommittee.
4.4 Atthedateofwritingthisreporttherecruitmentofthethreerecruitednon-Board
membersisprogressing.TheChiefExecutiveOfficerwrotetotheboroughsonthe27th
Marchand7Aprilinvitingboroughrepresentationontheinterviewpanel.Interviews
tookplaceon23Apriland8May.
4.5 SirEdwardLister,asDeputyChair,hasexercisedthedelegationtomakeappointments
tothePlanningCommitteethatwasagreedbytheBoardatitsmeetingon1Aprilin
orderthattheCommitteecanmeeton21May.LettersfromtheDeputyChairmaking
theappointmentwillbesentinadvanceofthatmeeting.Thethreeboroughmembers
(andtheirsubstitutes,ifany)areappointeduntilthenextlocalLondonborough
electionsinMay2018;thethreerecruitedmembersuntil31March2018.
4.6 ASupplementaryReport(s)identifyingthosepersonsappointedbytheDeputyChairto
bemembersofthePlanningCommittee(includingboroughmembersnamed
substitutes,ifany,asmentionedbelow)willbepublishedassoonaspossibleinadvance

Page 120

oftheBoardsmeetingon18May.TheBoardisaskedtonotetheappointmentsmade
asdetailedintheSupplementaryReport(s).(ItisalsoexpectedthattheMayorwill
haveprovidedhisconsentby21May,requiredbyparagraph4ofSchedule21tothe
LocalismAct2011totheappointmentofpersonswhoarenotBoardmemberstothe
OPDCscommittees.)
ProcedureforattendanceofSubstituteMembersatPlanningCommittee
4.7 TheOPDCStandingOrdersprovidefortheBoardtoapproveproceduresforthe
appointmentandattendanceofnamedSubstitutestoattend,speakandvoteinthe
absenceofanamedmemberofaCommittee.Thisissubjecttotheappointmentofthe
SubstitutesbeingapprovedbytheMayor(asrequiredbytheLocalismAct2011unless
thesubstituteisaBoardmember)andtothatpersonhavingreceivedtraininginthe
businessoftheCommittee.TheStandingOrdersalsoprovidefortheBoardtoapprove
proceduresfortheappointmentofthenamedsubstitutestoattendCommitteemeeting
intheabsenceofavailabilityofthepersonappointedbytheBoard.
4.8 ItisproposedthattheuseofSubstitutesbeconfinedtothethreelocalcouncillor
membersofthePlanningCommitteeandthatthethreerecruitedmembersofthe
CommitteewillnothaveSubstitutes.Substitutesareappointedonthesametermsand
conditionsasotherboroughmembersofthecommitteee.g.theymayberemovedby
theirboroughandmustremainacouncillor,andaresubjecttoothertermsand
conditionsofappointment.
4.9 AsinglenamedSubstitutelocalcouncilmemberwillbeappointedforeachofthethree
electedlocalcouncillors(FullMembers)whomustbeafellowlocalcouncillorofthe
sameboroughcouncil.ASubstituteisappointedasaconditionalmemberofthe
PlanningCommitteei.e.onlyintheabsenceoftheFullMembersothathe/shecannot
attendatthesametimeastheFullMember.Theysubstitutefor,andmayexerciseall
thatpersonspowerstospeakandvotewhenattendingthemeetinginthatpersons
place,andarecountedinthequoruminthenormalway,andmustdeclareanyrelevant
interestsinthesameway.ThePlanningCommitteeactsinaquasi-judicialcapacityand
somustobserverulesofnaturaljusticeandadministrativefairnessinexerciseoftheir
dutyofcaretoapplicantsandotheraffectedbytheirdecisions.ThereforeSubstitutes
mustnotactastheirFullMembersdelegateoronhis/herinstructions,butmustform
theirownindependentjudgmentofthepublicinterestwhendischargingtheirroleasa
memberoftheCommittee.Thereforeitisimportantthattheydevotethesamelevelof
preparationandattendance,andgivemattersdueandproperconsideration,soitisnot
appropriatethattheyswapmid-meetingordipinandoutofmeetingsoritemsof
business.Appointmentispersonalandnon-transferablesothatanamedsubstitute
cannotappointtheirownsubstitutes.IfneithertheFullMemberortheSubstitute
canattendaparticularthenthatpositionwillbevacantforthemeetingandtheFull
Membersabsencerecordedintheminutes.
4.10 Asaresultitisproposedthefollowingprinciplesandrulesshouldapplytothe
attendanceofnamedSubstitutesatPlanningCommitteemeetings:

OnlyasinglenamedcouncillorfromthesameLondonboroughcouncilasthe
threelocalcouncillormembersofthePlanningCommittee(FullMembers)may
beidentifiedbythatpersonastheirsubstitutetoattendPlanningCommittee
meetingsintheirabsence.ASubstitutemaybereplacedbyaFullMemberat
anytimesubjecttotheMayorsconsent.
Page 121

Substitutesmustformtheirownindependentjudgmentofthepublicinterest
whendischargingtheirroleasamemberofthePlanningCommittee.

ItistheresponsibilityoftheFullMember(nottheSecretariat)toliaisewith
theirSubstituteabouttheirattendanceatanyparticularmeeting.

AgendasandreportswillbecirculatedbytheSecretariattoSubstituteMembers
asamatterofcourseinthesamewayastheyaretobesenttoallother
PlanningCommitteemembers.

SubstitutesmayonlyattendPlanningCommitteemeetingsiftheirFullMember
hasgivenatleast24hoursadvancenoticetotheSecretariatthathe/sheis
unabletoattendandthattheSubstitutewilldosointheirplace.Thiscanbeby
emailortelephone.

TheattendanceofaSubstitutewillberecordedintheminutesofthemeeting.

Substitutesshouldendeavourtobepresentatthestartofthemeetingandto
attendforthewholeofthemeeting,andshouldproperlyprepareforthe
meeting.

ASubstitutecannotstand-inaftertheirFullMemberhasleftthemeeting.

IfaSubstitutehasbeenappointedforaparticularmeetingbutittranspiresthe
FullMembercanattendthemeetingafterall,thentheFullMembermayattend
inthenormalwaybutthereaftertheSubstituteisnotpermittedtoparticipatein
themeetingintheeventtheFullMembersubsequentlyhastoleave.

SubstitutesmustattendanytrainingconcerningtheCommitteesbusinessas
theChairconsidersappropriateornecessary.


PlanningCodeofConduct
4.11 APlanningCodeofConducthasbeenproducedtoguidethewayinwhichmembersof
thePlanningCommittee(includingsubstitutemembers)andofficerswithdelegated
authorityshouldapproachtheirroleinrelationtotakingplanningdecisionsandtoset
thestandardofconductwhichotherpartiestotheprocesscanexpectofthem.The
PlanningCodeofConductappliestotheBoardwhereandtotheextentthatitis
involvedinplanningdecisionsandshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeCorporations
StandingOrdersandPlanningCommitteeTermsofReference.
4.12 Inparticular,thePlanningCodeofConductaddressestherespectiverolesofCommittee
membersandofficers,theroleoflobbyingintheplanningsystem,howpreapplication
discussions,presentationsandsitevisitsshouldbeconducted,andwhatPlanning
Committeemembersshoulddoandnotdotoavoidbeingseentobepredetermininga
planningapplication.ItisintendedtoprovideaframeworkforplanningdecisionmakingbythePlanningCommitteesothatplanningdecisionsaretransparentand
accountable.
4.13 MembersofthePlanningCommitteeneedtoabidebythelawonpredetermination
(thatis,approachingadecisionwithaclosedmindonrelativeplanningissues).The
CodeofConductsetsoutmembersobligationsinrespectofavoidingpredetermination.

Page 122

Italsoprovidesadviceonlobbyingof,andby,BoardMembersorPlanningCommittee
MembersinordertoensuretheimpartialityoftheCorporationsdecisionmaking.
5

FinancialImplications

5.1 Allfinancialimplicationsassociatedwiththerecommendationsinthisreportwillbe
accommodatedwithintheOPDCBudget.
6

LegalImplications

6.1 TheLocalismAct2011,pursuanttosection198andSchedule21,allowsaMayoral
DevelopmentCorporationtoestablishthePlanningCommittee,andtodelegatepowers
toit.MayoralagreementisrequiredbytheActtotheappointmentofpeoplewhoare
notcorporationboardmembersontoacommitteei.e.tothethreelocalcouncillors,
theirsubstitutesandtothethreerecruitedplanningcommitteemembers.The
procedureforcommitteesissetoutindetailintheOPDCsStandingOrders.Otherwise
theproposalsfortheattendanceofSubstitutesforthethreeboroughmembersandfor
thePlanningCodeofConductareconsistentwithgoodpracticeandtheCorporations
legalframework.
7

Appendices
AppendixAPlanningCodeofConduct

BackgroundPapers
None

Reportoriginator: ClaireOBrien,PrincipalStrategicPlanner,OPDC
Telephone: 
02079835705
Email:

claire.obrien@opdc.london.gov.uk


Page 123

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 124

AppendixA

PlanningCodeofConduct

ScopeandOverview

TheOldOak&ParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation(the"Corporation")wasestablishedon1
April2015asthelocalplanningauthorityforthepurposesofPart3oftheTownandCountry
PlanningAct1990(asamended)andallothertownandcountryplanningmattersthatfall
withinitsjurisdictionpursuanttoPart8,Chapter2oftheLocalismAct2011,including
determiningplanningapplicationsandpreparingdevelopmentplandocuments.

PlanningdecisionswillbetakenbytheCorporation'sPlanningCommittee("thePlanning
Committee")unlessdeterminedunderdelegatedauthoritybyCorporationPlanningOfficers
("PlanningOfficers")orunlessauthorityisretainedbytheCorporation'sBoard(the"Board").

TheCorporation,itsPlanningOfficersandthePlanningCommitteeMembersarecommittedto
thehigheststandardsinplanningdecision-makingtoprovideconfidenceintheirdecisionsasa
localplanningauthority.TheCorporationhasthereforeadoptedthisPlanningCodeofConduct
("thisPlanningCode"),whichappliestoitsapproachinmakingallplanningdecisions.Where
"planningdecisions",planningbusinessordecisionsinconnectionwith"planningmatters"
arereferredtointhisPlanningCode,theyaredecisionsinconnectionwiththetownand
countryplanningfunctionsoftheCorporationthatfallwithintheTownandCountryPlanning
Act1990(asamended),thePlanning(ListedBuildingsandConservationAreas)Act1990(as
amended)andtheElectricityAct1989exceptthattheydonotinclude,andthisPlanningCode
doesnotrelateto,functionsunderthePlanningandCompulsoryPurchaseAct2004which
relatetopreparinglocaldevelopmentdocuments,functionsrelatingtothecommunity
infrastructurelevyorthedesignationofconservationareaswhichareseparatelygovernedby
theCorporationsCodeofConduct.

ThisPlanningCodeappliesto:

TheBoardwhereandtotheextentthattheyareinvolvedinplanningdecisions;

PlanningCommitteeMembers(includingBoardMemberswhoarePlanningCommittee
Members);

whereandtotheextentindicatedinthisPlanningCode,BoardMemberswhoattend
PlanningCommitteeMeetings;and

whereandtotheextentindicatedinthisPlanningCode,PlanningOfficers.

WherethisPlanningCodereferstoPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembers,itshall
includeanyauthorisedsubstitutes.

Planningdecision-makingreliesoninformedjudgementswithinthecontextofarangeof
planningpolicyandothermaterialconsiderations.TheCorporationconsidersittobeof
particularimportancethatthePlanningCommittee'sandBoard'splanningdecision-makingis
Page 125


open,objectiveandfair.ThisPlanningCodeisintendedtoprovideaframeworkforplanning
decision-makingbythePlanningCommitteeandtheBoardsothatplanningdecisionsare
transparentandaccountable.

ThisPlanningCodeshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeCorporation'sStandingOrdersand
thePlanningCommittee'sTermsofReference.

CopiesofthisPlanningCodewillbesuppliedtoallBoardMembers,PlanningCommittee
MembersandPlanningOfficers.



Page 126



1. RoleandconductofPlanningOfficers,PlanningCommitteeMembersand
BoardMembersinplanningdecisions

1.1. PlanningOfficers

1.1.1. PlanningOfficersshouldensurethattheyconductthemselvesinawaythatnotonly
maintainstheirimpartialityinadvisingPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoard
Membersmakingplanningdecisions,butensuresthattheyareseentobehaveina
waythatmaintainsimpartiality.PlanningOfficersshouldrecordmeetingsand
dialoguewithinterestedpartiesintheapplicationfile.

1.1.2. PlanningOfficers'reportstothePlanningCommitteeorBoardmakingplanning
decisionsonapplicationsshouldbeaccurateandcover,amongstotherthings,the
applicant'sposition,thesubstanceofanyobjectionsandtheviewsofpeople
and/ororganisationsthathavebeenconsulted.Theyshouldalso,where
appropriate:

1.1.2.1.includeaclearexpositionofplanningpolicy,includingthedevelopmentplan,siteor
relatedplanninghistory,andanyothermaterialconsiderations;

1.1.2.2.includearecommendationofaction.Oralreporting,excepttoupdateareport,
shouldbeavoidedwherepracticableandminutedwhenitdoesoccur;

1.1.2.3.containatechnicalappraisalthatjustifiestherecommendation;and

1.1.2.4.ifthereport'srecommendationiscontrarytotheprovisionsofthedevelopment
plan,thematerialconsiderationswhichjustifythedepartureshouldbestated.


1.2. PlanningCommitteeMembersandBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisions

1.2.1. MembersofthePlanningCommitteearethedecision-makersinrespectofthe
planningdecisions,exceptwheredecisionmakingonanyplanningrelatedmatter
hasbeenretainedbytheBoardorinthecircumstancesthattheauthoritytomake
planningdecisionshasbeendelegatedtoPlanningOfficers.Itistheresponsibilityof
PlanningCommitteeMembersandBoardMemberswhentheyaretheplanning
decisionmakerstoensurethattheplanningdecision-makingpowersconferred
uponthemareusedappropriately,fairlyandconsistently.

1.2.2. PlanningCommitteeMembersandBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionshave
aresponsibilityintheirroletothecommunityasawhole.Theyshouldtakeaccount
ofallrelevantviewsaspartofthedecision-makingprocess,andnosinglegroupor
individualcanbespeciallyfavouredoveranother.


1.3. DecisionMakingatPlanningCommitteeorBoardmeetingsmakingplanning
decisions

1.3.1. MembersofthePlanningCommitteeorBoardMembersinmakingplanning
decisionsmusttakeplanningdecisionsinaccordancewiththedevelopmentplan
unlessmaterialconsiderationsindicateotherwise.PlanningOfficers'adviceshould

Page 127


highlightrelevantdevelopmentplanpoliciesandmaterialconsiderationsand
containclearrecommendations.

1.3.2. ThePlanningCommitteeorBoardinmakingplanningdecisionsmust(withthe
supportofPlanningOfficers)givereasonsforadecisiontorefuseplanning
applicationsandreasonsforothermattersdetermined,regardlessofwhethertheir
determinationaccordswiththePlanningOfficer'srecommendation.

1.3.3. IfthePlanningCommitteeorBoardinmakingplanningdecisionsismindedto
decideanapplicationorplanningmattercontrarytoaPlanningOfficer's
recommendation,thePlanningOfficershouldalsobegiventheopportunityto
explaintheimplicationsofthecontrarydecisiontoPlanningCommitteeMembersor
BoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsduringthePlanningCommitteemeeting
orBoardmeetingwheretheapplicationorothermatterisbeingconsideredand
reasonsbasedonplanninggroundsshouldbegiveniftheychoosetodetermine
suchapplicationorothermattercontrarytoPlanningOfficer'srecommendation.

1.3.4. Inallcases,thereason(s)orsummaryreason(s)(asapplicable)fordecisionsshould
beminutedandplacedontheplanningapplicationormatterfile.

2. Developmentproposalsof,orpromotedby,theCorporation,oritsBoard
MembersorPlanningCommitteeMembersorPlanningOfficers

2.1. Developmentproposalsof,orpromotedby,theCorporation

2.1.1. TheCorporationhasthepowertograntplanningpermissionforitsownproposals
andforjointdevelopmentproposalsfordevelopmentontheCorporation'sland.In
addition,proposeddevelopmentsthataresupportedbytheCorporation,orwhere
theCorporationhashadsuchasignificantinvolvementintheirdevelopmentor
promotionthatitcouldreasonablybeconsideredthatitsupportsthedevelopment,
willbeconsideredbythePlanningCommitteeorBoardMembersmakingplanning
decisionsinthesamewayforthepurposesofparagraphs2.1.2and2.1.3below.

2.1.2. SuchapplicationsshouldbeconsideredbytheCorporation'sPlanningCommitteeor
BoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsorPlanningOfficersinthesamewayas
anyotherapplication,accordingtotheplanningmeritsoftheapplication.Toensure
transparency,thenatureoftherelationshipoftheCorporationtotheproposaland
tothepartiesinvolvedinpromotingtheapplicationshouldbesetoutinthe
PlanningOfficer'sreportontheapplication.Sofarasnotcommerciallysensitiveor
confidential(includingbyvirtueofanyappropriateFreedomofInformationActor
EnvironmentalInformationRegulationsexemption),arecordshouldalsobe
maintainedoftheliaisonbetweentherelevantpartiesandtheCorporationand
includedintheapplicationfile.

2.1.3. TheCorporation'sChiefExecutiveshouldreceiveacopyofthePlanningOfficer's
reportpriortothePlanningCommitteeorBoardmeetingmakingaplanning
decisiontoensurethattherelationshipbetweentheapplicantorperson(s)affected
bythemattertobeconsideredbythePlanningCommitteeorBoardmeeting
makingaplanningdecisionandtheCorporationisproperlyrecorded.

2.1.4. APlanningCommitteeMemberorBoardMembermakingaplanningdecisionmust
avoidbecomingsocommittedtoadevelopmentthatisthesubjectofanapplication

Page 128


inanothercapacity(includingasamemberoftheCorporationoroneofitsother
Committees)thats/hemaybeunabletodemonstratethats/hecantakeinto
accountalltheconsiderationsmaterialtoitsdeterminationinanimpartialway.

2.2. Developmentproposalsof,orpromotedby,BoardMembers,Planning
CommitteeMembersoritsPlanningOfficers

2.2.1. ABoardMemberorPlanningCommitteeMembershouldplaynopartinthe
planningdecision-makingprocess,norseektoinfluenceinanyway,proposals
wheresuchaBoardMemberorPlanningCommitteeMemberispromotingagiven
planningapplication,proposalormatteronhis/herownaccountorisanagentin
respectofsuchaplanningapplication,proposalormatter.SuchBoardMembersor
PlanningCommitteeMembersshouldnotifyboththeChiefExecutiveandthe
relevantPlanningOfficerinwritingassoonasreasonablypossibleonceanysuch
planningapplication,proposalormatterhasbeenmadeorarisesandinanyevent
within21days.AtanyrelevantmeetingofthePlanningCommitteeorBoard
meetingmakingaplanningdecision,theBoardMemberorPlanningCommittee
Membermustdeclaretheinterest,explainthenatureoftherelationshipwiththe
application,proposalormatterandleavetheroominwhichthemeetingwherethe
application,proposalormatterisbeingdiscussedistakingplacewhilstitisunder
discussion.ItistheresponsibilityoftheBoardMemberorPlanningCommittee
MembertonotifythePlanningOfficerdealingwiththeapplication,proposalor
matterpriortothePlanningCommitteemeetingorBoardmeetingmakinga
planningdecisiontoensurethatanoteisplacedontherelevantfileandinthe
PlanningOfficer'sreportontheapplication,proposalormatter.TheBoardMember
orPlanningCommitteeMembermustalsonotifytheChiefExecutiveinwritingof
thedetailsofhis/herinterestintheapplication.

2.2.2. PlanningOfficers,wheretheapplication,proposalormatteristheirown,should
havenoinvolvementinthepreparationofthePlanningOfficer'sreportonthe
application.TheChiefExecutiveshouldbenotifiedinwritingassoonasreasonably
possibleofthenatureofthePlanningOfficer'sconnectionwiththeapplication.

2.2.3. AsystemshouldbedevisedtoidentifysuchproposalsbyPlanningCommittee
Members,BoardMembersorPlanningOfficers.Proposalsshouldbereportedtothe
PlanningCommitteeasmainitemsandnotdealtwithbyPlanningOfficersunder
delegatedpowers.

3. Lobbyingof,andby,BoardMembersorPlanningCommitteeMembers

3.1. Lobbyingisanormalandproperpartofthepoliticalprocess;thoseaffectedbya
planningdecisionwilloftenseektoinfluenceitsoutcomebyapproachingdecisionmakers.ItisgoodpracticeforPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmaking
planningdecisionstohaveformalcontactwiththeapplicantsforplanningpermission
forstrategicschemesduringthepre-applicationanddeterminationperiods.Planning
CommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsmayaskquestions
butshouldnotprovideanopinionorexpressaviewthatmaygivetheimpressionthata
finalviewontheapplication/matterinquestionhasalreadybeenreached.Involving
PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsearlyon
andthroughouttheapplicationanddeterminationprocessoftenleadstobetter
planningdecisionsandbetterdevelopments.PlanningOfficersmay,wheretheyfeelit
isappropriate,arrangepre-applicationbriefingsforthepresentationofprospective

Page 129


schemestoPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanning
decisions.

3.2. ItisthereforeappropriateforPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmaking
planningdecisionstoacceptinformationfromstakeholdersthatisrelevanttoplanning
applicationswherethisinformationinformstheplanningdecision-makingprocess.
However,theCorporationconsidersthatallPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoard
Membersmakingplanningdecisionsshouldtakeanapproachtolobbyinginrelationto
planningmattersthatnotonlyensurestheimpartialityoftheCorporation'sdecisionmaking,butwhichmaintainsconfidenceamongstakeholdersinthedecision-making
process.

3.3. PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsshould
makeplanningdecisionsbasedonthedevelopmentplangivingappropriateanddue
weighttoallmaterialplanningconsiderations.Theseshouldbesetoutanddetailedin
thePlanningOfficer'sreportanditssupportinginformation.

WheretheHeadofPlanningconsidersitappropriateforPlanningCommitteeMembers
orBoardMemberstoreceiveinformationeitheronaproposedorexistingplanning
applicationearlyintheplanningprocess,oneormoreofthefollowingmethodsof
supplyinginformationwillbeused:

3.3.1. briefingstoallPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanning
decisionsearlyonintheplanningprocess.Applicantscanpresenttheirapplication
proposalstothePlanningCommitteeorBoardmakingplanningdecisionsduring
pre-application;ideally,whentheapplicationorproposalisatthedraftstagebefore
itgoesouttopublicconsultationandagainbeforetheapplicationissubmitted.
ApplicantscanbeaskedquestionsbyPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoard
Membersmakingplanningdecisionswhowilleventuallytakethedecisionontheir
planningapplication,andPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmaking
planningdecisionscanfindthattheprocessenablesthemtogetadeeper
understandingoftheapplicationastheproposalsdevelop.Applicantswhowishto
addressthePlanningCommitteeorBoardmakingplanningdecisionsatthemeeting
wheretheapplicationistobedeterminedmaydosoinaccordancewith
arrangementsadoptedbythePlanningCommitteeandpublishedfromtimetotime
ontheCorporation'swebsite;

3.3.2. ashortbriefinglettertoallPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembers
makingplanningdecisions,copiedtotherelevantPlanningOfficer,toprovide
informationonkeydetailsoftheproposaltoPlanningCommitteeMembersor
BoardMembersmakingplanningdecisions;

3.3.3. anexhibitionwhereallPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmaking
planningdecisionsandaPlanningOfficerhavebeenofferedtheopportunityto
attend.WheretheentirePlanningCommitteeorBoardmakingplanningdecisions
cannotattendsimultaneously,PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembers
makingplanningdecisionsshouldattendanexhibitionwithatleastoneother
PlanningCommitteeMemberorBoardMembermakingplanningdecisions,ora
PlanningOfficer.AllPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmaking
planningdecisionsshouldbeencouragedtoattendthesetogetagoodideaofhow
aproposeddevelopmentwilllook.PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembers
makingplanningdecisionsmayaskquestionsoftheapplicants;

Page 130



3.3.4. SuchexhibitionsmaybearrangedexclusivelyforPlanningCommitteeMembersand
PlanningOfficers,suchasaprivateviewingofapublicexhibition,ormaybeopen
toallmembersofthepublic,inwhichcasePlanningCommitteeMembersmay
attendtheexhibitionasamatterofcourse.

3.3.5. ameetingwithPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanning
decisionswhenaccompaniedbyaPlanningOfficer,whereallPlanningCommittee
MembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionshavebeenofferedthe
opportunitytoattend;wheretheentirePlanningCommitteeorBoardmaking
planningdecisionscannotattendsimultaneously,PlanningCommitteeMembersor
BoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsshouldonlyattendsuchameetingwith
atleastoneotherPlanningCommitteeMemberorBoardMembermakingplanning
decisionsoraPlanningOfficer;

3.3.6. asitevisitwherePlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanning
decisionsareaccompaniedbyaPlanningOfficerandwhereallPlanningCommittee
MembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionshavebeenofferedthe
opportunitytoattendpriortothePlanningCommitteemeetingorBoardmeeting
makingplanningdecisionswheretheapplicationormatteristobedetermined.Site
visitsbyPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanning
decisionsareimportantintheunderstandingandconsiderationofstrategicplanning
applications.Afterthesitevisit,thebriefingcontinuesatameetingwherethe
applicantpresentstheschemeandPlanningOfficerssummarisepolicyandother
issuesforconsideration.

3.4. PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsshould
avoidprivatediscussionsorcorrespondencewithrelevantstakeholders,includingas
applicabletheapplicantorlocalresidents,aboutanapplicationorprospective
applicationorotheractualorprospectivemattertobeconsideredordeterminedbythe
Corporationaslocalplanningauthority.PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoard
Membersmakingplanningdecisionsshouldencouragerelevantinformation,
representationsand/orcorrespondenceaboutanapplicationorprospectiveapplication
orotheractualorprospectivemattertobeconsideredordeterminedbythe
CorporationaslocalplanningauthoritytobedirectedtowardsthewholePlanning
CommitteeorBoardmakingplanningdecisionsorPlanningOfficers.

3.5. Allinformationinrelationtoanapplicationorprospectiveapplicationorotheractualor
prospectivemattertobeconsideredordeterminedbytheCorporationaslocalplanning
authorityreceivedbyPlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmaking
planningdecisionsshouldbeforwardedtotherelevantPlanningOfficerwhowill
determinewhethertocirculatetheinformationtoPlanningCommitteeMembersor
BoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsonthebasisthatitprovidesadditional,
relevantdetailthatbenefitstheplanningdecision-makingprocess.

3.6. ThirdpartiesapproachingPlanningCommitteeMembersand/orBoardMembers
makingplanningdecisionsshouldbeencouragedtowritetotherelevantPlanning
Officer.

3.7. Thesamestandardsasapplytothirdparties(inparagraphs3.5&3.6above)shouldbe
appliedwherePlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanning

Page 131


decisionsaresubjecttolobbyingbyotherBoardMembersorbyoronbehalfof
anotherlocalauthority.

3.8. Whereapproachedbyanapplicantoranyotherinterestedpartyinrespectofan
applicationorprospectiveapplicationorotheractualorprospectivemattertobe
consideredordeterminedbytheCorporationaslocalplanningauthority,aPlanning
CommitteeMemberorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsshouldmakeitclear
thathe/shewillmaintainanopenmindaboutthemeritsoftheapplicationasawhole
andwillnotbeinapositiontomakeafinaldecisiononsuchapplicationormatteruntil
alltherelevantevidenceandsubmissionshavebeenplacedbeforethePlanning
CommitteemeetingorBoardmeetingmakingplanningdecisionswhentheapplication
ormatterisconsidered.

4. Pre-andpost-planningapplicationdiscussions

4.1. Pre-applicationandpost-applicationdiscussionsinrelationtoplanningapplications
canbeofconsiderablebenefittoboththeCorporationaslocalplanningauthorityand
applicants.Althoughtheterm"pre-application"hasbeenused,thesame
considerationsshouldapplytoanydiscussionconcerninganyotherplanningmatter
whichtakesplacewiththeCorporationbeforeadecisionhasbeentakeninrelationto
it.Inordertoensurethatthesediscussionsdonotbecome,andarenotseento
become,partofthelobbyingprocessforthebenefitofapplicants,theCorporation
expectsthat:

4.1.1. pre-applicationmeetingsordiscussions(includingtelephonediscussions)inrelation
toaprospectiveplanningapplicationorotherplanningmatterheldwiththe
Corporationinitscapacityaslocalplanningauthorityshouldbeconductedinthe
presenceofaPlanningOfficer;

4.1.2. pre-applicationmeetingsordiscussions(includingtelephonediscussions)inrelation
toaprospectiveplanningapplicationorotherplanningmatterheldwiththe
Corporationinanyothercapacity(i.e.notintheCorporation'scapacityaslocal
planningauthority)shouldberecordedassuch;

4.1.3. awrittennoteshouldbemadeofallpre-applicationmeetingsordiscussions
(includingtelephonediscussions)inrelationtoaprospectiveplanningapplicationor
otherplanningmatterheldwiththeCorporationinitscapacityaslocalplanning
authorityandbeplacedontheapplicationfile(orpre-applicationfileifappropriate)
toshowatransparentapproach.APlanningOfficerwouldbestmakethe
arrangementsforsuchmeetingsordiscussions,attendandwriteafollow-upletter.
Sometimesconfidentialityisneededandshouldberespected.However,
confidentialityofadvicebyrepresentativesofapublicbodyonaplanningmatter
willnormallyberare.Ifthereisalegitimatereasonforconfidentiality,anoteofthe
non-confidentialissuesraisedoradvicegivenshouldstillnormallyberecordedon
thefiletoreassureothersnotpartytothemeetingordiscussion;

4.1.4. applicantsand/orprospectiveapplicantsshouldbeinformedfromtheoutsetof
theirmeetingordiscussionthatanymeetingordiscussionwillnotbindthe
Corporationaslocalplanningauthoritytomakeaparticulardecisiononan
applicationormatterandthatanyviewsexpressedarepersonalandprovisional.By
theverynatureofsuchmeetingsordiscussionsnotallrelevantinformationmaybe
athand,norwillformalconsultationswithinterestedpartieshavetakenplace;

Page 132



4.1.5. consistentadviceshouldbegivenbyPlanningOfficersbaseduponthedevelopment
planandmaterialconsiderations.AllPlanningOfficerstakingpartinsuch
discussionsshouldmakeitclearwhetherornottheyaretheplanningdecisionmaker;and

4.1.6. anyadvicegiventoapplicantsorprospectiveplanningapplicantsisimpartialand
shouldbeseentobeimpartial.

5. Avoidingpredetermination

5.1. PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsmust
avoidanyappearanceofhavingpredeterminedtheirviewsbeforetakingadecisionon
aplanningrelatedmatter.Predeterminationmeansamindalreadyclosedtothe
planningissueswhicharerelevanttothedecision.PlanningCommitteeMembersor
BoardMembersmustaddresstheplanningissuesonthematterbeforethemfairlyand
ontheirmeritseventhoughtheymaystartwithapredispositioninfavourofoneside
oftheargumentortheother.
5.2. PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsdonot
haveaclosedmindjustbecausetheysitoncommitteeswheredecisionsaremade
aboutthepromotionofdevelopmentorifsuchdecisionsaremadeattheBoardwhen
theyarepresent.However,PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmaking
planningdecisionsmustavoidbecomingsocommittedtoadevelopmentthatisthe
subjectofanapplicationinanothercapacity(includingasamemberoftheCorporation
oroneofitsotherCommittees)thattheymaybeunabletodemonstratethattheycan
takeintoaccountalltheconsiderationsmaterialtoitsdetermination.

6. SitevisitsforPlanningCommitteeorBoardmakingplanningdecisions

6.1. TheCorporationconsidersthatwhereasitevisitisundertakeninrelationtoaplanning
decisionsmatter,thefollowingrequirementsshouldbemet:

6.1.1.formalsitevisitsbythePlanningCommitteeorBoardmakingplanningdecisions
shouldbetriggeredbyadvicefromtherelevantPlanningOfficerorbyarequestfrom
PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisions.All
PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisionsshouldbe
giventheopportunitytoattend.APlanningOfficermustalsoattend;

6.1.2.PlanningCommitteeMembersorBoardMembersmakingplanningdecisions
shouldavoidunofficialvisitstositesinthepresenceofanapplicantwhereaplanning
applicationhasbeensubmittedorislikelytobesubmittedorthepersonwhois
affectedormaybeaffectedbytheconsiderationordeterminationoftherelevant
matter.ShouldaPlanningCommitteeMemberorBoardMembermakingplanning
decisionshavevisitedasitewithanapplicantorprospectiveapplicantorrelevant
affectedorprospectivelyaffectedperson,he/sheshouldnotifytherelevantPlanning
Officerandsupplytherelevantdetailstobeincludedinanotetobeplacedinthe
planningapplicationormatterfile;

6.1.3.theattendanceofanapplicantorprospectiveapplicantorrelevantaffectedor
prospectivelyaffectedpersonortheiragentsataformalsitevisitshouldbetoanswer
questionsabouttheplanningapplicationormatterbutnottomakeapresentation
abouttheplanningapplicationormatter;and

Page 133



6.1.4.arecordofthesitevisit,includingdetailsofquestionsraisedandinformation
suppliedbytheapplicantorpersoninresponse,shouldbemadebytherelevant
PlanningOfficer,placedintheplanningapplicationormatterfileandnotedinthe
relevantPlanningOfficer'sreporttothePlanningCommitteeorBoardmeeting.

7. CompliancewiththisPlanningCode,complaintsandrecord-keeping

7.1. ItisimportantthatBoardMembersandPlanningCommitteeMembersreceivetraining
inproceduralandprobityrulesplusthebasicsofspatialplanninganddevelopment
managementbeforetheymakeanyplanningdecisions.Refreshersessionsshouldalso
beavailable.

7.2. WhereBoardMembersorPlanningCommitteeMembersareuncertainastohowto
applythisPlanningCodeinaparticularinstance,theyshouldseekadvicefromthe
HeadofPlanningandortheGeneralCounsel.

7.3. TheCorporationtakesresponsibilityfortrainingPlanningCommitteeMembersand
BoardMembersintheoperationofthisPlanningCode.AllnewPlanningCommittee
MembersandBoardMembersshouldundertaketheCorporation'strainingonthis
PlanningCodepriortocommencingtheirroleasavotingmemberofthePlanning
CommitteeorsittingontheBoardmakingaplanningdecision.ContinuingPlanning
CommitteeMembersandBoardMembersshouldalsoattend"refresher"training
sessionsasrequired.AllPlanningCommitteeMembersandBoardMembersmaking
planningdecisionsshouldensuretheyarefamiliarwiththisPlanningCodeandare
responsibleforensuringthattheybehaveaccordingtoitsrequirements.

7.4. AnycomplaintsabouttheadherenceoftherelevantBoardMembers,Planning
CommitteeMembersandPlanningOfficerstothisPlanningCodewillbehandled
accordingtotheGLAComplaintsProcedures(untilsuchtimeastheCorporationadopts
itsowncomplaintsprocedure)andtheCorporationsCodeofConduct.

Page 134

Agenda Item 11




Subject:
OPDCBrandingandLogo
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

Fordecision
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary

1.1 ThisreportsetsouttheproposedapproachforthemarketingofOldOakandPark
Royalincludingdevelopmentofafuturebrandandlogofortheregenerationarea.
2

Recommendations
Theboardisinvitedto:

2.1 Agreetheproposedmarketingapproachtoareviewofthecorporatelogo,naming
structureandbranddevelopmentofOPDCandtheregenerationarea;
2.2 AgreetodelegatetheworkprogrammetotheInterimChiefExecutiveOfficer;
2.3 AgreetonominateOPDCBoardMemberAmandaSoutertobetheOPDCBoard
MarketingChampion;and
2.4 NotethatupdatesonlogoandbranddevelopmentwillbebroughttotheBoardat
suitableopportunities.
3

Background

3.1 Itwasagreedatthe1April2015OPDCBoardmeetingthatfurtherworkshouldtake
placeonthedesignandbrandingoftheCorporationsseal.Thisreportsetsoutawider
strategyfocusedonthedevelopmentofabrandandlogofortheregenerationareaof
OldOakandParkRoyal,aswellasthedevelopmentofacorporatelogoandbrandfor
theCorporation.
3.2 TheareacontainedwithintheCorporationsboundaryhasbeenknowntothelocal
communityundermanydifferentnamesovertheyears,andtherecentdevelopment
interesthassinceresultedintheriseofanumberofnewnames.Theseoldandnew
namesrangefromParkRoyal,ParkRoyalCity,ParkRoyalBusinessPark,OldOak
Common,OldOak,andmorerecentlyasOldOakParkandNewQueensPark,tonamea
few.Giventhescaleofdevelopmentinterestandthesignificantchangethatthearea
Page 135

willexperienceduetothemajortransportinvestmentinthenewHS2,Crossrailand
GWMLstations,itwouldbehelpfulfortheCorporationtosetoutaproposalfor
developingandagreeingabrand,namingandlogofortheregenerationarea.
3.3 TheCorporationitselfhasaninterimcorporatelogoandbrand,whichfollowsasimilar
modeltotheotherMayoralDevelopmentCorporation,theLondonLegacy
DevelopmentCorporation(LLDC).LLDCisthecorporatebrandfortheMDCat
Stratford,muchthesameasOPDCisthecorporatebrandfortheMDCatOldOak
andParkRoyal.TheLLDChasaseparatebrandandlogoforitsregenerationareathat
ithasdevelopedoveraperiodoftime.ItisknownastheQueenElizabethOlympicPark
anditslogo,showninAppendixA,isthelogousedbytheLLDCforallits
communicationsregardingtheregenerationarea.Whatthisproposalseekstodoislay
outthestrategythattheOPDCwilltaketorealiseaseparatebrandandlogoforthe
regenerationareaatOldOakandParkRoyal.
4

Proposal

4.1 AdvicehasbeensoughtfromtheLLDC,theGLAsMarketingdepartmentand
independentbrandingandidentityconsultants.Alladvicehasconsistentlywarned
againstdevelopingabrandandlogotooearlyintothelifeofanorganisationand
project.Inparticularformajorregenerationprojectsitisessentialfordetailed
engagementtotakeplacewiththelocalresidentialandbusinesscommunitiesto
understandthehistory,values,aspirationsandDNAofaplacetoinformthenewname
orlogoforanewplaceorregenerationscheme.Anysuchengagementneedstobe
undertakensensitively,genuinelyandtransparentlysothatthefinalproductisnotonly
authenticbutissomethingthatpeoplerecognise,buy-intoandown.Inparticular,itis
importanttounderstandcurrentlevelsofawarenessandtakeintoconsiderationthe
equityofestablishednamessuchasParkRoyal.Withoutastrategyandapproachthat
involvesextensiveconsultationandaudienceresearchtoensureimmediateaudience
recognitionandbuy-intoanewname,logoorbrand,muchmoretimeandinvestment
incommunicationsandmarketingwouldbeneededforanybrandingtogaintraction
andrecognitionamongthepublic. 
4.2 SimilarapproacheshavebeentakenrecentlynotonlyattheQueenElizabethOlympic
Park,butalsoatLiverpoolWaters(nowknownasWirralWaters)whichiscurrentlythe
UKslargestregenerationscheme.Inlightoftheaboveadvice,itisproposedthat
OPDCengagespecialistadvisorstoassistwiththedevelopmentofapermanent
regenerationareabrandandlogowhentheorganisationhasbeddeddown,intheearly
autumn.Itisestimatedthatthisworkcouldtakeintheregionofsixmonthsifdone
properly.
4.3 Inadvanceofthedevelopmentofapermanentregenerationareabrandandlogo,a
holdinglogoandbrandwillbepreparedoverthesummerforthepurposesof
consultingwithlocalcommunitieswhentheLocalPlanconsultationcommencesin
September.ThisworkwillbedoneviatheOPDCssharedservicesarrangementwith
GLAmarketing.
4.4 ItisproposedthatamemberoftheOPDCBoardwithrelevantskillsandexperienceto
advisetheInterimChiefExecutiveOfficerontheworkprogrammeandoutputsis
nominatedasOPDCBoardmarketingchampionforthisworkandallfutureassociated
OPDCmarketingwork.Givenherstrongprofessionalexperienceworkingin
Page 136

communicationsandbranddevelopmentformanyyears,andgivenherpositionasthe
localresidentontheOPDCBoard,itisrecommendedthatAmandaSoutertakeonthis
role.TheOPDCexecutiveteamwillworkcloselywithAmandaandupdatestothe
boardwillbemadeasappropriate.
4.5 Inseekingtobeexemplarineverythingitdoes,theOPDCwillworktoensurethat
digitalbrandingandcustomerfocusedmarketingwillbepursuedwhereverpossible.
5

FinancialImplications

5.1 Allfinancialimplicationsassociatedwiththerecommendationsinthisreportwillbe
accommodatedwithintheOPDCBudget.
6

LegalImplications

6.1 Noparticularlegalimplicationsarisefromthisreportanditisconsistentwiththe
Corporationslegalframework.
7

Appendices
AppendixALondonLegacyDevelopmentCorporationLogos


BackgroundPapers
None

Reportoriginator: AlexandraReitman,ProgrammeManager,OPDC
Telephone: 
02079834804
Email:

alexandra.reitman@opdc.london.gov.uk

Page 137

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 138


AppendixA
LondonLegacyDevelopmentCorporationLogos

Image1:LLDCCorporateLogo


Image2:LLDCRegenerationAreaLogo


Page 139

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 140

Agenda Item 12




Subject:
OPDCBusinessPlan
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

Fordecision
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary

1.1 ThisreportseeksBoardapprovalfortheCorporationstwo-yearBusinessPlanfortheperiod
2015/162016/17.ThisfollowsapprovaloftheMayorofLondonsconsolidatedbudgetand
capitalspendingplaninMarch2015,andtheapprovalbytheBoardoftheOPDCsbudgetfor
thesameperiodinApril2015.

Recommendation
TheBoardisinvitedto: 

2.1 AgreetheOPDCBusinessPlaninAppendixA,subjecttoanycomments.
3

Background
OPDCbusinessplanning

3.1 TheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation(OPDC)isastatutorybodyset
upunderthepowersoftheLocalismAct2011,andisresponsibleforpromotingand
deliveringphysical,social,economicandenvironmentalregenerationinOldOak,Park
Royalandthesurroundingarea.TheOPDChasplanningpowersandregeneration
responsibilitywithinitsboundaries.
3.2 TheCorporationhaspreparedaBusinessPlantocovertwoyearsfromApril2015to
March2017.Thisistoalignwiththeexistingsecuredfundingin2015/16and
2016/17.
3.3 Thetwo-yearperiodwillbefocusedontheestablishmentoftheCorporationand
deliveryoftheLocalPlan.Thesetwoyearswillbecrucialforbuildingastrongvision
andcompellingpropositionfortheareathatgivesGovernment,theprivatesector,and
investorstheconfidencetoinvestintheinfrastructurenecessarytounlock
development;engagingexistingcommunitiesinearlyactivationactivitiestogivethema
strongsenseofownershipoftheemergingnewcommunity.TheCorporationwill
furthermorefocusonlayingthefoundationsfortransformationalchangethrough

Page 141

robustplanningandregenerationpolicyandtransparentgovernancearrangements,
providingclearandconsistentleadershipandincentivesforkeystakeholdersto
collaboratealongsidearobustdeliveryprogrammethatsetsoutwhere,andwhen,
developmentwilltakeplace.
3.4 Thebusinessplanbuildsonmilestonesachievedpriortotheformalestablishmentof
theOPDCon1April.ThisincludestheMayorsdesignationoftheMayoral
DevelopmentAreafollowingconsiderationbytheLondonAssemblyinDecember2014,
andtheresultinglegislationcomingintoeffecttoestablishtheMayoralDevelopment
CorporationandtransferplanningpowerstotheCorporation.Workwhichhasbeen
undertakentosupportthedevelopmentoftheMayorsOAPF,whichwillalsofeedinto
theforthcomingLocalPlan,isalsoincluded.
3.5 TheOPDCbudgetwasapprovedbytheBoardatitsApril2015meeting,showingthat
overthenexttwoyears,externalfundingfortheoperationoftheOPDCwillcomefrom
theGLA.TheMayorsconsolidatedbudgetandcapitalspendingplanfor2015/16were
approvedbytheLondonAssemblyinMarch2015,andincludedseedfundingforOPDC
tocoverthetwoyearperiodofthisBusinessPlan.AstheOPDCwasnotestablished
before1April2015,theOPDCsproposedexpenditurefor2015-16wasincludedwithin
theGLAsbudget.
3.6 TheBusinessPlanseekstoensurethemosteffectiveuseofpublicmoney,tolaythe
foundationsforlong-termregenerationandgrowth.Giventheinfancyofthe
Corporation,itisenvisagedthatafiveyearBusinessPlanispreparedoncethe
organisationhasbeddeddownandalongertermfundingpositionhasbeenestablished.
4

StructureandContent

4.1 TheBusinessPlansetsoutthevisionandobjectivesoftheOPDC,andidentifiessome
ofthelongandshorttermchallengesfortheorganisation.Theworkprogramme
outlinespriorityoutcomes,workstreamsandmilestonesforthenexttwoyears,grouped
intofiveworkareas:Planning,RegenerationandStrategicPartnerships,Commercial,
CommunicationsandPublicRelations,andExecutiveProgrammeofficeandCorporate
Governance.
4.2 TheCorporationsorganisationalstructureissetoutinSection7,incomeand
expenditureinformationisconsolidatedinSection8,andinformationoncorporaterisks
isconsolidatedinSection9.
5

NextSteps

5.1 FollowingBoardapproval(andsubjecttocommentsfromtheBoard)theBusinessPlan
willbepublishedontheCorporationswebsite,inlinewiththeCorporationsschemeof
publicationtoprovideapublicstatementoftheCorporationsprogramme.
6

FinancialImplications

6.1 FundingwillbeprovidedbywayofgrantfromtheGLApayableagainstmonthlyclaims.



Page 142

LegalImplications

7.1 TheGreaterLondonAuthorityAct1999setsoutthearrangementsfortheGreater
LondonAuthorityconsolidatedbudgetprocess:followingpublicconsultation,the
MayorofLondonpresentshisbudgetproposalsfortheGreaterLondonAuthorityand
functionalbodiestotheLondonAssemblyforapproval.TheLocalismAct2011defines
Mayoraldevelopmentcorporationsasfunctionalbodies.
7.2 TheOPDCsFinancialRegulations(asadoptedbytheOPDCBoardApril2015)setsout
theCorporationsdutyundersection127oftheGreaterLondonAuthorityAct1999for
theproperadministrationoftheCorporationsfinancialresources.
7.3 Undersection201(2)oftheLocalismAct2011,OPDChasthepowertodoanythingit
considersappropriateforthepurposesofitsobject,orforpurposesincidentaltothose
purposes.TheobjectofOPDCistosecuretheregenerationofitsarea.Thepublication
ofthisBusinessPlanwouldbeconsistentwiththepowercontainedinsection201(2).
8

Appendices
AppendixAOPDCBusinessPlan

BackgroundPapers
None


Reportoriginator: AlexandraReitman,ProgrammeManager,OPDC
Telephone: 
02079834804
Email:

alexandra.reitman@opdc.london.gov.uk


Page 143

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 144

TwoYearBusinessPlan
2015/16&2016/17




1
Page 145

CONTENTS
CHAIRMANS FOREWORD .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... Page 4
1

OUR VISION ........................................................................................................... Page 8

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... Page 9

CHALLENGES ....................................................................................................... Page 18

OUR OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ Page 19

OUTCOMES ......................................................................................................... Page21

OUR WORK PROGRAMME BY DIRECTORATE...................................................................

7
8
9

6.1

Planning ............................................................................................... Page 22

6.2

Regeneration and Strategic Partnerships ........................................... Page 25

6.3

Communications and Public Relations ................................................ Page 28

6.4

Executive Programme Office and Corporate Governance ................ Page 29

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ........................................................................... Page 32



FINANCE AND BUDGET ....................................................................................... Page 34

CORPORATE RISKS ......................... .Page 40

10. APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................



1
2










Governance Structure
Staffing Structure ..............................................................................................

2
Page 146


ChairmansForeword

[tobeadded]




3
Page 147

ExecutiveSummary

OldOakistheonlyplacewhereHighSpeed2meetsCrossrail.Theconnectivitythesetwomega
transportprojectsproviderepresentsanexceptionalopportunitytodeliverthelargest
regenerationprojecttheUKhasseensincethe2012Games.Thereisarealopportunityto
deliveranexemplarplaceforanewcommunitythatcouldredefinethestandardsofplacemaking.

TheMayorrecognisestheonceinalifetimeopportunityofthenationallysignificantinvestment
goingintoOldOakCommontodeliveranewHighSpeed2,CrossrailandGreatWestMainLine
interchange,totransformthewiderareaintoasustainablenewdistrict,andsecuresignificant
benefitsintermsofmuch-neededhousing,jobs,economicandcommunitybenefits.
Redevelopmentoftheareahasthepotentialtodeliver24,000newhomesand55,000jobsin
OldOakand1,500newhomesand10,000jobsinParkRoyal.

Inordertoharnessthesebenefitsanddriveforwardasinglerobustdevelopmentplanforthe
area,theMayorhasestablishedtheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation(OPDC)
asaMayoralDevelopmentCorporation(MDC)tohaveoverarchingresponsibilityforplanning
andleadingtransformationalchangeanddevelopmentatOldOak,whilealsoseekingto
safeguardandregenerateEuropeslargestindustrialestateatParkRoyal.TogetherOldOak
andParkRoyalformthelargestregenerationsiteinLondon.Havingasingleorganisationto
driveregenerationoftheareawillalsogivegreatercertaintyoverplanning,decision-making
andinvestment.

OPDCisaGLAFunctionalBody,andonlythesecondMDCtobecreatedunderpowersgivento
theMayorthroughtheLocalismAct2011,todriveregenerationinkeyareasofLondonthat
typicallyspanboroughboundaries.

TheLondonLegacyDevelopmentCorporation(LLDC)thefirstMDCcoveringQueen
ElizabethOlympicPark(QEOP),andspanningfourboroughs,hasbeentremendously
successfulsofar,in:

Deliveringeconomicvalueofover5billioninthearea,includingover20,000new
homesconsented,andover4,000underconstructionasofOctober2014;
Securinglong-termprivatesectorfuturesforalllegacyvenuesinQueenElizabeth
OlympicPark(QEOP),re-openingthePark,andwelcomingfourandahalfmillion
visitors;
Settingoutambitiousplansforaculturalandhighereducationquarter,includingmany
prestigiousinstitutions(VictoriaandAlbertMuseum,UniversityCollegeLondonand
UniversityoftheArtsLondon),knownasOlympicopolis,thatwillcreate3,000
additionaljobsonthePark,takingthenumberofjobscreatedontheParkto15,000by
2025.

Inseekingtoemulatethissuccess,theMayorspurposeincreatingOPDCasanewMDCthat
willprovideclearleadershipandcoordinationforthissignificantregenerationproject,andact
asasinglepointofcontactforthelocalresidentialandbusinesscommunities,developers,
investors,landownersandtransportagencies,isto:


Promoteanddeliverphysical,social,economicandenvironmentalregenerationatOldOak
andParkRoyal.TheCorporationwouldworktosecuremaximumbenefitsfromthenewly
plannedtransportinterchangesofHighSpeed2,CrossrailandLondonOvergroundstations.


4
Page 148


TheCorporationwouldplanforsignificantfuturegrowthatOldOak;andfortheprotectionand
regenerationoftheindustrialareasofParkRoyal.AcentralobjectiveoftheCorporationwould
betosecurehigh-qualitysustainabledevelopmentandinvestmentforthebenefitofthearea
andthecommunitiesthatsurroundit.


TorealisethevisionforOldOakandParkRoyal,theCorporationhassetfourlong-term
strategicobjectives:


CREATE:Tocreateanexemplarysustainable,successfulandinclusivenewurban
neighbourhoodatOldOak,supportingdeliveryof24,000newhomesinOldOakand
1,500innon-industriallocationsinParkRoyal,thatincludeamixofhousingaffordable
andmarkettenuresandtypologiesthatmeettheneedsofnewandexistingresidents,
andsecuringbestpracticearchitectureandurbandesignandsocial,physicalandgreen
infrastructurethatcreatesavibrant,exemplaranddistinctiveplace,andcontributesto
integratedandsustainablecommunities,andensurethatnewdevelopmentsafeguards
nearbyamenityassetssuchWormwoodScrubsandtheGrandUnionCanal;

CONNECT:TousethecatalystofthenewHighSpeed2(HS2),CrossrailandGreat
WestMainLineinterchangeandnewandimprovedlocaltransportconnectionsto
regenerateandpromotetheareaasLondonsbestconnecteddevelopmentlocation
thatmakesasignificantcontributiontoLondonscompetitiveness,inawaythatis
sustainable,attractslongterminvestment,meetslocalneeds,andsupportsthestrategic
long-termprioritiesinTheMayorsLondonPlan2015;

COMMUNITY:Topromoteeconomicgrowththathelpsaddressdeprivationand
reducesinequalityforlocalcommunitiesandLondoners,bycoordinatingthe
developmentandstewardshipofpublicsectorlandandassets,supportingthecreation
of55,000newjobsatOldOakandafurther10,000newjobsatParkRoyal,and
workingwiththeboroughs,keystakeholders,businesses,educationproviders,the
healthsectorandlocalcommunitiestoensurelocalaccountabilityandinvolvement;

CONSOLIDATE:ToprotectandenhanceParkRoyalasaStrategicIndustrialLocation
andtheUKslargestandmostsuccessfulindustrialpark,ensuringinvestmentthatwill
enhanceexistingoperations,maximisetheareasindustrialfullpotential,supportthe
smoothtransitionofbusinessandindustrialrelocations,explorestheopportunityto
attractnewtechnologyclusterssuchascleantechnologies,workingwiththebusiness
communitytosupportlocaljobcreationforthelocalcommunityandbeyond.


TheCorporationhaspreparedthisbusinessplantocovertwoyearsfromApril2015toMarch
2017.Thisistoalignwiththeexistingsecuredfundingin2015/16and2016/17.Inaddition,
giventheinfancyoftheCorporation,itisenvisagedthatafiveyearbusinessplanisprepared
oncetheorganisationhasbeddeddown,andalongertermfundingpositionhasbeen
established.

Thesefirsttwoyearswillbecrucialforbuildingastrongvisionandcompellingpropositionfor
theareathatgivesGovernment,theprivatesector,andinvestorstheconfidencetoinvestin
theinfrastructurenecessarytounlockdevelopment;engagingexistingcommunitiesinearly

5
Page 149


activationactivitiestogivethemastrongsenseofownershipoftheemergingnew
neighbourhood,andgivingprospectivenewerarrivalstheconfidencetomakeittheirlocation
ofchoice.TheCorporationwillcreatethefoundationsfortransformationalchangethrough
robustplanningandregenerationpolicyandtransparentgovernancearrangementsthatprovide
clearandconsistentleadershipandincentivesforkeystakeholderstocollaborate;alongsidea
robustdeliveryprogrammethatsetsoutwhere,andwhen,developmentwilltakeplace.


Thechallengesassociatedwithdeliveringthisscaleofregenerationcannotbeunderestimated.
In2014theHS2GrowthTaskForcenotedthatwecannotexpecttogetthemostoutofHS2
simplybyfollowingabusinessasusualmodel.TheTaskForcereportidentifiedfourareasof
focustoensurewecanallmaximisethebenefitsfromthisnewinfrastructure:

Getourcitiesready:On1April2015OldOakandParkRoyalDevelopment
Corporationwasestablishedasalocaldeliverybodytogovernanddriveregeneration.
Getourtransportnetworksready:OPDCisthelocalplanningauthorityforOldOak
andParkRoyalandiscoordinatingtransportdeliveryinthearea.
Getourpeopleready:OPDCfullysupportseducationandskillstrainingintheUK
labourmarkettoensurewearereadytodelivernewHS2infrastructure.OPDCiskeen
foraspokeoftheHS2hubandspoketrainingandskillsmodeltobelocatedatOld
OakanddiscussionsarealreadyunderwaywithHS2onhowbesttoachievethis.
Getourbusinessesready:TheOldOakinterchangestationsitsadjacenttheUKs
largestindustrialestate,whichaccommodatesover2,000industrialbusinessesand
44,000employees.Thereisafantasticopportunityforexistinglocalbusinessesto
benefitfromandplayanimportantroleinhelpingtobuildthisnewinfrastructure.

ThisbusinessplanbuildsonconsiderableprogressthathasalreadybeenmadesincetheMayor
proposedtodesignateOldOakandParkRoyalasaMayoraldevelopmentareaandestablished
theOPDC.Thisincludes:

SecuringLondonAssemblyconsiderationoftheMayorsproposalsforthenewMDCat
OldOakon17December,pavingthewayfortheMayortodesignatetheMayoral
DevelopmentArea,whichhedidformallyon30December2014;
LayingofanestablishmentordersignalledtheGovernmentsgo-aheadforOPDC;
Layingofaplanningfunctionsorderwhichwillseethetransferofplanningpowersfrom
thelocalauthoritiestotheOPDC,whichbecamethelocalplanningauthorityon1April;
DevelopmentofanOpportunityAreaPlanningFramework(OAPF),whichiscurrently
outforpublicconsultation;
Developmentofacommunityengagementprogramme,withthefirstdraftofthe
CommunityCharterandOAPFconsultationstrategyunderway;
Progressingpre-applicationdiscussionswithmajordevelopers,includingCarGiant,QPR
andGenesis;
Completionofadevelopmentinfrastructure(DIF)study,providingfoundationsforthe
evidencebasethatwillberequiredfortheLocalPlan,andCommunityInfrastructure
Levy(CIL)development;
ProgressingaGrowthStrategyforOPDCincludingaDIFstudy,financialmodelandan
OutlineBusinessCasetoinformtheComprehensiveSpendingReview2015andthe
autumnstatement;
Conveningmeetingsofthepublicsectorlandownersforumtosecurealignmentof
interestsbetweenthemajorpublicsectorlandowners,NetworkRail,DfT,TfL,London
BoroughofHammersmithandFulham,andinthefuture,HS2;


6
Page 150

AgreementofaninprincipalMemorandumofUnderstandingwithLondonand
ContinentalRailways,workingonbehalfoftheDfT,toagreecollaborativeworkingon
thepubliclandstrategyatOldOak;
Workonoperationalreadiness,includingconsultationwiththeLondonAssemblyon
sharedservicesataGLAOversightCommitteeon24February.Secretariatsupporthas
beensecuredbytheGLASecretariatservicessothattheOPDCBoardwillbefully
functionalfrom1April;
PreparationoffutureOPDCgovernancestructurepost1April;
RecruitmentofOPDCBoardmembersandaChairofthePlanningCommittee;
PresentationofOldOakandParkRoyalasanexcitingdevelopmentopportunityin
LondonatMIPIM,theannualpropertyevent.
AppointmentofaninterimteamforthepurposeofestablishingtheOPDC.



Thisplansetsouttheprogrammesandinvestmentsthatwillachievetheobjectives,supported
byfundingfromtheMayorofLondon.

Duringtheperiodofthisbusinessplan,theCorporationwilldeliveranumberofoutputs,
including:

PublicationofanOldOakandParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanningFramework
(OAPF),andadoptionofaLocalPlanandCILChargingScheduletohelprealisethe
areasgrowthpotential;

PlanningandDevelopmentguidanceon:transport,constructionandlogistics,
integratedutilitiesmanagementplan,SMARTpublicrealmstrategy,section106SPD,
amenityspacemasterplananddetailedurbandesignguidance;

AGrowthStrategyfortheareatomakethecasetoGovernmentandotherfunding
partnersforearlyinvestmenttosupportkeystrategicinfrastructure;

ADeliveryStrategy,includingphasingoflandassembly,acoordinatedinfrastructure
plantosupportintegrateddeliveryacrossthearea,includingutilities,transportand
socialinfrastructureincludinghealthandeducationproviders;

ACommunityCharterandearlyactivationprojectstobuildlocalownershipofthe
redevelopmentprocess;

AnInvestmentProspectus,settingoutdevelopmentopportunitiesintheareafor
potentialinvestors;

AnEmploymentandSkillsStrategy,settingouthowtheCorporationwillworkwithlocal
educationproviders,theboroughcouncils,HS2andotherstoplanforandcapturethe
opportunitiesforthelocalcommunities;

ACommunicationsStrategythatwillprovideacompellingnarrativeforthisnewLondon
neighbourhoodandincreasingawarenessofthescaleoftheopportunity;

AnoverarchingPerformanceManagementFrameworkfortheOldOakandParkRoyal
Redevelopmentprogramme;



7
Page 151

ServiceLevelAgreementsforSharedServices.



TheOPDCfacessignificantchallenges-asaneworganisationitwillneedto:

Builditsreputationandcredibilityquicklysothatitisseentoaddvaluetolocal
developmentefforts;fosteringandsecuringbuy-intoacomprehensiveand
coordinatedapproachtolandpooling,infrastructuredeliveryandmasterplanningof
theareabypublicandprivatesectorlandowners,developers,andawiderangeof
differentstakeholders,inordertounlockthefullpotentialofthearea;
Maximisethebenefitsfromthenewtransportinfrastructureandensuingdevelopments
forlocalcommunities,securinglocalownershipandparticipation,andensuringnew
developmentsareintegratedwithsurroundingneighbourhoods,communitiesandtown
centres;
De-riskthelandbypreparingacleardeliverystrategyforbringingforwardthe
development;
Secureresourcestodeliverthephysicalinfrastructureintherightplaceattheright
timetoacceleratedevelopment;
SupporttherelocationofbusinesseswithinthecoredevelopmentareaatOldOakto
freeuplandwherethereareexistingindustrialuses;
Supportexistinglocalcommunitiesandbuildconfidencebyworkingtogether.

Overall,theCorporationwillneedtodevelopandfosteritsownsenseofidentity,imageand
culture.ThisfirstbusinessplanseekstolaythefoundationsforthistoenabletheCorporation
tomeetitsstrategicobjectivesinthelongterm.




8
Page 152


1.
OURVISION


1.1Vision

OldOakandParkRoyalwillbeasustainablenewcommunitybuiltonbrownfieldlandinthe
centreofLondon.Itwillbeanexemplarinaccessible,healthy,highqualityandsmart
regeneration,andwillseektoshowcasetheverybestpracticeinplacemaking.Overthenext
20to30yearswillmakeamajorcontributiontostrengtheningLondonsroleasaglobalcity.
OldOakandParkRoyalwillbeahighlyaccessiblelocationfocussedaroundaworldclass
transportsuper-hubthatwillbecomeoneofthecountrysmostconnectedandlargestrailway
interchanges.TheareawillalsobenefitfromsignificantLondonwideandlocaltransport
connections.ThiswillhelptransformanareapreviouslycutofffromtherestofLondon,that
willalsohelpbringeconomicbenefitstosurroundinglocalcentresinHarlesden,Acton,Ealing
andKensal,includinggreatlocalemploymentopportunities,bothduringandpostconstruction.
OldOakandParkRoyalwillofferauniqueemploymentopportunity.Therewillbeanew
commercialandofficehubprovidingtheopportunityfor55,000newjobsfocussedaroundthe
newOldOakCommonstation.ParkRoyalwillbeprotectedandstrengthenedwherepossible.
ThisindustriallandwillcontinuetobeLondonslargestindustrialestatehousingmorethan
2,000businessesthatwillthriveastheytakeadvantageofnewopportunitiestogrow.Newand
diversebusinessesfromabroaderrangeforsectorswillbeattractedtoParkRoyal,alongwith
relocatedbusinessesfromOldOak,theareawillaccommodateanadditional10,000jobs.
OldOakwillbeanew,wellconnectedneighbourhoodofhighqualitydesignthatisintegrated
intoitssurroundings.BytheMid2020sOldOakwillbeavibrantandattractiveplacewitha
strongsenseofcommunity,wherepeoplewillwanttolive,workandplay,andaplacethat
encourageshealthylifestylesandsustainableliving.Itwillseektodeliveraminimumof24,000
newhomesincludingamixofhousetypesandtenures,includinglowcosthomes,thatcaterfor
residentsatallstagesoflife.Thislargenewresidentialpopulationwillbeservedbynew
amenityspacesandlocalfacilitieswithinanewtowncentreandhighstreetthatprovide
abundantopportunitiesandchoicesnotonlyinhousingandemploymentbutalsoineducation,
culture,sportandleisure.Inaddition,therewillbeopportunitiesforaminimumof1,500new
homesinspecificnon-industriallocationsinParkRoyal.

Theareawillbenefitfromahighlyconnectednetworkofnewandimprovedstreetsandopen
spacesthatencourageandopenlyinvitewalkingandcycling;alongsideimprovedbusnetworks
andasignificantlytransformedroadnetwork.WormwoodScrubswillcontinuetobeprotected
asavaluableamenityandecologicalspaceforLondoners,supportinglocalbiodiversity.
SensitiveenhancementswillenablemoreLondoners,especiallythosefromthesurrounding
boroughstouseandenjoythespaceforrecreation.







9
Page 153


2.
INTRODUCTION


2.1 Mission

TheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation(OPDC)willworktosecurethe
comprehensiveregenerationofOldOakandParkRoyal,throughtheuseofplanningand
regenerationpowers,byworkingpositivelywithkeystakeholders,landownersandthelocal
community.

2.2 HowWeWillWork
OPDChaspreparedthisbusinessplantocoveritsinitialtwoyearsofsecuredfundingand
operationfromApril2015toMarch2017.Itsetsoutourvision,objectivesandactionsrequired
todeliverthetransformationoftheareaintoanewLondonquarterfocussedaroundaworld
classsustainabletransportsuper-hub.AstheCorporationisnotamajorlandownerinthearea,
wewilldothisby:


Workinginpartnershipwiththethreeboroughs,existinglandowners,
businesses,developersandkeypublicandprivatesectorstakeholders acrossOld
OakCommonandParkRoyaltoprotectandexpandthebusinessesandjobsthatareso
integraltothe Londoneconomyandthelocalcommunity:securingconsensustoalign
developmentsites,andagreeingprinciplestoenablecomprehensiveregenerationto
createasustainable,accessibleandinclusivedistrict;
Leveragingprivateandpublicsectorfunding:astheCorporationsresourcesare
likelytobelimited,wewillworkwiththeBoroughs,theGLA,TransportforLondon
(TfL),theLondonEnterprisePanel(LEP),theprivatesectorandinvestors,and
Governmenttosecureadditionalfundingforvitalinfrastructureprojects,includingfrom
CommunityInfrastructureLevy(CIL),nationalgrowthandEuropeanstructuralfunds;
Puttingpeopleattheheart:developingeffectivecommunityengagementand
regenerationprogrammes,andbusinessstrategiesforOldOakandParkRoyal,toensure
thatlocalcommunitiesandbusinessescanreapthebenefitsofthenewinfrastructure
andinvestment;
Workingsmarter:minimisingspendingonstaffandconsultants,includingthroughthe
useofsecondmentsacrosstheGLAGroup,beinganexemplarforsharingservices,and
buildingonbestpracticelessonsfromLLDCandLondonsothermajorregeneration
projects.


2.3 Progresssofar
Thistwo-yearbusinessplanbuildsontheprogressthathasalreadybeenmadesincetheMayor
proposedthattheareaofOldOakandParkRoyalbedesignatedaMayoraldevelopmentarea,
andtocreateaMDC,including:

SecuringLondonAssemblyconsiderationoftheMayorsproposalsforthenewMDCat
OldOakon17December2014,pavingthewayfortheMayortodesignatetheMayoral
DevelopmentArea,whichhedidformallyon30December2014;
LayingofanestablishmentordersignalledtheGovernmentsgo-aheadforOPDC;
Layingofaplanningfunctionsorderwhichwillseethetransferofplanningpowersfrom
thelocalauthoritiestotheOPDC,whichbecamethelocalplanningauthorityon1April;
DevelopmentofanOpportunityAreaPlanningFramework(OAPF),whichiscurrently
outforpublicconsultation;

10
Page 154

Developmentofacommunityengagementprogramme,withthefirstdraftofthe
CommunityCharterandOAPFconsultationstrategyunderway;
Progressingpre-applicationdiscussionswithmajordevelopers,includingCarGiant,QPR
andGenesis;
Completionofadevelopmentinfrastructure(DIF)study,providingfoundationsforthe
evidencebasethatwillberequiredfortheLocalPlan,andCommunityInfrastructure
Levy(CIL)development;
ProgressingadeliverystrategyforOldOak,afinancialmodel,andanOutlineBusiness
CasetoshapetheMayorsfutureaskforOldOakintheComprehensiveSpending
Review2015;
Conveningmeetingsofthepublicsectorlandownersforumtosecurealignmentof
interestsbetweenthemajorpublicsectorlandowners,NetworkRail,DfT,TfL,London
BoroughofHammersmithandFulham,andinthefutureHS2;
AgreementofaninprincipalMemorandumofUnderstandingwithLondonand
ContinentalRailways,workingonbehalfoftheDfT,toagreecollaborativeworkingon
thepubliclandstrategyatOldOak;
Workonoperationalreadiness,includingconsultationwiththeLondonAssemblyon
sharedservicesataGLAOversightCommitteeon24February.Secretariatsupporthas
beensecuredbytheGLASecretariatservicessothattheOPDCBoardwillbefully
functionalfrom1April;
PreparationoffutureOPDCgovernancestructurepost1April;
RecruitmentofOPDCBoardmembersandaChairofthePlanningCommittee;
PresentationofOldOakandParkRoyalasanexcitingdevelopmentopportunityin
LondonatMIPIM,theannualpropertyevent.



Thesetwoyearswillbecrucialforbuildingastrongvisionandcompellingpropositionforthe
areathatgivesGovernment,theprivatesector,andinvestorstheconfidencetoinvestinthe
infrastructurenecessarytounlockdevelopment;engagingexistingcommunitiesinearly
activationactivitiestogivethemastrongsenseofownershipoftheemergingnew
neighbourhood,andprospectivenewerarrivalssothattheyhavetheconfidencetomakeit
theirlocationofchoice;creatingthefoundationsfortransformationalchangethroughrobust
planningandregenerationpolicyandtransparentgovernancearrangementsthatprovideclear
andconsistentleadershipandincentivesforkeystakeholderstocollaborate;alongsidearobust
deliveryprogrammethatsetsoutwhere,andwhen,developmentwilltakeplace.

11
Page 155


2.4 Background

OldOakCommon

Location
OldOakCommonislocatedinanareaofnorth-westLondonthatsitsinthemiddleoftwo
groupingsofOpportunityAreas.ItisthelargestregenerationsiteinthispartofLondonandis
thenexusofnationalandregionalrailconnections.Itstraddlesthreelocalauthorities:
HammersmithandFulhamtotheeast,Brenttothenorth,andEalingtothewest.

History
OriginallyOldOakCommonwasastretchoflanddefinedbywhatbecametheHarrowRoadat
itsnorthernend,anditseasternedgewasthenorthernsourceofStamfordBrook,forminga
boundarywithWormwoodScrubs.By1801thePaddingtonCanalhadcutitinhalf,further
reducingitssize.Withthecomingoftherailways,mostoftheCommonwaslostandwhat
remainedbecamepartofWormwoodScrubs.TheGreatWesternRailwaymainlinesfrom
LondonPaddington:theGreatWesternMainLine(GWML)of1838-1841toBristolTemple
Meadsrailwaystation(passingthroughSlough,ReadingandSwindon),andthe1903New
NorthMainLine(NNML)viaGreenfordtoNortholtJunction,whichisthestartoftheGreat
WesternandGreatCentralJointRailwayline,splitatOldOakjunction.

OldOakCommonToday
TheOldOakareahousesamixoflandfortransportfunctions(raillinesanddepots);twolarge
wastemanagementfacilities;alarge22hectarecarsalesandmaintenancebusiness;anumber
ofsmallscaleindustrialandofficebuildings;andasmallnumberofresidentialunitsaroundthe
periphery.TheGrandUnionCanalrunseastwestthroughthearea.TothenorthisWillesden
JunctionandHarlesden,tothewestisSt.MarysCemeteryandKensalGasworks,tothesouth
isWormwoodScrubs,WormwoodScrubsprisonandHammersmithHospital,whiletotheeastis
NorthActonandthewiderexpanseofParkRoyalStrategicIndustrialLand.

ItisproposedthatanewstationwillbebuiltatOldOakCommonby2026tocreateasuperhubthatwillprovideaninterchangebetweenHS2andCrossrailservices,aswellasthe
HeathrowExpressandexistingGreatWesternMainlineservices.
TheresidentsinOldOakCommonhaveanageprofileandeconomicactivityratesthatare
broadlyconsistentwiththeLondonaverage.Asignificantproportionofresidentsinthearea
havenoqualificationscomparedtotheLondonaverage,whichispartiallyreflectedinthe
employmentgradeofresidentworkers.Alowproportionofresidentsliveinowner-occupied
households,andalargeproportioninsocialrentedhousing.SignificantBAMEcommunitieslive
inthearea.TheareasaroundOldOakCommonareamongstthe20%mostdeprivedareasin
thecountry,particularlyinrelationtoincomeandbarrierstohousingandservices,whichis
reflectedintraveltoworkpatterns.ThoseworkingneartheproposedHS2stationlivewithin
relativelycloseproximity.Thekeysectorcontributingtolocalemploymentisthepublicsector,
withover30%ofjobs,whilst24%ofjobsareinthedistribution,hotelsandrestaurants
industry,and20%areinbanking,financeandinsurance.Itisexpectedthatanimpactofthe
HS2andCrossrailinterchangewillbeachangeinthetypesofjobsthatwillbelocatedinthe
area,frompredominatelyindustrial,blue-collarjobstooffice-basedwhite-collarjobs,leading

12
Page 156


tomoreemploymentopportunitiesinfinance,insuranceorpublicsectorindustries,andlessin
manufacturingordistributionsectors1.
ParkRoyal

Location
TheParkRoyalindustrialareastretchesfromAlperton,theA406andHangerLaneinthewest;
alongtheA40andtheindustrialareasaroundParkRoyaltubestationtothesouth;
StonebridgeParkandWillesdenJunctiontothenorth;andtotheeasttheareaisboundedby
OldOakandWormwoodScrubs.

History
Theareasroyaltitlecomesfromuseastheshowgroundfortheshort-livedRoyalAgricultural
Show(1903-1905).Bythe1920s,ParkRoyalwashometoseverallargemanufacturers.This
includedmunitionsworks,steelrefineries,theGuinnessBrewery,andParkRoyalVehicles,who
wentontoproduceHalifaxbombersandtheiconicRoutemasterbus.Bythe1970s,ParkRoyal
wasfacinglarge-scaleindustrialrestructuringaswellasgeneralindustrialdecline,whichsaw
manyoftheareaslargestfactoriesclose.
ParkRoyalToday
ParkRoyalformsoneofthelargestindustrialestatesinEurope.ItistheUKslargest,and
Londonsmostsuccessfulindustrialpark,occupyingover450hectaresacrosstheLondon
BoroughsofBrentandEaling.Itconsistsoflargelyprivateindustrialuseshousedinarangeof
industrialbuildingsofvaryingsizesandquality.ThesignificantregenerationofOldOak
presentsanexcellentopportunitytoregenerateandfurtherintensifytheareawithupto
10,000newjobsbyprovidingbettertransportlinksanddirectaccesstoanewbusinessmarket
onitsdoorstep.ThescaleofdevelopmentplannedforOldOakpresentschallengestoexisting
infrastructureinParkRoyalandtorealisetheregenerationofbothareasrequiresinvestmentin
theexistingroadnetwork,intheexistingutilitynetwork,andinbroadbandprovision.The
Corporationwillplayanimportantroleonfacilitatingdeliveryprimarilybyprovidingarobust
planningpolicyframework,supportingintensificationofuses,andcoordinatinginfrastructure
deliverytransport,utilityandbroadband.








1

HS2LondontotheWestMidlands,AppraisalofSustainability,Appendix3Socio-economicReport,Booz&CoandTemple
GroupLtd.preparedforHS2Ltd.andDfT.

13
Page 157



 ParkRoyalAtlas
 ParkRoyalAtlas,thefirsteverdetailedstudyofthecapitalslargestindustrialestatehas
 uncoveredagreatdiversityofthrivingbusinesses:
v 1,934activeworkplacesspreadacrossabroadrangeofbusinesssectors,including

breweries,bakeries,metalworkshops,storage,joiners,hospitals,schools,

publishers,filmstudios,softwaredevelopers,garages,carsales,pubs,hotels,

jewellers,cobblers,lawyers,accountants,spicemerchants,medicalsuppliers,

churchesandartiststudios;

v
30%ofworkspacesaresmallofficetypespaces,thoughworkspacesinlarge

warehousesmakeup63%ofthetotalfloorarea,withthecentralareasofPark

Royalhavingthegreatestdiversityofbuildingsandspacetypes;

v
Microbusinessesaccountfor75%ofworkplacesandcontributetotheestimated

31,000plusemployeesontheestate;

v Ofthe14%oftotalbusinessesinterviewed,64%ofemployeesworkforSMEsand

51%livelocallyinEaling,BrentorHammersmithandFulham;alargeproportionof

theseworkplacesowntheirpremises(81%)andmostareindependentbusinesses

(61%).Athirdofthoseinterviewedmovedtocurrentpremisessince2010and

typicalofthrivingindustrialareas,changeandchurnisaconstantfeature;

v
Thereisalargeamountofbusinesstobusinesstrading,andoverhalfofallsupplier

locationsarewithinLondon,withworkplacesfocusingonsupplyingadiverserange

ofproductsandservicestoLondon;

v NearlyhalfofthebusinessesinterviewedaspartoftheParkRoyalAtlasexpect

employmentgrowthoverthenextyear,whichshowsgreatconfidence;

v Seenalongsidelowvacancylevels,itsuggeststhatParkRoyalremainsindemand

asanindustriallocation.Businessescitepublictransportandroadaccessibilityas

themainadvantagesofthelocation.





Source:ParkRoyalAtlas,AnEmploymentStudyofLondonsLargestIndustrialArea,GLA,2014.



WithinParkRoyaltherearealsoenclavesofexistingresidentialcommunitiesatWellsHouse
Road,NewarkCrescent,NorthActonandNorthActonRoad,andalongOldOakLane.There
arealsoexistingnaturalamenitiesincludingNorthActonCemetery,theGrandUnionCanaland
somedisconnectedprotectedhabitats.

OldOakCommonandParkRoyalarelocatedatthemeetingpointoftwomajorstrategic
growthcorridors:theLondon-Luton-BedfordGrowthCorridorandtheWesternWedge.The
formercomprisesthemajorgrowthpointslocatedalongtheA1,M1fromLondontoBedford
andtoLutonAirportincludingWembley,BrentCross/CricklewoodandColindale/BurntOak.
ThelattercomprisestheThamesValleytothewestofLondon,centredintheHeathrow
OpportunityAreaandstretchingouttoSloughandtheM4.


2.5 MarketAssessment
Overthenextperiod,Londonspopulationisexpectedtocontinuetogrow.Forthenexttwo
yearstheestimatedlevelsofLondonspopulationare2015,8,669,748and2016,8,779,641.
FortheWestLondonsub-region,theestimatesare1,881,918and1,904,392respectively.


Overthelongerterm,WestLondonsgrowthwasprojectedtobelowerthanthatforLondonas
awhole;overtheperiod2011-2041theprojectedrateswere18.4%and23.5%respectively.

14
Page 158



LookingattheLondoneconomy,asimilarpictureofgrowthisalsoenvisaged.In2012,thesize
oftheWestLondoneconomyintermsofGrossValueAdded(GVA)isestimatedtohavebeen
49.257billion,comparedwith325.613billionforLondonasawhole2.Londonseconomyis
expectedtogrowatarateof3.3%in2015and3.1%in20163.Theexpectedtrendfor
WorkforceJobsisalsopositivebutlesspronounced:growthof1.2%in2015and0.7%in2016.
HouseholdIncomeisexpectedtogrow,too:by2.3%in2015and2.5%in2016.Toputsome
ofthesefiguresincontext,theabsolutevalues(in2010prices)ofGVAandHouseholdIncome
areexpectedtobe345.1billionand174.1billionin2015and355.9billionand178.5
billionin20164.Themostrecentestimatesofemploymentandunemploymentratesarefor
September2014.Fortheformer,BrentandEalingarelowerthantheLondonaverageand
otherWestLondonboroughsareaboveaverage.Forthelatter,Brent(8.0%)andEaling(8.6%)
areabovetheLondonaverage(7.1%)andotherWestLondonboroughsarebelowtheLondon
average.

LEOalsoprovidesforecastsofoutputandemploymentbysector.Fortransportationand
storage,in2015,outputgrowthisexpectedtobe3.0%andemploymentgrowth1.1%;for
2016theratesareexpectedtobe2.5%and0.6%.Inconstruction,therespectiveratesof
growthare(2015)3.9%foroutputand3.4%foremployment;in2016theratesareexpected
tobe3.4%and2.9%.

Lookingmorespecificallyattheconstructionsector,Savillshavesuggested(February2015)
thatintermsofaveragepricesinthesecondhandmarket,in2015,thoseinCentralLondonwill
fallby1.0%,whilethoseinOtherLondonwillbestatic.In2016,priceswillriseby8.0%and
6.0%respectively.Forthefiveyearperiod2015-19,thechangeswillbe25.5%and20.4%.
AssessingconstructioncostsbyforecasttenderpricesfortheUK(inQ12014)SweettGroup
indicatethefollowingtenderpriceinflationrates:forCentralLondonin20154.5%andin2016
4.7%;andfortheSoutheast,4.0%and4.4%.Asecondforecast,thatofECHarrisBuiltAsset
Consultancy(16thJanuary2014)sawtenderprices(forresidentialandcommercial)expectedto
riseby6%in2015forLondon2.


2.6 PolicyContext
Londonsfuturegrowth
Londonisunderincreasingpressuretodelivergreaternumbersofnewhomesandjobsinlight
ofrecordincreasesinthecapitalspopulation.Tomeetthisgrowth,Londonwillneedtodeliver
anadditional34,000newjobsayearor680,000jobsover20years;and49,000newhomesa
year,oramillionhomesover20years3.

RecentresearchcommissionedbytheGLA4hasfoundthat63%ofLondonersseegrowthasa
positivedevelopmentopportunitytocreatenewhomes,jobs,andtransport.However,thereis
stillconcernaroundcertainissues-housingaffordabilityranksasLondonersno.1concern

2
ThepopulationprojectionsforLondonandWestLondon(sub-region)aretakenfromtheGLA2013roundtrendbasedpopulationprojections(Centralvariant).WestLondonincludes:Brent,Ealing,H&F,Harrow,Hillingdon,
HounslowandRichmonduponThames.
BoroughlevelestimatesforGVAareproducedbyGLAEconomicsbasedonRegionalAccountsdataproducedin
December2014byONS.
ThedataintherestofthisparagraphisfromtheNovember2014EditionofLondonsEconomicOutlook(LEO),
GLAEconomics.
Notethatforecastsofunemploymentarenotundertaken.

3
DraftOldOakGrowthStrategy,February2015.
4
GoodGrowth,by,andonbehalfofGLA,March2015.

15
Page 159


aroundgrowth(66%mentionedthis);withhealthservicesclosebehind(58%),andpublic
transportinthirdplace(44%).Despitethis,approximately60%ofLondonersalsothinkthat
developmentwilldeliverneedsacrossarangeofspecificissues,includinghospitals,transport,
schools,homesandpublicspace.

ThefindingsshowthatLondonersfavoursitingnewdevelopmentonbrownfieldsites(43%
chosethis),orinsatellitetownswithgoodlinkstoLondon(27%).16%chosegreenspaceon
theedgeofLondon,whileonly10%chosedevelopingaroundexistingtowncentres.This
favourtowardsdevelopmentawayfromexistingneighbourhoodssuggestsadegreeof
nimbyism,andthattheremaybeworktodotoreassureLondonersthatwheredevelopmentis
takingplaceinexistingtowncentres,existinginfrastructurecanbeexpandedtomeetrising
demand.

Theresearchalsosuggeststhatlifestageshouldbeakeyconsiderationinplanninggrowthdue
tostronglydifferingconcernsandneedsacrosstheagegroups:
- Youngpeople(18-24)aremorelikelytoconsiderjobcreationatopconcern,and
prioritisejobandbusinessopportunitiesfromnewdevelopment;whilst,
- peopleofparentalagewantmoreschools,butarelesslikelytothinknewdevelopment
willdeliverthem;
- Groupsuptotheageof54morelikelyofrentalandmortgageagearemoreconcerned
abouthousingaffordability,and;
- Olderpeople(55+)considerhealthservicestheirno.1concern,andthoseaged45+
considerittheirtoppriorityfornewdevelopment.

Mayoralregenerationpriority
TheLondonPlan2011identifiedParkRoyalasanOpportunityArea.In2011,theMayor
adoptedtheParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanningFramework,whichcoveredboththeareas
ofOldOakandParkRoyal.Thisplanningframeworkwasprimarilyfocussedontheretention
andprotectionofStrategicIndustrialLandandidentifiedthepotentialforfurther
intensificationwithacapacitytoaccommodateanadditional10,000newjobsandaminimum
of1,500newhomesincertaingatewaylocations.

TheLondonPlan20155,whichincludesalterationssince2011,separatesoutOldOakandPark
RoyalintotwodistinctOpportunityAreas.Itcontinuestopromoteanindustrialfocusaround
theParkRoyalarea,butpromotesachangeofuseatOldOaktoamoremixed-useresidential
development.Thischangeinpolicydirectionisaimedatmaximisingtheopportunityofthe
proposednewHighSpeed2andCrossrailstationatOldOaktoregeneratetheareaoverthe
next2030years.

Inrecognitionoftheareashugepotential,inJune2013theMayorofLondon,incollaboration
withTransportforLondon(TfL)andtheLondonBoroughsofHammersmithandFulham,Brent
andEalingconsultedonAVisionfortheFutureofOldOak.ThisVisiondemonstratedhow
significanttransformationanddevelopmentatOldOakcouldtakeadvantageofthedeliveryof
thestrategicHighSpeed2andCrossrailinterchangetoprovideanuplifttothearea,delivering
upto19,000newhomesand90,000newjobs,andavarietyofsupportinguses.Thesecapacity
figureshavesincebeenrevisedinTheLondonPlan2015,toaminimumof24,000newhomes
and55,000newjobs.


5
TheLondonPlan,TheSpatialDevelopmentStrategyforLondonConsolidatedwithAlterationsSince2011,
publishedbytheGreaterLondonAuthority,March2015.

16
Page 160


In2013,theMayorconsultedonaVisionforOldOak.TheobjectivesfromthatVisionare
includedbelow.Since2013workhasbeencontinuingtoprogressandtheseobjectiveshave
beenupdatedassetoutatthebeginningofthisbusinessplan.


OldOakAVisionfortheFuture2013:Keyobjectives
Maximisetheopportunitypresentedbycreationofastrategicplanninginterchangeto
regenerate155hectaresofunderusedlandandcontributesignificantlytogrowthand
economicdevelopmentinLondon.
DeveloptheStrategicIndustrialLandofferatParkRoyalandthepotentialtorelocate
businessesfromOldOakinordertofreeuplandadjacenttotheinternationaltrain
station.
Supportamajorredevelopmentoftheareasurroundingtheproposedinterchangeby
designingtheproposedhigh-speed2stationtomaximiselocalandregional
connectivity.
Explorethepotentialforanetworkofnewopenspacesandgreenlinks,creatingagreen
crosstoconnectOldOakCommonstationtoNorthActon,WillesdenJunction,
WormwoodScrubsandtheGrandUnionCanal.
OldOak,AVisionfortheFutureconsultationdocumentLBBrent,Ealing&HammersmithandFulham,
MayorofLondon,TransportforLondon,June2013


RegenerationandtheroleofanMDC
TheLocalismAct2011providedthelegislativebasisfortheMayorofLondontodesignate
Mayoraldevelopmentareas(MDAs)andtoestablishMayoralDevelopmentCorporations(MDC)
todriveregenerationinthoseareas.Toassisttheminpursuingthispurpose,the2011Actgives
MDCswidepowersrelatingtoinfrastructure,regeneration,developmentandotherrelated
activities.InadditiontheActallowstheMayortograntfurtherpowersenablingtheMDCto
performsomeorallofthefunctionsofthelocalplanningauthorityforthearea.
InJune2014,theMayorconsultedonhisproposalstodesignateOldOakandParkRoyala
MayoraldevelopmentareaandsetupanewMayoralDevelopmentCorporationtodriveforward
thesignificantscaleofdevelopmentenvisagedforthearea.On24September2014,theMayor
publishedhisstatementofresponsetopublicconsultation,settingouttheoutcomesofthe
publicandstakeholderconsultation.

On30December2014,theMayordesignatedaMayoraldevelopmentareaatOldOak
Common,toputinplacethenewDevelopmentCorporation. On27January2015,theSecretary
ofStateforCommunitiesandLocalGovernmentconfirmedhissupportfortheplansbylaying
anestablishmentorderbeforeParliamenttocreatetheDevelopmentCorporation,andon5
MarchthePlanningMinisterforDCLGconfirmedhissupportforplanningpowersbylayinga
planningfunctionsorderbeforeParliament.TheOPDCcameintoexistencewithfullplanning
powerson1April2015.

OPDCisaGLAFunctionalBodyandonlythesecondMDCtobecreatedunderpowersgivento
theMayorthroughtheLocalismAct2011todriveregenerationinkeyareasofLondonthat
typicallyspanboroughboundaries.

TheLondonLegacyDevelopmentCorporation(LLDC)thefirstMDCcoveringtheOlympic
Parkandsurroundingareaandspanningfourboroughs,hasbeentremendouslysuccessfulso
farin:



17
Page 161

Deliveringeconomicvalueofover5billioninthearea,includingover20,000new
homesconsentedandover4,000underconstructionasofOctober2014;
Securinglong-termprivatesectorfuturesforalllegacyvenuesinQEOP,re-openingthe
Park,andwelcomingfourandahalfmillionvisitors;
Settingoutambitiousplansforaculturalandhighereducationquarter,includingmany
prestigiousinstitutions[VictoriaandAlbertMuseum(V&A),UniversityCollegeLondon
(UCL),andUniversityoftheArtsLondon(UAL)],knownasOlympicopolis,thatwill
create3,000additionaljobsonthePark,takingthenumbersofjobscreatedonthe
Parkto15,000jobsby2025.



Inseekingtoemulatethissuccess,theMayorspurposeincreatingOPDC,asanewMDCthat
willprovideclearleadershipforthissignificantregenerationproject,andactasasinglepointof
contactforthelocalresidentialandbusinesscommunities,developers,investors,landowners
andtransportagencies,isto:

ThepurposeoftheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation
Topromoteanddeliverphysical,social,economicandenvironmentalregenerationatOldOak
andParkRoyal.TheCorporationwillworktosecuremaximumbenefitsfromthenewlyplanned
transportinterchangesofHighSpeed2,CrossrailandLondonOvergroundstations.The
CorporationwillplanforsignificantfuturegrowthatOldOak;andfortheprotectionand
regenerationoftheindustrialareasofParkRoyal.AcentralobjectiveoftheCorporationisto
securehigh-quality,exemplar,sustainabledevelopmentandinvestmentforthebenefitofthe
areaandthecommunitiesthatsurroundit.
MayorofLondonsproposalsfortheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation,June2014


Figure1:TheOPDCboundarycoverstheOldOakOpportunityAreaandParkRoyalOpportunityArea
andWormwoodScrubsCommon.

18
Page 162


3.
3.1


CHALLENGES
TheCorporationfacessignificantchallenges-asaneworganisationwewillneedto:

Buildourreputationandcredibilityquicklysothatweareseentoaddvaluetolocal
developmentefforts;fosteringandsecuringbuy-intoacomprehensiveand
coordinatedapproachtolandpooling,infrastructuredeliveryandmasterplanningof
theareabypublicandprivatesectorlandowners,developers,andawiderangeof
differentstakeholdersinordertounlockthefullpotentialofthearea;
Maximisethebenefitsfromthenewtransportinfrastructureandensuingdevelopments
forlocalcommunities,securinglocalownershipandparticipation,andensuringnew
developmentsareintegratedwithsurroundingneighbourhoods,communitiesandtown
centres;
De-riskthelandbypreparingacleardeliverystrategyforbringingforwardthe
development;
Secureresourcestodeliverthephysicalinfrastructureintherightplaceattheright
timetoacceleratedevelopment;
SupporttherelocationofbusinesseswithinthecoredevelopmentareaatOldOakto
freeuplandwherethereareexistingindustrialuses.
Supportexistinglocalcommunitiesandbuildconfidencebyworkingtogether.



Overall,theCorporationwillneedtodevelopandfosteritsownsenseofidentity,imageand
culture.ThisfirstbusinessplanseekstolaythefoundationsforthistoenabletheCorporation
tomeetitsstrategicobjectivesinthelongterm.



19
Page 163


4.
OUROBJECTIVES

4.1 Objectives
TorealisethevisionforOldOakandParkRoyal,ourstrategicobjectivesareto:

CREATE:Tocreateanexemplarysustainable,successfulandinclusivenewurban
neighbourhoodatOldOak,supportingdeliveryof24,000newhomesinOldOakand
1,500innon-industriallocationsinParkRoyal,thatincludeamixofhousingaffordable
andmarkettenuresandtypologiesthatmeettheneedsofnewandexistingresidents,
andsecuringbestpracticearchitectureandurbandesignandsocial,physicalandgreen
infrastructurethatcreatesavibrant,exemplaranddistinctiveplace,andcontributesto
integratedandsustainablecommunities,andensurethatnewdevelopmentsafeguards
nearbyamenityassetssuchWormwoodScrubsandtheGrandUnionCanal;

CONNECT:TousethecatalystofthenewHighSpeed2(HS2),CrossrailandGreat
WestMainLineinterchangeandnewandimprovedlocaltransportconnectionsto
regenerateandpromotetheareaasLondonsbestconnecteddevelopmentlocation
thatmakesasignificantcontributiontoLondonscompetitiveness,inawaythatis
sustainable,attractslongterminvestment,meetslocalneeds,andsupportsthestrategic
long-termprioritiesinTheMayorsLondonPlan2015;

COMMUNITY:Topromoteeconomicgrowththathelpsaddressdeprivationand
reducesinequalityforlocalcommunitiesandLondoners,bycoordinatingthe
developmentandstewardshipofpublicsectorlandandassets,supportingthecreation
of55,000newjobsatOldOakandafurther10,000newjobsatParkRoyal,and
workingwiththeboroughs,keystakeholders,businesses,educationproviders,the
healthsectorandlocalcommunitiestoensurelocalaccountabilityandinvolvement;

CONSOLIDATE:ToprotectandenhanceParkRoyalasaStrategicIndustrialLocation
andtheUKslargestandmostsuccessfulindustrialpark,ensuringinvestmentthatwill
enhanceexistingoperations,maximisetheareasindustrialfullpotential,supportthe
smoothtransitionofbusinessandindustrialrelocations,explorestheopportunityto
attractnewtechnologyclusterssuchascleantechnologies,workingwiththebusiness
communitytosupportlocaljobcreationforthelocalcommunityandbeyond.


4.2 Partnersandstakeholders
Inordertoachievetheseobjectives,wewillworkwithawidevarietyofpartnersand
stakeholders.Theseinclude:

TheMayorofLondon,theGreaterLondonAuthority,TransportforLondonandthe
LondonLegacyDevelopmentCorporation;
ThethreewestLondonboroughswithinwhichtheDevelopmentCorporations
boundarylies,Hammersmith&Fulham,EalingandBrent,andadjoiningboroughsas
appropriate;
DepartmentforTransport,DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment,
TreasuryandInfrastructure-UK;
Locallandowners,developers,investorsandentrepreneurs,andinwardinvestment
organisationssuchasLondonandPartnersandUKTI;

20
Page 164
































TransportbodiesandstatutoryagenciessuchasHS2,NetworkRail,Crossrail,
LondonandContinentalRailways,EnvironmentAgency,WormwoodScrubs
CharitableTrust,CanalandRiverTrust;
Utilityprovidersandregulatoryagencies;
Localbusinessesandbusinessorganisations,e.g.theParkRoyalBusinessGroup,
WestLondonBusinessandGrandUnionAlliance;
LocalcommunitiesacrossOldOak,ParkRoyalandthewiderarea;
Stakeholderorganisations,rangingfromelectedbodieswithaformalscrutinyrole
(e.g.Parliament,andtheLondonAssembly),toorganisationsrepresenting
communitiesofinterestoridentity(frombusinessassociations,tolocalcommunity
organisationsandthevoluntarysector,toenvironmental,andamenityspace
groups);
Educationandtrainingproviders;
NHSEngland,PublicHealthEnglandandotherhealthorganisationsandagencies;
HousingAssociationsandassociatedagencies;
Cultureandsportorganisations;
Emergencyservices;and
AnyotherinterestedpartieswhowanttorealisethevisionforOldOakandPark
Royal.


21
Page 165


5.

5.1

OUTCOMES
Outcomes
CreationofamajornewcommercialquarterforLondondeliveringupto55,000new
jobsinOldOakand10,000inParkRoyal;
Creationofaresidential-led,mixed-usedevelopmentinOldOakfocusedaroundthe
coreareaaroundthestationinterchangeforHS2,GreatWestMainLineandCrossrail,
deliveringupto24,000high-qualitynewhomes,integratedwithsurrounding
neighbourhoods,communitiesandtowncentres,alongsideanadditional1,500homes
inthenon-industrialareasinParkRoyal;
StrengthenedindustrialareaatParkRoyalthroughintensificationandenhancementof
existinguses,andrelocationofindustrial,wasteorcommercialuses;
Ensuringlocalcommunitiesbenefitfromtheinvestmentandgrowththroughnewjob
creation,skillsdevelopment,supporttomatchtheirskillstofuturegrowthsector
opportunities,accesstohigherleveljobs,andsupporttolocalbusinessestocompete
fornewopportunities;
Creationofanetworkofnewopenspacesandgreenlinks,formingagreengridto
connectOldOakCommonstationtoNorthActon,WillesdenJunction,Wormwood
ScrubsandtheGrandUnionCanal.



5.2 PerformanceManagement

Wewillmanageperformancethrough:

Setting,andmonitoringprogressagainstmilestones;
Monitoringthedeliveryofplannedprogrammeoutputs;
Settingtargetsforspecificbusinessareas;
Commissioning,orparticipatinginprogrammeevaluationwhereappropriate;and
Beingtransparent.



22
Page 166


6.

6.1



OURWORKPROGRAMMEBYDIRECTORATE
Planning

PriorityOutcomes:

AppointmentofanexperiencedPlanningCommitteeChairthatalsositsonOPDCBoard
Establishment of a credible and transparent Planning Committee that is appropriately
servicedandrunningefficiently
TrainingforPlanningCommitteemembers
Schemesofdelegationwithboroughsadoptedandoperatingsmoothly
Planning Decisions delegation setting out which planning decision are to be taken by
OPDCBoard,OPDCPlanningCommitteeandOPDCofficers
EstablishmentandresourcingofacredibleDesignReviewPanel
Politicalconsensusandpositiveengagementindecision-making
Establishmentandresourcingofacommunityengagementprogrammeonplanning
Exercising Development Management planning functions in a timely and efficient
manner
ExercisingEnforcementplanningfunctionsinatimelyandefficientmanner
ExercisingPlan-Makingplanningfunctionsinatimelyandefficientmanner,
AdoptionofOldOakandParkRoyalOpportunityAreaPlanningFramework
AdoptionofLocalPlan
AdoptionofCILChargingSchedule
Adoption of development and planning guidance on: transport, construction and
logistics, integrated utilities management plan, SMART public realm strategy, section
106SPD,amenityspacemasterplananddetailedurbandesignguidance
Planning Performance agreements in place for key development sites effectively
resourcedplanningteam
Adoptionofpre-applicationfeechargingschedule



6.1.1 Context
ThePlanningDirectoratesmainfunctionistocreateLondonsmostdynamicurban
district,becomingalocationofchoiceforcurrentresidentsandnewarrivals,andlinkingthe
newneighbourhoodwithsurroundingneighbourhoods.TheDirectoratewillleadplanningpolicy
anddevelopmentcontrolacrossthearea.Itwillalsosupportotherpiecesofworkinitiatedby
otherstakeholders,suchasneighbourhoodplans.

6.1.2PriorityWorkstreams,MilestonesandTargets

PriorityWorkstreams
Establishacredibleand
transparentPlanning
CommitteeandPlanning
function,appropriately
servicedandrunning
effectively.


TargetDatefor
MilestonesandMeasures
Commencementof
Activity
2015/16
Outputsforplanningpolicyincludeadoptionofthe
OAPFandLocalPlanfortheareaforplanningdecisions
tobetakenagainst,andcommencementofCILcharging
todeliverinfrastructureprojectsrequiredfordelivery.

Keymilestones:
AppointmentofPlanningCommitteeChair1
April2015
TrainingofPlanningCommitteeMembers

23
Page 167

Establishefficientschemesof
delegationwithboroughsfor
contracting-outofcertain
servicessuchasenforcement.


2015/16

DesignReviewPanel

2015/16

OAPF

2015/16

LocalPlan

2015/16

Receipt of applications for 2015/16


earlyphasesofdevelopment
CIL
2015/16

DevelopmentandPlanning
Guidance






April2015
EffectivelyresourcedPlanningTeaminPlace
by1April2015
EstablishedscheduleofPlanningCommittee
MeetingsQ12015
Adoptionofpre-applicationfeecharging
scheduleSummer2015
1stPlanningCommittee21May2015
SchemeofDelegationwithboroughsadopted
by1April2015
Establishresponsiveservicetocustomersby1
April2015

2016/17

OutputsincludeanagreednumberofPanelmeetingsper
year,withadditionalreviewsarrangedasrequired;
provisionofdesignguidancesupport.
Recruitment&appointmentofPanelMembers
Spring2015
EstablishscheduleofAdvisoryPanelmeetings
Spring2015
PublishconsultationversionofOAPF27Feb
2015
Completepublicconsultation14April2015
AdoptionofOAPFEarlySummer2015
Commissioning evidence base  ELR, SHMA,
SHLAA,transportstudySpring/Summer2015
DraftLocalPlanSpring2015
ConsultationonPlancompleteLateSummer
2015
Independentexamination(EIP)Early2016
LocalPlanadoptionQ1,2016
Oaklands/Genesissite-summer2015
CarGiant/L&REnd2015
DIFstudycompleteSpring2015
PreparationofCILdraftChargingSchedule
Spring2015
ConsultationondraftCILChargingSchedule
Sumer2015
IndependentexaminationcompleteSpring
2016
CILadopted,collectioncommencesSummer
2016
Transportstudies,constructionandlogistics,
integratedutilitiesmanagementplan,SMART
publicrealmstrategy,section106SPD,amenity
spacemasterplananddetailedurbandesign
guidance-Ongoing2015/16.

24
Page 168


6.2 Commercial

TheaimofthisDirectorateistoestablishacredibleandambitiousdeliverystrategyforOldOak
andParkRoyal,torealisethevisionandsecurethemaximumvalueofthesignificantpublic
sectorlandholdingatOldOak,andleadonthecommercialdiscussionswithdevelopersand
investors.


Priority Outcomes:

Preparation of a delivery strategy for Old Oak and Park Royal that includes land
assemblyoptions
Appointment of a local land agent for OPDC to provide regular intelligence on
markettrends
Undertake detailed mapping of land ownerships across the whole OPDC area, and
establishstrongworking relationshipswithasmanyofthe keyownersaspossible,
layingfoundationsforthedeliverystrategy
Productionofabusinessrelationsstrategyandprogramme
Supportproductionofaphasedintegratedutilitiesplanthatalignswithcommercial
/landowner/developerinterestsandplans
Preparationofapubliclandstrategyandsecureagreementofkeypublicsectorland
partners
Preparation of a wider land assembly and CPO strategy, as appropriate, and all
associatedbusinessescases
DevelopanMoUwithLCRandanyotherpartnersasappropriate
Work with transport bodies such as HS2, Network Rail and TfL to develop the
business case for over-station development opportunities, and station
enhancementswhereappropriate
Scope and progress securing potential delivery partners for specific aspects of the
regeneration,forexampleover-stationdevelopmentopportunities


6.2.1 Context
ThefocusoftheCorporation,pre-establishment,wasrightlyondevelopingtheplanning
frameworkforthefutureregeneration.However,theMayorhasbeenclearthattheroleofthe
CorporationshouldalsobetosecurethemaximumbenefitsforLondonandLondoners.Limited
workhasbeenundertakenonthecommercialaspectsofadeliverystrategytodateandthe
opportunitiesaffordedbysignificanttransportinvestmentatOldOak,butpost-establishment
theOPDCwillturnitsfocustoconsideringhowthisrolewillbedeveloped.Workingclosely
withTfLCommercialPropertyadvisersthroughtheOPDCsshared-servicesagreementwith
TfL,thecommercialteamwillfocusonshapinganddevelopingtheOPDCcommercialstrategy
torealisethefullpotentialofOldOakandParkRoyal.

6.2.2PriorityWorkstreams,MilestonesandTargets

PriorityWorkstreams
Gettingthedeliverystrategyin
place
OPDCcommercialintelligence
LandStrategy

TargetDatefor
Commencementof
Activity
2015/16
2015/16
.


MilestonesandorMeasures

25
Page 169

PreparationofDeliveryStrategy
Businessrelocationsstrategy
Appointmentoflocallandagent
Detailedlandownershipmapping
Preparationofpubliclandstrategy
andsecurepartneragreement
Preparationofwiderlandassembly

Gettingreadyfordelivery

2015/16

26
Page 170

strategyandtimetable
EstablishMoUswithappropriate
partnerstorealisethevision

Workwithtransportbodiessuchas
HS2, Network Rail and TfL to
developthebusinesscaseforoverstation development opportunities,
and station enhancements where
appropriate
Securedeliverypartnersforspecific
aspects of the wider regeneration
schemeasappropriate



6.3 RegenerationandStrategicPartnerships

TheaimofthisDirectorateistoensurethemaximumsocio-economicregenerationbenefitsare
securedfortheexistingandfuturecommunitiesofOldOak,ParkRoyalandthewiderarea,and
thesesocio-economicobjectivesareembeddedacrosstheorganisation.Itwilldeliveritsown
projects,aswellasensuretheCorporationoptimisesitsimpactonregenerationbyworkingwith
arangeofstrategicpublicandprivatesectorpartners.Havingadedicatedresourcewillensure
theseobjectivesareintegratedintoallprogrammesandinitiativestopromotelocalcommunity
andbusinessengagement,socialandeconomicregeneration,equalitiesandinclusion.
Priority Outcomes:

SecurethebestpossibleoutcomefromtheHS2petitioningprocess
Secure the best possible outcomes from the significant investment at Old Oak for
thelocalresidentialandbusinesscommunities
Securegovernmentfundingforkeygrowthasks
Clear understanding of the power and stake of key regeneration stakeholders to
informstakeholderengagementplans
Education and skills development programmes reflect the needs of employers and
equiplocalresidentsandLondonerswithskillstocompete,andsecuresustainable
employmentinthenewjobs,growthsectors,andopportunitiesinthearea
Businessesaresupportedtocompetefornewopportunities
Preparation of a Business Plan for Park Royal, in partnership with the Park Royal
BusinessGroupandWestLondonBusiness
InvestmentandDeliverystrategyprovidingclarityforinvestors
Clear statement of how, when and with whom the Corporation will regularly meet
andengagewith
Socialinfrastructure,homes,jobs,opportunitiesandchoicetosupportexistingand
newcommunitiesinthenewneighbourhood
Improvingqualityoflifeindicators
Strongpartnershipswithotherpublicagencies,deliverybodies,localauthorities


6.3.1 Context
ThefocusoftheCorporation,pre-establishment,wasrightlyondevelopingtheplanning
frameworkforthefutureregeneration.However,theMayorhasbeenclearthattheroleofthe
CorporationshouldalsobetosecurethemaximumbenefitsforLondonandLondoners.Limited
workhasbeenundertakenonthesocio-economicaspectsofthevisiontodate,butpostestablishmenttheOPDCwillturnitsfocustoconsideringhowthisrolewillbedeveloped.

6.3.2PriorityWorkstreams,MilestonesandTargets

PriorityWorkstreams
Gettingregenerationpolicy
frameworkinplace

TargetDatefor
Commencementof
Activity
2015/16

MilestonesandorMeasures

27
Page 171

Developmentofkeypolicies:socioeconomicregeneration,equality
andinclusion,inclusivedesign,
Developmentoftargetsframework
andbenefitsrealisationstrategy,
includingestablishmentof
indicatorsagainstwhichto

OPDCGrowthStrategy

2015/16

InclusionofaskformatchEU
fundingforOldOakwithinTfL
BusinessPlan.

.


Business Engagement (with West 2015/16


London Business and Park Royal
BusinessGroup)

CommunityEngagement(with
groupssuchasGrandUnion
Alliance)


2015/16

benchmarkprogressofthewhole
OldOak&ParkRoyal
redevelopmentprogrammeQ2/3
2015
Draftasksubmittedto
Government-endApril2015
Detailedsubmissionfor
ComprehensiveSpendingReview
2015-September2015
CSRannouncement-Autumn2015
DraftcontentagreedwithTfL,-
July2015
SecuresupportivewordsinTfL
pressreleaseannouncingBusiness
PlanQ22015
PublicationofTfLBusinessPlan-
December2015

EmploymentLandReviewcomplete
Spring2015
Commence
development
of
complementary business strategies
for Old Oak, and Park Royal, that
address key areas of market
opportunity and failure e.g.
broadband, transport infrastructure
Q12015
Delivery of business engagement
programmesLate2015/16
Preparation of a Park Royal
BusinessPlan
DraftCommunityChartercomplete
March2015
ConsultationonCommunityCharter
Q12015
StakeholdermappingQ12015
Establishingrelationshipswitha
networkofstakeholdersand
communitygroups2015
Earlyactivationcommunity
engagementprogrammes
developede.g.Sitevisits,enewsletters-Ongoing
Implementationofcommunity
engagementprogrammes-
Ongoing.


DevelopmentofDemand-led
employmentandskillsstrategyand
programmes

2015/16

28
Page 172

Scopingandconsultationwithkey
employment&skillsstakeholders,
onemployment&skillsstrategy
andactionplanQ1,2015
Establishgovernancestructureto
engagewithkeystakeholdersto
delivertheemployment&skills
strategy/actionplanQ2,2015
Publishemployment&skills
strategyandactionPlanQ3,
2015
Implementationofemployment&
skillsbrokeragehubtocoordinate

Agreementwitheducation,housing
andhealthprovidersonhowsocial
infrastructurerequirementswillbe
delivered.
Developmentanddeliveryofgreen
gridandsustainabilitystrategy

2016/17

2015/16

ParkRoyalSMEGrowth/
IntensificationProgramme

2015/16








29
Page 173

provisioninarea,workingwithkey
stakeholders,deliverypartners,
collegesetc.2016.
Workwitheducation,housingand
healthproviderstoagreepriorities
forsocialinfrastructure2015/16
Workwithkeystakeholdersto
scopesustainabilityactions,
measuresandtargets2015/16.
Developafplacebased,holistic
packageofbusinesssupport
targetedtohelpingSMEsgrow,for
exampleinsectorssuchasclean
technology


6.4 CommunicationsandPublicRelations

ThisdirectorateleadstheCorporationsinteractionsandcommunicationswithgovernment,key
stakeholders,businesses,localcommunitiesandthemedia.

PriorityOutcomes:
The Corporation has a high profile and good reputation across all key stakeholder
groups
Strongmediapresence
Effective parliamentary/government engagement, resulting in government funding
securedforkeyinfrastructureanddevelopmentofthearea
Corporationhasaclearandrecognisablebrandidentitythatreflectsitsvision,mission,
valuesandobjectives
Increased profile of the area, and an understanding by the investment community of
thescaleoftheopportunity
The Corporation is seen as an authoritative, innovative and key player in the
regenerationsector
ClearandconsistentkeymessagesthatreinforcetheCorporationsbrand

6.4.1 Context
TheCommunicationsfocusoftheCorporationpre-establishmenthasbeenonpressoffice
activities,includingproactivebriefingsandmedialines.Whilstthiswassufficientfortheinterim
phase,thereisnowasignificantopportunityfortheCorporationtodevelopahighprofile
amongstkeystakeholders,theregenerationsectorandbeyond.

6.4.2PriorityWorkstreams,MilestonesandTargets
PriorityWorkstreams

TargetDatefor
Commencementof
Activity
2015/16

DevelopmentofCommunications
Strategy


MilestonesandMeasures

DevelopmentofBrandingand
MarketingStrategy


2015/16




30
Page 174

LaunchOPDCwebsiteApril2015
StakeholdermappingQ12015
CommunicationsStrategydrafted
Q12015
DevelopmentofOPDCcore
script/keymessagesQ12015
Secureactivepresenceatkey
propertyevents,incl.London
PropertyForum,MIPIM2016-
Ongoing
Fundingapproved2015
CommissionofBrandingand
MarketingStrategy2015
Strategycomplete&adoptionon
Corporations
communications/collateral-2015
Producetoscalemodelfor
promotionalopportunities2015


6.5 ExecutiveProgrammeOfficeandCorporateGovernance(EPO)

Thisdirectorateprovidesasingle,centralsupportstructurefortheCorporationsprojectsand
programmes,undertakingperformancemanagement,riskmanagement,assuranceand
corporategovernance.Italsoprovidessupportservicesacrosstheorganisation,including
corporateplanningandprogrammemanagement,finance,audit,governance,procurement,
legal,humanresources,facilitiesmanagement,ITandinformationmanagement,though
sharedserviceswithintheGLAGroupwhenthisoffersbestvalueformoney.Itisproposedthat
OPDCwillhavesharedservicesinregardstolegalservices.TransportforLondon(TfL)Legal
willprovideservicesandtheCorporationwillbeallocatedaresource.TfLwillalsoprovide
resourceontransportmodellingandspecifictransportmatters.GLAFinancewillprovide
financialservicestotheOPDC.AuditserviceswillbeprovidedbyMOPAC.
PriorityOutcomes:
OfficespacesecuredwithallnecessaryIT,communications,andphysicalresourcesin
place
Successfulinductionandtrainingforallboardandcommitteemembers
Regularboardandcommitteemeetingsheldtoagreedtimetable;paperspublishedin
linewithstandingorders
AgreementsinplaceforprovisionofsharedserviceswithGLA,TfL,andMOPAC
Establishment of corporate auditing, publication of accounts and reports to agreed
timescales
Annualbudgetprocessreview,agreementandpublicationofupdatedbudget
Agreementandpublicationof1stbusinessplanandreviewandupdatingofbusiness
planinfollowingyear
Permanentstaffinplaceinlinewithagreedresourcingplan
Robustprocessforriskmanagementandreportinginplacewithregularreportingof
keycorporaterisksandriskstatusestotheboardandcommittees

6.5.1 Context
ThefocusoftheExecutiveProgrammeManagementOffice(EPO)pre-establishmenthasbeen
onworkingaspartoftheinterimstaffteamtoestablishtheCorporationasanindependent
entityby1April.Thishasincludedundertakingoperationalreadinessactivities,developingand
securingbuy-infortheCorporationsproposedgovernancestructure,recruitingBoardand
Committeemembers,andmakingpreparationsfortheCorporationsfirstBoardmeetingon1
April.EPOhasalsoworkedwiththeinterimDirectoronaResourcingStrategy,hasco-ordinated
developmentoftheCorporationswebsite,andledonnegotiationofsharedservices
agreementwithintheGLAfamily.Post-establishmenttheEPOwillleadoncorporate
governanceanddeliveryofarobustprogramme,riskmanagementandassuranceprocessfor
theCorporation.ItwillalsobethemaininterfacewiththeGLAsoversightrole.Finance,legal,
procurementandauditserviceswillbedeliveredthroughsharedservices.

6.5.2PriorityWorkstreams,MilestonesandTargets

PriorityWorkstreams

TargetDatefor
Commencementof
Activities
Secureandfurnishphysicalpremises 2015/16
forOPDC

MilestonesandMeasures

31
Page 175

Interimaccommodationsolution
securedQ12015
Secureshop-frontpresencein

Agreeandmanageprovisionof
sharedservicesfunctionswithGLA,
TfLandMOPAC
Recruitmentandappointmentto
Board,AuditandPlanning
Committees

2015/16

2015/16

Collationandpreparationofboard
papersandagendassupporting
Secretariattoprovidepapersfor
calendarofofficialmeetings

2015/16

Establishmentof,recruitmentand
appointmenttowidergovernance
structuresupportingtheBoard
(strategicandthematicadvisory
panels)
Establishtermsofreferenceforall
governancestructuresbelowboard
andcommittees,providesecretariat
functionsforthosepanelswhere
necessary
ProgrammeandRiskmanagement
Process
Development,delivery,andongoing
reviewofResourcingStrategy

2015/16and2016/17

2015/16

2015/16and2016/17
2015/16and2016/17

Establishrobustauditandassurance 2015/16and2016/17
process
Budgeting/financial
monitoring/businessplanning

2014/15

32
Page 176

OPDCareaQ22015
DraftSLAcompleteMarch2015
SLAsinplace,withagreedfees
framework1May2015
Recruitmentandappointmentof
OPDCBoardMembersMarch
2015
RecruitmentofexternalPlanning
CommitteeMembersMay2015
ScheduleofBoard,Audit,and
PlanningCommitteemeetings
establishedMay2015
Measure:BoardandCommittee
Membersatisfactionwith
Secretariatfunction
Establishmentofacalendarof
BoardandCommitteemeetings
Q12015
Establishmentofpreliminary
structureofadvisorypanels-Q3
2015
Measure:Panelmemberandofficer
satisfactionwithsecretariat
function

Outputs:Quarterlyreviewofriskand
programmewithboard
OPDCStaffingEstablishmentPlan
Q12015
GLAbuy-intoCorporation
StaffingPlanQ12015
BoardapprovalofResourcing
Strategy-Q12015)
ImplementationofResourcing
Strategy-Q12016)
- Appointexternalandinternal
auditors-Q22015
- Produceannualreport-Q42015
Measure:theCorporationhasarobustand
accurateannualbudgetandlongerterm
businessplansapprovedbytheOPDCBoard
andtheGLA.
InprincipleGLAapprovalof
OPDCResourcePlanfor2015/16
&2016/17Q42014/15
InputintonextCSRroundQ1
2015
Informalconsiderationofdraft
BusinessPlanfor2015/16&
2016/17atfirstOPDCBoard
meeting
FinaliterationofBusinessPlan
producedandapprovedbyOPDC
Board
OPDCbudgetsubmissionaspartof
Mayorsstatutorybudgetsetting
processNov2015

EstablishmentofOPDCasa
separateHMRCentity

2015/16

Mayoralapprovalof2016/17
budgetFeb2016
Similarbudgetandbusinessplan
milestonesforfutureyears.
CorporationliaisonwithGLAre
approachtoHMRCreVATstatus
Feb/March2015
GLAapproachtoSecretaryofState
Feb/March2015
DecisionbyHMRCSpring2015.




6.5.3 GLAOversight

GLAoversightoftheDevelopmentCorporationwillbeexercisedprimarilythroughregularGLAOPDCFinanceandPolicyLiaisonmeetings,heldinitiallyonamonthlybasis.Attendeeswill
includetheGLAsHeadofPaidService,ExecutiveDirectorofResources,ExecutiveDirectorof
Development,EnterpriseandEnvironment,andrepresentativesoftheGLAsGovernanceTeam;
OPDCsDeputyChair,InterimChiefExecutive,ChiefFinanceOfficerandProgrammeManager.
AlongsideObserverstotheBoard,amemberoftheGLAsGovernanceTeamwillalsoattend
BoardandCommitteemeetingsforthepurposesofGLAoversight.






33
Page 177


7.
ORGANISATIONALSTRUCTURE

7.1 BoardandCommittees

TheOldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporationisaMayoralDevelopmentCorporation,
establishedundertheprovisionsoftheLocalismAct2011.OPDCisafunctionalbodyofthe
GreaterLondonAuthority,whichoperateswithintheoveralllegislativeframeworkprovidedby
theGLAAct1999and2007;theMayorofLondonappointsmemberstoitsBoardandallocates
itsbudgets.

TheMayorhasappointedtheBoard,whichincludes:

- ChairmanoftheBoard
- DeputyChair
- AnelectedMemberofBrentCouncil
- AnelectedMemberofEalingCouncil
- AnElectedMemberofHammersmithandFulhamCouncil
- GreaterLondonAuthority
- TransportforLondon
- DepartmentforTransport
- HighSpeed2
- NetworkRail
- TheChairoftheOPDCPlanningCommittee
- Localbusiness
- Localresident
- Memberswithregeneration,educationandbusinessexpertise

OPDCwillestablishaPlanningCommitteethatwilldetermineplanningapplicationsforthe
OPDCarea.TheChair(ordesignate)oftheOPDCBoardwillchairthePlanningCommittee.The
CommitteewillincludesixadditionalmembersincludingoneCouncillorfromeachofthethree
LondonBoroughs,andothernon-electedmembers,includingBoardmembersorother
stakeholders.Representativesfromthelocalresidentandbusinesscommunitywouldbeableto
apply.

AnAuditCommitteewilloverseetheproperfinancialadministrationoftheCorporations
financialaffairs,includingbutnotlimitedtothemaintenance,preparationandauditof
accounts,internalcontrolsandriskmanagement,internalandexternalaudit.TheCommittee
shallbeappointedbytheBoardandshallcomprisethreemembers,atleastoneofwhichshall
haverecentfinancialexperience.

OthercommitteesmaybeformedsubjecttofurtherscopingandagreementbytheBoard.

Allnon-electedrepresentativesontheBoardandCommitteesmeetingsareselectedthroughan
openandtransparentprocess;CommitteememberswhoarenotalreadyBoardmembersare
appointeddirectlybytheMayor.AllBoardandCommitteemeetingsareopentothepublic,
underthesamelegalframeworkaslocalcouncilmeetings.Detailsofmeetingsarepublishedon
theODPCwebsite.

OPDC,underthe2011LocalismAct,hasstandingpowerstosecuretheregenerationofitsarea,
includingfunctionsrelatingtoinfrastructure,regeneration,developmentandotherland-related
activities;acquisitionoflandincludingbycompulsorypurchase,andoverridingthirdparty
rightsinthatland;adoptionofprivatestreets;carryingonofbusinessesbytheMDCandits

34
Page 178


participationinsubsidiariesandothercompanies;andgivingoffinancialassistance.The
Corporationalsoperformsthefunctionsofthelocalplanningauthorityforthewholearea.

7.2 GovernanceStructure

Forittosucceed,theOPDCwillneedtoworkcloselywiththethreeLondonboroughs,central
Government,landowners,developersandallofitskeystakeholdersinordertodeliverthevision
andrealisethepotential.TheGovernancestructurewaspresentedtotheBoardon1April
2015andwillenableacollaborativeapproachfromtheoutset.SeeAppendix1foremerging
governancestructure,whichisflexibleenoughtochangeastheCorporationestablishesitself
andtheworkwithstakeholdersdevelops.

7.3 OrganisationalStructureandStaffing

Directorates

TheCorporationwilloperatethroughfiveprincipaldirectorates:

Planning
Commercial
RegenerationandStrategicPartnerships
CommunicationsandPublicRelations
ExecutiveProgrammeOffice(EPO)

Itisenvisagedthatinfutureyearstheremaybeadditionaldirectorates,subjecttosecuringthe
necessaryresources.

TheOPDCinterimteamconsistsof10membersofGLAstaff.Astaffingplanwillbepresented
totheBoardbythepermanentChiefExecutiveOfficerandwillbeintheregionof25posts.
SubjecttoBoardapprovaltheCorporationstotalstaffingnumbers(includingsecondments)will
be25postsin2015/16.




35
Page 179


8.

8.1

FINANCEANDBUDGET
Thebudgetfor2015/16-2016/17wasapprovedbytheBoardatitsmeetingof1April
2015.TheexistingbudgethasbeenprovidedbytheGLAasseedfunding.


OPDCPROPOSEDBUDGETFOR2015/16-2016/17


ProjectedExpenditure
LocalPlan
CIL
OAPFandmarketingimages
Transportandotherplans
Growthstrategy
Engagement
Regeneration
SharedServices
DevelopmentManagement
Programme
















NETTOTAL

ProjectedIncome
Estimatedrevenuefrompre-applicationdiscussions

(April2015toMarch2017)
Estimatedrevenuefromsubmittedplanning
applications(April2015toMarch2017)
Totalincome



GROSSTOTAL

2-year
cumulative

959,333
286,667
154,000
660,000
872,000
730,667
442,667
990,000
986,000
1,149,667

15/16

589,333
174,667
102,000
354,000
396,000
306,667
179,667
495,000
462,000
559,667

16/17

370,000
112,000
52,000
306,000
476,000
424,000
263,000
495,000
524,000
590,000

7,231,000

3,619,000

3,612,000








80,000

40,000

40,000

350,000
430,000

175,000
215,000

175,000
215,000





6,801,000

3,404,000

3,397,000


Notes:

LocalPlan:thisincludesalltheplanpreparationandevidencegatheringandtheExaminationinPublic.Evidencewillincludeemployment
landreview,futureemploymentusesreview,retailimpactstudy,housingneedsstudy,wasteplan,energyplan,environmentassessments,
biodiversityactionplan,heritageandviewsstudy,designandimagery.

CIL:thisincludespreparationofaCILchargingschedule,andsection106strategy.

OAPF&marketing:thisincludesinteractivedesignimagesand3DmodellingrequiredforthevisualisationoftheOAPF.

Transport&infrastructureplans:thisincludesaParkRoyalTransportStudy,depotrelocationswork,anintegratedutilitiesplan,aSMART
publicrealmplan,aplanforWormwoodScrubsandaconstructionlogisticsplan.

GrowthStrategy&BusinessCase:thisincludesfurtherworkontheDIF,financialmodelling,andpreparationofadetailedbusinesscase
andsupportforanyfuturelandassemblyrequirements.

Engagement:thisincludessupporttoresidentandbusinessgroupstoprovideactiveinputintotheworkoftheOPDC,relocationsupport,
anOPDCpop-upshopfront,anddisplaymaterialsforconsultationevents.

Regeneration:thisincludespreparationofaregenerationstrategy,andworkonsocio-economicsincludingtrainingandskills,andhealth,
educationandcommunityplans.

36
Page 180

Sharedservices:thisincludestheprovisionoflegal,finance,andsecretariatservicestotheOPDC,alongwithservicescontractedtolocal
boroughs.

DevelopmentManagement:thisincludestheplanningapplicationsdatabase,statutoryrequirementsassociatedwithdevelopment
managementandsupporttothedesignadvisorygroupandworkarising.

Programme:thisincludesmarketingandpromotion,traininganddevelopment,externalauditing,andcorporatesupportandequipment
toalltheOPDCfunctions.

Incomeassumption:thisisbasedonanassumptionthattheOPDCwillenterintofivetotenpre-applicationagreementsayearbecause
theOPDCfocusisexpectedtobeonthelargestrategicschemes,andwillreceivecirca200planningapplicationsayear,ofwhichthe
OPDCestimatesroundhalfwouldbedelegatedbacktotheboroughsfordetermination.Theincomelevelsareconservativeestimates
andcouldrise.

Staffing:thisassumesastaffofupto25during2015/16andupto29staffin2016/17.ThestaffingplanwillbesubjecttoBoard
approval.

37
Page 181


9.

9.1

CORPORATERISKS
TheCorporationwillregularlyreviewrisksataproject,programmeandcorporatelevel.
Thetablesbelowshowsthetopsevencorporaterisksfortheorganisationandrisksto
thedeliveryoftheOldOakandParkRoyalregenerationprogramme,identifiedin
March2015,theirpotentialimpact,andwhatmitigatingactionisbeingtaken.



Categoryof
Risk

Risk

Likelihood

Rating

Impact

No

Mitigation

Directorate
Owner

1

Organisation

2

2

Organisation

2

3

Organisation

4

Organisation

OPDCdoesnot
followthe
objectivesand
prioritiesassetin
theMayorsvision
2013
Futurebudget
requirementsfor
OPDCincrease
dramatically
Insufficient
revenueresource
allocatedtoenable
theOPDCto
preparethe
necessaryplansto
support
regeneration
OPDCdoesnot
havethecapacity
todeliveronits
workprogramme

5

10

TheMayorappointsthe
boardmembersandwill
determineitsremitand
performance

EPO

5

10

2

4

8

Futureexpansionwill
EPO
needtobediscussedand 
agreedbytheOPDC
Board.
GLAPlanningiskeeping EPO
thenecessaryplansand
preparationcostsunder
regularreview

2

5

10

5

Delivery

Unabletoidentify 2
locationstodeliver
improvedroad
accessintoOldOak


5

10

6

Delivery

2

5

10

7

Delivery

Unabletodeliver
thelongterm
regenerationplans
forOldOak
Unableto
coordinateor

3

5

15

38
Page 182

TheOPDChasaninterim
staffsecondedfrom
acrosstheGLAGroup
andLondonboroughs;
andastaffingplanwill
bepreparedfor
considerationbythe
OPDCBoardtomeet
futurerequirements
Transportplanningwork
isunderwayandwill
considerthewiderroad
transportnetwork,
challengesand
opportunities
OPDCwillberesourced
andstructuredtoensure
arobustvisionandplan
isdelivered
OPDCwilldevelopan
activeengagementplan

EPO

Planning

Regeneratio
n
Regeneratio
n


influenceother
stakeholders
development
projectsordeliver
sharedobjectives,
resultingin
piecemeal
development
resultingin
regeneration
opportunitynot
beingoptimised.

toensureaproactive
approachistaken.
Governancestructurein
placeincorporatesfora
toenableengagement
andcollaborative
workingtowardsa
sharedvisionamongst
publicsectorandother
stakeholders



9.2

Inadditionadetailsprogrammeandprojectsriskregisterwillbemaintainedbythe
ExecutiveProgrammeOffice







































39
Page 183


Appendix1GovernanceStructure


OPDC Board
Audit
Committee

Planning
Committee

OPDC Strategic Panel


(fmr Old Oak Strategy
Board)

Page 184

Inward
investment

Comms &
Marketing

Transport
Panel

Place Review
Panel

Landowners
Forum

Communities
Panel

Utilities Panel

Employment
& Skills Panel

Housing Panel

Health
Transport
Plan
Construction
Logistics

District
heating &
power

Business
Engagement
Culture

Waste

Leisure/Sport

Water

Community
Engagement

Connectivity

Education
Skills &
Employment
Training

Affordable
Housing
Housing
typologies



40


Design
standards













































Printedandpublishedbythe
OldOakandParkRoyalDevelopmentCorporation
May2015
CityHall
MoreLondon
110TheQueensWalk
LondonSE12AA
Tel:02079834000
Email:info@opdc.london.gov.uk

41
Page 185

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 186

Agenda Item 13




Subject:
HS2PetitioningItems
Meetingdate:18May2015
Reportto:
Board
Reportof:
InterimChiefExecutiveOfficer

Fornoting
________________________________________________________________________

Thisreportwillbeconsideredinpublic
________________________________________________________________________

1

Summary

1.1 ThisreportprovidesasummaryoftheitemsrelatingtolandwithintheOPDCarea
includedintheGreaterLondonAuthoritys(GLAs)petitionontheHighSpeed2(HS2)
HybridBill,whichwasdepositedintheHouseofCommonsinMay2014.
2

Recommendations
Theboardisinvitedto:

2.1 NotetheGLAsPetitionitemsrelatingtolandwithintheOPDCarea.
3

Background

3.1 InNovember2013,GovernmentsubmittedtheHS2HybridBilltoparliament.TheBill
proposalsrelatedtoPhase1ofHS2-ahighspeedlinerunningfromEustonto
Birmingham.TheproposalsincludedastationatOldOakCommon,whichprovidedan
interchangebetweenHS2,LondonCrossrailandNationalRailservicesontheGreat
WesternMainLine.ThestationatOldOakCommonwouldhelptorelievepressureat
Euston,withmodellingshowingthatapproximately30%ofHS2passengerstoLondon
woulddisembarkatOldOakCommonandcompletetheirjourneysviaLondonCrossrail,
NationalRailorothertransportmodes.ThestationatOldOakCommonwouldalso
provideabetterconnectionbetweenHS2andHeathrowAirport,whichwouldbejust8
minutesjourneytimefromHS2viaLondonCrossrail.
3.2 InrecognitionofthestepchangeinaccessibilitythattheOldOakCommonstation
wouldprovidethispartofLondon,theGLA,alongwithTfLandtheLondonBoroughs
ofBrent,EalingandHammersmithandFulhamdevelopedaVisionforOldOak.
3.3 TheVisiondocumentincludedrecommendationsforhowafutureOldOakCommon
stationshouldbedesignedtofacilitatethisregeneration.GovernmentsHS2HybridBill
submissionhadnotincludedalltheserecommendationsandasaresult,theGLA
considereditappropriatetopetitionontheHS2HybridBillinordertoensurethatthe

Page 187

designoftheOldOakCommonstationprovidedbetteropportunitiesforregeneration.
TheGLAalsopetitionedonotherissuestoprotecttheamenityofLondoners,whichare
applicabletotheOPDCareaandhavebeensetoutinSection4below.
4

SummaryofHS2PetitionItems

4.1 TheGLAspetitionontheHS2HybridBillincludesthebelowitemsthatrelatetothe
OPDCarea.TransportforLondon(TfL)andtheLondonBoroughsofBrent,Ealingand
HammersmithandFulhamhavealsopetitionedontheHS2HybridBillandwheretheir
petitionitemsoverlapwiththoseoftheGLAs,thishasbeenidentifiedatthebottomof
eachpetitionitem.
Petitionitem1:DeliveryofLondonOvergroundstation(s)atOldOak
4.2 TheWestLondonLine(ClaphamtoWillesden)andtheNorthLondonLine(Richmond
toStratford)bothpassincloseproximitytotheplannedOldOakCommon
HS2/Crossrailstation.AspartoftheHS2proposals,therearenoplanstoconnecteither
oftheselinestothestation.
4.3 ConnectingtheLondonOvergroundtotheOldOakCommonHS2/Crossrailstation
wouldhavethefollowingkeybenefitsofdirectrelevancetoHS2:

RelievingpressureatEustonbyallowingmoreHS2passengerstointerchangeat
OldOak;

ImprovingaccesstoHS2,savingthousandsofpassengerswishingtoboardor
alightatOldOakinexcessof20minutes;and

EnhancingtheregenerationbenefitsthatHS2willbringtotheOldOakarea.

4.4 InAutumn2014,TfLconsultedon3optionsforconnectingtheLondonOverground
networktotheplannedOldOakCommonstation.TfLannouncedinJanuary2015that
theirpreferredOptionthatwouldbetakenforwardisOptionCthisoptionwouldsee
twostationscreated;astationontheNorthLondonLineadjacenttoOldOakCommon
LaneandastationontheWestLondonLineadjacenttoHytheRoad.
4.5 TfLandtheLondonBoroughsofEalingandHammersmithandFulham(LBHF)also
petitionedforthedeliveryofLondonOvergroundstation(s)atOldOak.
PetitionItem2:EnsurethedesignanddeliveryoftheHighSpeed2stationandraillines
supportdeliveryofanewconnectionbetweenCrossrailandtheWestCoastMainline
4.6 TheWCMLrunstothenorthoftheOldOakarea.Currently,localandregionaltransport
servicesrunonthislinetodestinationssuchasWembley,Harrow&Wealdstone,
WatfordJunctionandTring.
4.7 InordertohelpmaximisetheopportunitytoconnectinOldOakCommon,theMayor
andGLAsupportanextensionoftheplannedCrossrail1networktotheWCML.This
wouldallowservicescurrentlyoperatedaspartoftheLondonMidlandfranchisetobe
integratedintoCrossrail1andprovideservicesfromTringandWatfordJunctiontothe
WestEnd,theCityandCanaryWharf.Theschemewouldalso:

ProvidereliefforEustonstationbyremovinganumberofsuburbanservicesfrom
thestationandinsteadoperatingthemontoCrossrail;

Page 188

HelpensurethatthepotentialbenefitsofbothHS2andCrossrail1aremaximised;
and
ImproveconnectivitytoneighbouringOpportunityAreasinwestandnorthwest
London.
4.8 TfLandtheLondonBoroughsofBrent,EalingandHammersmithandFulhamalso
petitionedforthedeliveryofanewconnectionbetweenCrossrailandtheWestCoast
MainLine.
Petitionitem3:DeliveranEasternAccessroutefromtheOldOakCommonstation
4.9 HS2LtdcurrentlyproposesthattheonlyvehicularaccesstoOldOakCommonstation
wouldbeviaOldOakCommonLanetothewest.HS2Ltdproposestomake
improvementstoOldOakCommonLaneandVictoriaRoadtofacilitatethis.However,
theseimprovementsalonearenotlikelytobesufficientinalleviatingtrafficcongestion
resultingfromHS2trips.
4.10 AneasternhighwayaccesswouldhelptorelievepressureonOldOakCommonLane
andVictoriaRoad.WorkundertakenbyTfLhasshownthatathirdofvehiclescoming
to/fromtheOldOakCommonstationwouldusesuchaconnection,withcommensurate
benefitstojunctionsontoVictoriaRoadandtheA40.Theconnectionwouldalso
providebetterbus,cycleandpedestrianaccesstotheOldOakCommonstation,provide
greaterresilienceintermsofemergencyegressfromthestationandassistwiththe
regenerationofthewiderOldOakarea.
4.11 TfLandtheLondonBoroughsofEalingandHammersmithandFulhamalsopetitioned
forthedeliveryanEasternAccessroutefromtheOldOakCommonstation.
PetitionItem4:EnsuretheOldOakstationdesign/layoutenablesfuturedeliveryofa
qualitySouthernAccessroutethroughthestationandontoWormwoodScrubs
4.12 HS2Ltdcurrentlyproposethatthestationconcourseprovidingtheinterchange
betweenHS2andCrossrailwouldbeprovidedviaabridgeovertheCrossrailandGreat
WesternMainLinetracks.Thisbridgeisproposedtobeonlyaccessibletothosethat
havepaidafarefortravel.
4.13 Thepetitionarguesthatitisimportantthatthestationisdesignedsothatpeopleliving
inthenewdevelopmenttothenorthofthestationwouldbeabletopassthroughthe
stationandaccessWormwoodScrubstothesouth,whichwouldbefacilitatedbyan
unchargedconcourse.Itispreferredthatsuchaconnectionisdoneinawaythatis
rationalandminimisesthedistancethatpeoplehavetowalkandthatthebestwayto
dothisisviaaconcoursethatwouldgoundertheCrossrailandGreatWesternMain
Lineplatforms,whichwouldcomeoutonthesamelevelasWormwoodScrubs.
4.14 LBHFalsopetitionedforenablingtheprovisionofaqualitysouthernaccessto
WormwoodScrubs.
Petitionitem5:DeliveryofanewpedestrianandcycleroutefromtheOldOak
CommonstationtoNorthActon
4.15 NorthActonisservedbyCentralLineservicesandtheareahasalsorecentlyseen
substantialregenerationandthecreationofnewhomesandjobs.Thisregenerationis
settocontinueoverthenextdecadeandbeyond.UnderHS2Ltdscurrentproposals,
accesstoOldOakCommonstationfromNorthActonwouldbeviaVictoriaRoadand
OldOakCommonLaneadistanceofsome1,700metres.
Page 189

4.16 Thepetitionproposesthatamoredirect,dedicatedpedestrianandcyclelinkisprovided
fromNorthActonstationtotheHS2station.Thepreferredapproachwouldbeto
providealinkfromVictoriaRoadundertheplannedNorthLondonLineOverground
stationandunderOldOakCommonLanetotheOldOakCommonstationsite,reducing
thedistancetoaround1,100metres.
4.17 TfLandLBHFalsopetitionedforthedeliveryofaccesstoNorthActon.
PetitionItem6:RelocationoftheHeathrowExpressDepot
4.18 ThesiteoftheproposedOldOakCommonstationiscurrentlyoccupiedbythe
HeathrowExpress(HEX)andFirstGreatWestern(FGW)depots.HS2Ltdproposethat
theFGWdepotisrelocatedtoNorthPoleDepotwest,andthattheHEXDepotis
relocatedtoNorthPoleEast.
4.19 NorthPoleWestisplannedtobecomeanIntercityExpressProgrammeDepotandis
partofawiderprogrammetoreplacetheexistingdieselfleetwithnewelectric-powered
trains.TherelocationofFGWtrainsheredoesnotimpactontheimmediate
regenerationprospectsofOldOak.However,NorthPoleEastislargelyavacantsite
andcouldbeoneofthefirstphasesofdevelopment.
4.20 HS2LtdandtheDepartmentforTransporthaveacknowledgedthattherearetechnical
constraintswithrelocatingHEXtotheNorthPoleEastdepotandarecurrently
consideringalternativelocations.
4.21 LBHFalsopetitionedagainsttherelocationoftheHEXDepottoNorthPoleEast.
PetitionItem7:EnsureHighSpeed2proposalsutiliseOverStation/Trackdevelopment
opportunities
4.22 ThecurrentstationdesignatOldOakCommondoesnotincludeanyprovisionstoallow
foroverstationdevelopment.TheimmediateenvironmentaroundtheOldOakCommon
stationwouldbeoneofthemostaccessiblelocationsinthecountry,just10minutes
fromHeathrowandCentralLondonandunder40minutesfromBirmingham.
4.23 Somepartsofthestationwillneedtoremainuncoveredtoallowforventilationand
emergencyegressbutothercouldbedevelopedon,helpingtocontributetoLondons
growingneedforhomesandjobs.Thepetitionarguesthatworksshouldbeputinplace
nowtoallowover-stationdevelopment,wherefeasible,ratherthanafterthestationhas
beenbuiltwhensuchworkswouldbefarmorecostlyanddisruptive.
PetitionItem8.RemovetheproposedcreationofanewWetlandHabitatonWormwood
Scrubs
4.24 HS2Ltdhaveidentifiedthattheirproposalswillresultinlostnaturehabitatalongthe
route.Inordertooffsetthislosthabitat,HS2LtdhaveidentifiedlandatWormwood
Scrubstocreatenewhabitat.WithinHS2LtdsEnvironmentStatement,thisnew
habitatwasidentifiedasbeingwetland.
4.25 Thepetitionsraisedconcernsthatthecreationofawetlandhabitatinthislocationas
thisisoneofthemostwellusedpartsoftheScrubs,betweentheLinfordChristie
stadiumandsportspitchesandadjacenttotwooftheparksmainentrances.The
petitionssuggestedthatalternativelocationsshouldbeinvestigatedandthatother
typesofhabitatmaybebettersuitedtotheScrubs.

Page 190

4.26 LBHFalsopetitionedagainstthecreationofanewwetlandhabitatonWormwood
Scrubs.
PetitionItem9:AconnectionfromHighSpeed2toHighSpeed1
4.27 TheoriginalHS2proposalswithintheBillincludedarailconnectionfromHS2toHS1
(alsoknownastheChannelTunnelRailLink)totheeastoftheOldOakCommon
station,whichwouldhavehadthepotentialtoprovidepassengerswithdirectaccessto
destinationsineastLondon,KentandthenearContinent.Concernswereraisedbythe
railindustryandlocalauthoritiesregardingthesuitabilityofthedesignoftheHS2-HS1
Link,andin2014,theGovernmentannouncedthatitwouldberescindingthe
connectionfromtheHS2scheme,makingnoallowanceforafutureconnection.
4.28 ThiswasnotthepreferredoutcomeoftheGLA,andwhileitwasnotpossibletosupport
theoriginalBillproposal,theabsenceofanyrailconnectionisseenasamissed
opportunitytoprovideafit-for-purpose,dedicatedrailline.Thepetitionstherefore
requestthatpassiveprovisionisprovidedattheOldOakCommonstationtoallowfora
futureHs2-HS1link.Thiswouldeitherinvolvethereconfigurationofthehighspeed
platformsortheconstructionofashorttunnelledspurtotheeastofthestation,to
allowafutureconnectiontoHS1.
4.29 TfLalsopetitionedforthisconnection.
PetitionItem10:Compensation
4.30 Undercurrentproposals,residentsandbusinessesinruralareaswouldbeentitledtoa
bettercompensationpackagethaninurbanareas.TheGLAareinconversationswith
HS2Ltdregardingapotentialpackageofmitigationmeasuresforthosemostaffected
bytheconstructionandoperationofHS2.Thisincludesanumberofresidential
premisesintheOldOakCommonarea.
PetitionItem11:Ensureappropriatemitigationmeasuresareinplacetosufficiently
minimiseimpactsduringconstructiononLondonseconomy,residentsandtransport
networks
4.31 TheGLApetitionedonthegroundsthatthepowersaredeficientastheydonotinclude
sufficientmeasurestominimiseimpactsofconstructiononLondonseconomy,
residentialpopulationandtransportnetworks.Inparticular,atOldOakthereisaninitial
periodidentifiedpriortotheconstructionofaconveyortotheHS2workssitesfor
materialexcavationwhereitisproposedthatmaterialwouldberemovedfromthesite
byroad.TheGLAandothershaveencouragedHS2toconsidertheuseofrailorthe
canaltoremovethisexcavatedmaterial.
4.32 TfLandtheLondonBoroughsofBrent,EalingandHammersmithandFulhamall
petitionedonthisissue.
PetitionItem12:TheMayorsStrategicPlanningRole
4.33 ThepetitionnotesthatLondonhasatwotierplanningsystemandthatthissystemhas
notbeenreflectedintheBill.Thiswouldmeanthatapplicationsusuallyconsideredto
bereferableunderParts1and2oftheScheduletotheTownandCountryPlanning
(MayorofLondon)Order2008wouldnotbeandthepetitionrequeststhat
amendmentsaremadetotheBill.
PetitionItem13:FutureMayoralDevelopmentCorporations

Page 191

4.34 ThepetitionnotesthatSchedule16defineswhatismeantbyrelevantplanning
authorityandthatthisdefinitiondoesnotincludeMayoralDevelopmentCorporations.
ThepetitionrequeststhatamendmentsaremadetoSchedule16torectifythiserror.
5

NextSteps

5.1 OPDCofficersareworkingcloselywithGLAandTfLtoaddressOldOak-relatedHS2
petitionitems.DiscussionswithHS2areongoing.Thereisanaspirationtoagreeas
manypetitionitemsaspossibleoverthenextcoupleofmonths.OldOak-related
petitionitemsarecurrentlyprogrammedtobeheardbytheHS2SelectCommitteein
lateJune2015.Howeverthisprogrammeissubjecttoreviewbyafuturegovernment.
Shouldtherebeoutstandingpetitionitemsthatcannotbesatisfactorilyresolvedwith
HS2priortoSelectCommitteethentheGLA,TfLandOPDCarelikelytoappearatthe
HS2SelectCommitteetoseekadirectiontoHS2tomaketherequestedchanges.The
finaldecisionontheseitemswillrestwiththeHS2SelectCommittee.Thefinal
decisionsoftheHS2SelectCommitteeareexpectedlaterin2015.
6

FinancialImplications

6.1 TherearenodirectfinancialimplicationsfortheOPDCarisingfromthisreport.
7

LegalImplications

7.1 Undersection201(2)oftheLocalismAct2011,OPDChasthepowertodoanythingit
considersappropriateforthepurposesofitsobject,orforpurposesincidentaltothose
purposes.TheobjectofOPDCistosecuretheregenerationofitsarea.Thenotingof
theitemssetoutintheGLAsHS2Petitionisconsistentwiththepowercontainedin
section201(2).
8

Appendices
AppendixAGLAHS2Petition2014

BackgroundPapers
None

Reportoriginator: TomCardis,PrincipalStrategicPlanner,OPDC
Telephone: 
02079835552
Email:

tom.cardis@opdc.london.gov.uk

Page 192

$SSHQGL[$
*/$3HWLWLRQRQWKH+LJK6SHHG+\EULG%LOO
'HSRVLWHGLQWKH+RXVHRI&RPPRQVLQ0D\

Page 193

Page 194

Page 195

Page 196

Page 197

Page 198

Page 199

Page 200

Page 201

Page 202

Page 203

Page 204

Page 205

Page 206

Page 207

Page 208

Page 209

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 210

Agenda Item 16

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A


of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 211

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 214

By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A


of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 215

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 256