You are on page 1of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

OPDC DRAFT LOCAL PLAN CONSULTATION
LBHF RESPONSE – MARCH 2016
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham’s comments in response to the OPDC’s Draft Local Plan consultation are set out as follows:

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
Policy/paragraph

Consultation
Question

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

The 4th bullet states that the mission is to
“Engage with, and support the
participation of, local communities during the
plan making and
development management
processes”
This council considers that as well as “engage
with and support”, the develop management
processes should actively ensure that benefits
flow to the surrounding local communities,
such as College Park, and the host boroughs.
These benefits could include both homes and
jobs.

Amend Mission to better reflect provision of
benefits to surrounding areas.

CHAPTER 2: SPATIAL VISION & OBJECTIVES
Policy/paragraph
Spatial Vision &
Objectives
Our Mission

Consultation
Question
QVO2: Do you agree
with the mission
statement? If not,
what might you
change?

Page 1 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

CHAPTER 3: OVERARCHING SPATIAL POLICIES
Policy/paragraph
OSP1: Optimising
Growth

Consultation
Question
Figure 12

OSP2: Land Use

OSP3: Connections
and open spaces

Council’s response
Whilst maximising connectivity is a key priority
the link to Wormwood Scrubs would have to
consider the sensitive edge along the northern
bank of the Scrubs and any impact on the
ecology of the site as a result. This would need
to be reflected in amendment through the
Local Plan where the link is proposed.
The Preferred Policy Option states that the
OPDC will support proposals that contribute to
the creation of a new part of London by:
a) Delivering a new thriving centre at Old Oak
that seeks to accommodate
24,000 homes and 55,000 jobs;
b) Protecting and regenerating the Park Royal
industrial estate as a
powerhouse of the London economy
accommodating 10,000 new jobs and 1,500
new homes.

Pg.39, Figure 16

Suggested change to text

However, the supporting text refers to a
minimum of 25000 homes.
Pg.39, Figure 16 – misleading to show St Marys
cemetery as ‘existing green space’. It may have
some amenity value for some members of the

The two statements require harmonization.
The London Plan refers to minimum figures.

Remove green shading for St Marys Cemetery.

Page 2 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

OSP4: Densities and
building heights

OSP4: Densities and
building heights

community.
Questions:
recommended air quality policy for the
QOSP4a: Do you
operational phase no 12 master planning
agree with the areas detailed in the local air quality study states that
identified as sensitive developments should not create a new street
edges/locations
canyon or a building configuration that inhibits
in Figure 18?
effective pollutant dispersion. OSP4 makes no
QOSP4b: Are there
linkages with air quality, the key issues refer to
any sensitive
need to” ensure the creation of a
edges that could
liveable place and avoid poor quality
accommodate higher environments” but the potential for creating
densities?
further air quality issues needs to be
incorporated into the policy wording.

Questions:
QOSP4a: Do you
agree with the areas
identified as sensitive
edges/locations
in Figure 18?
QOSP4b: Are there
any sensitive
edges that could

North and south and along the length of the
Grand Union Canal should be a sensitive edge.
The edges of Wormwood Scrubs are also
sensitive. The Local Plan sets out the Hs2
station as location for tall buildings and this
will need to be reconciled with its proximity to
the Scrubs and any impact that any proposals
would have on Wormwood Scrubs.

a) OPDC will support proposals that
deliver predominantly:
i. the highest density development
around Old Oak Common Station;
ii. high density development around
other rail stations and at key
destinations responding to the
surrounding context;
iii. medium densities at residential led
areas; and
iv. lower densities at sensitive edges.
b) OPDC will support proposals that
focus taller buildings at stations,
key destinations and where they
contribute to place making.
c) OPDC will support proposals that allow
effective pollutant dispersal and do not
create a new street canyon or building
configuration that inhibits effective pollutant
dispersal.
a) OPDC will support proposals that
deliver predominantly:
i. the highest density development
around Old Oak Common Station;
ii. high density development around
other rail stations and at key
destinations responding to the
surrounding context;
iii. medium densities at residential led
Page 3 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
accommodate higher
densities?

Page 31
Table 1

The Integrated Water Management Strategy
(IWMS) is not referenced in the list but
perhaps should be. The need to manage
surface water through use of above ground
measures could impact the spatial policies and
therefore needs to be considered.
Page 45: photographic examples - would be
clearer if they could be labelled according to
the degree of density they are representing.

Page 45
OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights
OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights
General Comment

OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights

areas; and
iv. lower densities at sensitive edges.
b) OPDC will support proposals that
focus taller buildings at stations,
key destinations and where they
contribute to place making.
c) OPDC will support proposals that allow
effective pollutant dispersal and do not
create a new street canyon or building
configuration that inhibits effective pollutant
dispersal.
Include the IWMS in Table 1.

Label photographs according to the degree of
density they are representing.

It appears that the policies on high residential
densities might conflict with the policies on
design, heritage, sensitive edges and views.
This needs further testing and evidence.
Key Issues

Key Issues, No 3 – amend to say ‘ To be
successful, such buildings should be exemplar
and ensure the creation of a liveable, healthy
place in a high quality environment.’

Key Issues, No 3 – amend to say ‘ To be
successful, such buildings should be exemplar
and ensure the creation of a liveable, healthy
place in a high quality environment.’
Page 4 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights

Preferred Policy
option, b

Preferred Policy option, b – Strengthen policy
to ensure that tall buildings are appropriately
located as part of comprehensive development
of the OA. Therefore avoid random tall
buildings across the site developing over life
time of project.

b) after ‘….where they contribute to
placemaking’ add ‘and in the context of the
overall comprehensive development of the
area.’

CHAPTER 4: THE PLACES
Policy/paragraph
OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights

Consultation
Council’s response
Question
page 42, key issues, 3 A well designed high quality environment
should seek to be healthy in line with the
OPDC’s ambition to be a ‘ Healthy Town’.

OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights

Page 43, Figure 18

OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights

Page 44, para 3.29

OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights

Page 44, para 3.30

OSP4: Densities and

Page 44, para 3.22

Page 43, Figure 18, Densities And Building
Heights – both sides of the Grand Union Canal
are considered to be sensitive edges. This is
consistent with the statement on page 56, K
which states that ‘provides a sensitive edge
onto the Scrubs and the Grand Union canal.’
Page 44, para 3.29 – expand on why High
density development is considered appropriate
around stations.
Page 44, para 3.30 – delete ‘are likely’ and
replace with ‘will’ - The high and highest
densities will exceed the London Plan Density
Matrix.
Page 44, para 3.22 (but should be 3.32) – last

Suggested change to text
Amend text in 3. So that last sentence reads
‘…should be exemplar and ensure the creation
of a healthy, liveable place in a high quality
environment.’
Change plan to show both sides of the GUC as
sensitive

Page 44, para 3.29 – ‘High density
development is appropriate around stations
because…..’
Page 44, para 3.30 – ‘The high and highest
densities will exceed the London Plan Density
Matrix.’
change last sentence
Page 5 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
Building Heights

(but should be 3.32)

OSP4: Densities and
Building Heights

QOSP4a

OSP5: Places

Page, 47 Figure 23,
The Places

OSP5: Places

Page, 48 Justification

OSP5: Places

QOSP5A, B, C

P1 Old Oak South
Preferred Policy
Option

QP1a: Do you agree
with the approach
set out for this

sentence which ends ‘where they contribute
to co-ordinated placemaking and create a
moment of interest.’ – what does ‘coordinated
placemaking’ mean as not very clear? and a
‘moment of interest’ maybe negative as well as
positive.
No. Need to show both north and south of
need to show both north and south of grand
grand union canal as sensitive edges.
union canal as sensitive edges.
Review the boundaries of P1 Old Oak South
and P8 Scrubs Lane as the character of P8
extends to the south of GUC along the length
of Scrubs Lane and it be logical to include this
in P8 rather than P1.
Include reference to working with the
boroughs and their knowledge and
understanding of the area and keys issues.
Refer to the need to build upon other
boroughs Visions for their areas in the
immediate vicinity to help inform place making
for Old Oak.
Review the boundaries of P1 Old Oak South
and P8 Scrubs Lane as the character of P8
extends to the south of GUC along the length
of Scrubs Lane and it be logical to include this
in P8 rather than P1.

Include of all of Scrubs lane in P8.

The policy approach is supported, but the
wording of the preferred policy option should
be tightened in a number of areas. The policy

This comment is relevant to a number of other
policies set out in the Places section. An
example of how the Old Oak South open

add new text to reflect this point before or
after Para 3.28

Include of all of Scrubs lane in P8.

Page 6 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
preferred policy
option?
If not, what might
you change?

page 56-58
P1 Old Oak South
Preferred Policy
Option

page 60
P1 Old Oak South
Preferred Policy

requires, for example, new development to
“Celebrate the unique character of Wormwood
Scrubs and the Grand Union Canal and
associated nature reserve and support these in
becoming accessible focal points for the area”.
This provides little real guidance and is open to
wide interpretation. A further example is that
new development will be required to “Be
mindful of existing residential communities at
Wells
House Road, Midland Terrace/Shaftsbury
Gardens,….” . Again, this I wording is too
general as to make it relatively useless in
assessing development proposals.
 Character, appearance and setting of Grand
Union Canal Conservation Area and
proposed Cumberland Park Factory
Conservation Area should be preserved or
enhanced.
 Settings of listed buildings within St Mary’s
Cemetery and Kensal Green Cemetery
should also be ‘preserved or enhanced’.
 Setting of Historic Park and Garden at
Kensal Green Cemetery should also be
‘preserved or enhanced’.

spaces policy could be improved would be to
replace “celebrate” with “respect and
enhance”. The policy would then read
“Respect and enhance the unique character of
Wormwood Scrubs and
the Grand Union Canal and associated nature
reserve and support these in becoming
accessible focal points for the area”.

Para 4.19 - A comprehensive green
infrastructure strategy would help to assess
whether this is a suitable nature reserve and

add after … relocated in an alternative
manner. Add ‘A comprehensive green
infrastructure strategy would help to assess

Page 56-58 - Add Heritage policy option:
 Character, appearance and setting of
Grand Union Canal Conservation Area and
proposed Cumberland Park Factory
Conservation Area should be preserved or
enhanced.
 Settings of listed buildings within St Mary’s
Cemetery and Kensal Green Cemetery
should also be ‘preserved or enhanced’.
 Setting of Historic Park and Garden at
Kensal Green Cemetery should also be
‘preserved or enhanced’.

Page 7 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
Option
Page 62
P2 Old Oak North

whether it should be relocated.
QP2a: Do you agree
with the approach
set out for this
preferred
policy option? If not,
what might you
change?

Page 64-66
P2 Old Oak North

Page 66
Old Oak North
Preferred Policy
Option – Open
Spaces

Preferred Policy
Option – Open
Spaces and

The preferred policy option includes the policy
below. Delivery
l) Support the early redevelopment of the area;
m) Safeguard the Powerday waste site (see
policy EU4).
The safeguarding of the Powerday site for
waste is supported, but it would be better
placed in the Land uses section of the policy.
Page 64-66 - Add Heritage policy option:
 Character, appearance and setting of Grand
Union Canal Conservation Area and
proposed Cumberland Park Factory
Conservation Area should be preserved or
enhanced.
 Settings of listed buildings within St Mary’s
Cemetery and Kensal Green Cemetery
should also be ‘preserved or enhanced’.
 Setting of Historic Park and Garden at
Kensal Green Cemetery should also be
‘preserved or enhanced’.

A minimum space for a park/ open Space in
Old Oak North should be set out to ensure
that its sufficient for the population to the
north of the canal and does not place over
QP2f – should the
reliance on the use of Worm wood Scrubs
new park be
especially as there is little possibility for a good
provided as one large connection from the new community in the

whether this is a suitable nature reserve and
whether it should be relocated.’
Include a new para in the Land uses part of
the policy to read:
“Safeguard the Powerday site for waste
management purposes”

Page 64-66 - Add Heritage policy option:
 Character, appearance and setting of
Grand Union Canal Conservation Area and
proposed Cumberland Park Factory
Conservation Area should be preserved or
enhanced.
 Settings of listed buildings within St Mary’s
Cemetery and Kensal Green Cemetery
should also be ‘preserved or enhanced’.
 Setting of Historic Park and Garden at
Kensal Green Cemetery should also be
‘preserved or enhanced’.
set out a criteria in open spaces section to
require a minimum size large open space/park
and reflect this in the justification.

Page 8 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

Page 74
P3: Old Oak High
Street

space or as a series
of linked new spaces
across Old Oak
North?
QP3a: Do you agree
with the approach
set out for this
preferred policy
option? If not, what
might you change?

P3: Old Oak High
Street

page 72
P3: Old Oak High
Street

north to Wormwood Scrubs in the south.
One large open spaces lends itself to more
flexibility for the types of leisure and recreation it
could provide

Unlike for Old Oak South, there is no
Environment section to the PPO for Old Oak
North.

The term “Old Oak High Street” and the vision
The term “Old Oak High Street” and the vision
for this area should be reconsidered. It appears for this area should be reconsidered.
to be unsuitable for vehicular transport due to
its topography – and there needs to be clarity
in relation to the vehicular route between
Willesden Junction and Old Oak South through
Old Oak and its character and quality.
page 72, ‘Density’
and ‘Streets’

Criteria should be added to either sections to
cover the following –

Page 78
P4: Grand Union
Canal

Include an Environment section and refer to
relevant environment issues, particularly
management of surface water. This area
includes the Grand Canal which could form
part of the area’s SuDS Strategy.

Page 78 Preferred
Policy Option –
Heritage:


ensure the street has a suitable sense of
enclosure, the height
density of buildings should respond to the
change in the width of the High Street and
associated public amenity spaces with
consideration for daylight and overshadowing
to provide quality open spaces.

This should refer to ‘preserve or enhance’
rather than ‘conserve and/or enhance’.
Character, appearance and setting of


This should refer to ‘preserve or enhance’
rather than ‘conserve and/or enhance’.
Character, appearance and setting of
Page 9 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

proposed Cumberland Park Factory
Conservation Area should be preserved or
enhanced.
Settings of listed buildings within St Mary’s
Cemetery and Kensal Green Cemetery
should also be ‘preserved or enhanced’.
Setting of Historic Park and Garden at
Kensal Green Cemetery should also be
‘preserved or enhanced’.

Page 76
P4: Grand Union
Canal

Page 77, figure 35

the length of the Grand union canal on both
the north and south of the canal should be
identified as a sensitive edge

Page 78
P4: Grand Union
Canal

Density

Page 96
P7: North Acton

QP7a: Do you agree
with the approach
set out for this
preferred policy
option? If not, what
might you change?
Preferred Policy
Option – Heritage:

Point f) recognises that GUC is a sensitive
location and therefore in line with the
guidance set out Development capacity
section of the draft Local Plan suggest that’s
lowest heights are more appropriate here.
No Environment section included.

Page 104
P8: Scrubs Lane


This should refer to ‘preserve or enhance’
rather than ‘conserve and/or enhance’.
Settings of listed buildings within St Mary’s
Cemetery and Kensal Green Cemetery
should also be ‘preserved or enhanced’.

proposed Cumberland Park Factory
Conservation Area should be preserved or
enhanced.
Settings of listed buildings within St Mary’s
Cemetery and Kensal Green Cemetery
should also be ‘preserved or enhanced’.
Setting of Historic Park and Garden at
Kensal Green Cemetery should also be
‘preserved or enhanced’.

change plan to should show the length of the
Grand Union Canal on both the north and
south of the canal should be identified as a
sensitive edge
Delete reference to taller elements in point f.

Include an Environment section and refer to
relevant environment issues, particularly
management of surface water. This area
includes the Grand Canal which could form
part of the area’s SuDS Strategy.

This should refer to ‘preserve or enhance’
rather than ‘conserve and/or enhance’.
Settings of listed buildings within St Mary’s
Cemetery and Kensal Green Cemetery
should also be ‘preserved or enhanced’.
Page 10 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

Page 104
P8: Scrubs Lane

Page 114
P10: Wormwood
Scrubs

General

Setting of Historic Park and Garden at
Kensal Green Cemetery should also be
‘preserved or enhanced’.
4.137 – Large scale advertisements
hoardings line the frontages of many sites
on Scrubs Lane detracting from the
appearance of the street scene.
The removal of advertisement hoardings
causing substantial injury to visual amenity
should be an objective.


Setting of Historic Park and Garden at
Kensal Green Cemetery should also be
‘preserved or enhanced’.
4.137 – Large scale advertisements
hoardings line the frontages of many sites
on Scrubs Lane detracting from the
appearance of the street scene.
The removal of advertisement hoardings
causing substantial injury to visual amenity
should be an objective.

the entire length of this corridor needs to be
considered when looking at policies for streets,
heritage, densities so that there is no obvious
delineation between what is the OPDC
boundary and what is LBHF boundary. It should
be seamless.
Welcome a site specific policy within the draft
Local Plan which sets out the need to work
with the Borough and Wormwood Scrubs
Charitable Trust and agree any strategy or
proposals.
Need to recognise the various designations of
ecological protection – Site of Borough Grade 1
importance for Nature Conservation and the
Local Nature Reserve .
The edges of Wormwood Scrubs are also
sensitive. The Local Plan sets out the Hs2
Page 11 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
station as location for tall buildings and this
will need to be reconciled with its proximity to
the Scrubs and any impact that any proposals
would have on Wormwood Scrubs.
Whilst maximising connectivity is a key priority
the link to Wormwood Scrubs would have to
consider the sensitive edge along the northern
bank of the Scrubs and any impact on the
ecology of the site as a result. This would need
to be reflected in amendment through the
Local Plan where the link is proposed.

CHAPTER 5: SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Policy/paragraph
SD1: Sustainable
development

Page 120
SD 1: Sustainable
Development

Consultation
Question
QSDb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
option? If not, what
might you change?

QSDa: Are there any
other sustainable
development policy
themes you think

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

Existing Local Authority Local Plans especially
with regard to land contamination and similar
issues should be incorporated.
In issues regarding the assessment and
management of land contamination, the local
authority is the regulatory body and existing
local policies should take precedence in these
matters.
Yes. This chapter deals very briefly with
sustainability issues in a broad sense and lacks
any of the detail that is present in the other
‘Thematic Policies’ chapters.

Amend preferred policy option to read
b) Planning applications that accord with the
policies in this Local Plan, the London Plan, the
West London Waste Plan and, where relevant,
with policies in existing neighbourhood plans
will be approved without delay, unless
material considerations indicate otherwise;
More detail should be provided on the
evidence base that backs up the policy (which
is certainly wider than just the Integrated
Impact Assessment referenced in the Table 3)
Page 12 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
OPDC’s Local Plan
should be
addressing?

QSDb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
option? If not, what
might you change?
QSDc: Are there any
other policy
alternatives that
could replace the
chapter’s preferred
policy?

Not entirely. Section (a) of the PPO is fine as it
is actually related to sustainable development.
The remainder – (b) and (c) – seem to be quite
generic policy commitments that are not
specific to sustainable development issues.
No.

Consultation
Question
QDa: Are there any
other design policy
themes that you
think OPDC’s Local
Plan should be
addressing?
QDb: Do you agree

Council’s response

and on the key sustainability issues for the
OPDC Area. Signposting to other policies could
be included to avoid repeating some of the
issues dealt elsewhere in the other Thematic
Policy chapters. Stronger justification text
could also be included.
I suggest removing sections (b) and (c) from
the PPO as they are unnecessary.

As stated in the OPDC Local Plan, achieving
sustainable development is a requirement of
national and regional policy, so in order to be
consistent with the NPPF and London Plan,
the OPDC Plan must promote sustainability.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to have an
alternative approach in this policy area.

CHAPTER 6: DESIGN
Policy/paragraph
Page 126
D1: Strategic Policy
for Design

Suggested change to text

No.

No. It should be recognised in the PPO that

Suggest that an additional bullet point is
Page 13 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?

there are a number of issues, including critical
infrastructure that the design and landscaping
need to provide in addition to enhancing
character, providing a sense of place etc

QDc: Are there any
other policy
alternatives that
could replace the
chapter’s preferred
policies?
PPO

No.

Preferred Policy Option in relation to
advertisements should be expanded to include:
‘The OPDC will seek to secure the removal of
advertisements which are the cause of
substantial injury to amenity or public safety
through the use of discontinuance notices.’

Preferred Policy Option in relation to
advertisements c) - should be expanded to
include: ‘The OPDC will seek to secure the
removal of advertisements which are the
cause of substantial injury to amenity or
public safety through the use of
discontinuance notices.’

Page 130
D2: Streets and
Public Realm

QDb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?

Page 134
D3: Open Space

QDb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s

Not entirely. The issues covered in bullet point
(b) are good, but there is scope to make a
reference to the role that streets and public
realm will need to play in providing a resilient
environment in terms of management of
surface water.
See comments for D2 as the same could be
said for this PPO.

Suggest adding a bullet point to part (b) of
the PPO that covers something like a
requirement to deliver multifunctional uses,
including provision of climate change
adaptation benefits such as sustainable
drainage.
As above.

Page 130
D2: Streets and
Public Realm

added to the PPO that relates to the provision
of critical infrastructure. The justification for
this is that there are key issues like provision
of potable water supply and drainage that will
be directly influenced by design of the OPDC
Area that need to be taken into account at the
earliest stage of development design at a
strategic level.

Page 14 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

Page138
D4: New Buildings

D4: New Buildings

preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?
QD4a: Are there any
additional criteria
and/or elements to
the proposed policy
option for tall
buildings and London
Plan
policies which should
be considered?
QD4 a,b and c

Yes. Sustainability requirements could be
highlighted more than they are in the current
PPO.

Suggest that “Sustainable Design” could be
given its own heading in the PPO with some
brief supporting text.

Given that the Local Plan covers large areas of
new industrial, mixed use and variations of
residential developments, more detailed,
locally specific policy guidance would very
useful. Policy D4 should be divided, such as
 Industrial buildings
 Mixed use buildings
 Residential buildings (lower density)
 Tall buildings

Provide more detailed, locally specific policy
guidance which would be very useful.
Policy D4 should be divided, such as
 Industrial buildings
 Mixed use buildings
 Residential buildings (lower density)
 Tall buildings

There will be great differences between the
building types in relation to the specifics of the
area (orientation to canal, railway
infrastructure, sensitive edges, town centres
etc.) such as with regard to scale, grain,
frontages, local impact on visual amenity and
microclimate, relationship with private open
spaces, roofscape, materials, wider visual
Page 15 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
impact, silhouette, permeability etc.
It appears that the policies on high residential
densities might conflict with the policies on
design, heritage, sensitive edges and views.
This needs further testing and evidence.
Page 142
D5: Alterations and
Extensions

PPO aii)

Preferred Policy Option aii). should be
expanded to include reference to materials as
well as scale, form, height and mass.

Preferred Policy Option aii). should be
expanded to include reference to materials as
well as scale, form, height and mass.

Page 142
D5: Alterations and
Extensions

QDb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?

Not entirely. The issues covered in bullet point
(a) are good, but there is scope to make a
reference to the opportunity for
environmental improvements that
extensions/alterations can provide e.g. in
terms of integrating climate change adaptation
measures where possible.

Suggest adding a bullet point to part (a) of the
PPO that covers something like a requirement
to deliver environmental improvements that
extensions/alterations can provide e.g. in
terms of integrating climate change
adaptation measures where possible.

Page144
D6: Heritage

PPO a) and b)

Preferred Policy Option a). and b). should be
amended to refer to ‘preserve or enhance’
rather than ‘conserve, enhance’.

Preferred Policy Option a). and b). should be
amended to refer to ‘preserve or enhance’
rather than ‘conserve, enhance’.

Preferred Policy
Option aiii

Preferred Policy Option aiii). in relation to
Heritage at Risk is too vague and should be
amended to read ‘promote the restoration of
and secure the reuse and long term future of
heritage assets on the Heritage at Risk
Register’.

Preferred Policy Option aiii). amend to read
‘promote the restoration of and secure the
reuse and long term future of heritage assets
on the Heritage at Risk Register’.

Page 16 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
Page144
D6: Heritage

PPO

This should not just relate to heritage assets
which is a clearly defined term but also to the
historic environment in general.

For example:
 in policy D6 a ii: “ensure historic buildings
and structures, in particular heritage
assets, contribute to improving and
creating a sense of place;”
 in policy D6 b: “Proposals will be required
to conserve and / or enhance the historic
environment and the significance of
heritage assets to contribute to successful
placemaking.”

D6: Heritage
General Comment

General Comment

Concern that the preferred policy options take
a narrow view of designated heritage assets –
generally referring only to Conservation Areas
and omitting any mention of listed buildings
and their setting or the Registered Historic
Park and Garden at Kensal Green Cemetery
and its setting. The NPPF requires the impact
of development proposals on the significance
of all designated heritage assets to be
considered in the decision making process and
recognises that harm to significance can arise
from development within the setting of
heritage assets.
The wording of the preferred policy options
should also be amended to reflect the
statutory duties within the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
relating to listed buildings, which are to

Policy Options need to be reviewed/ redrafted
to take into account heritage assets.
The wording of the preferred policy options
should also be amended to reflect the
statutory duties within the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
relating to listed buildings, which are to
‘preserve or enhance’ rather than ‘conserve
and / or enhance’ as mentioned in multiple
locations within the Local Plan Draft
document.

Page 17 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
‘preserve or enhance’ rather than ‘conserve
and / or enhance’ as mentioned in multiple
locations within the Local Plan Draft document.
D7: ?
General Comment

new
Preferred Policy
Option required

If not included anywhere in the Local Plan then
the Draft document needs a Preferred Policy
Option requiring the:
 provision of well-designed hard and soft
landscaping,
 protection of trees of significant amenity
and
 making of Tree Preservation Orders where
justified in the interests of amenity.

new Preferred Policy Option requiring the:
 provision of well-designed hard and soft
landscaping,
 protection of trees of significant amenity
and
 making of Tree Preservation Orders where
justified in the interests of amenity.

Consultation
Question
QHb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?
QH4b: Which of the
four proposed
options do you think
would
secure the best

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

Not entirely. As this is the strategic policy, I
would expect a positive reference for the
requirement of housing in the OPDC Area to be
designed and constructed to meet the highest
levels of sustainability performance
It is noted that the OPDC has not established a
preferred policy approach, but has identified 4
options. The council would support an
approach that is most likely to meet local
housing needs. Option 3, based on a viability

Suggest adding a bullet point that refers to the
requirement for housing proposals to be
designed and constructed to high levels of
sustainability performance.

CHAPTER 7: HOUSING
Policy/paragraph
Page 156
H1: Strategic Policy
for Housing

Page 168
H4 Affordable
Housing

Prefer option 3

Page 18 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
outcome for meeting
affordable housing
need?
Please explain why.
Page 180
H9 Gypsy and
Traveller
Accommodation

tested percentage, is the preferred approach.

The council notes the policy that “Where
OPDC’s Gypsy and Traveller
Accommodation Needs Assessment study
determines a need for provision of pitches on
an additional site OPDC
will work with the London Boroughs of Brent,
Ealing and Hammersmith& Fulham to identify
a suitable site”. In this respect, the council will
also expect the OPDC to work with LBHF and
the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea to
help identify suitable sites to meet identified
need in the two boroughs.

No change

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

It is not clear whether the OPDC will be
designating town centres through the Local
Plan. Town centre boundaries need to be much
clearer if a designation is being suggested.

Provide detailed mapping to show the extent
of the designations.

CHAPTER 8: EMPLOYMENT
Policy/paragraph

Consultation
Question

CHAPTER 9: TOWN CENTRES USES
Policy/paragraph
TC1/TLC2/
Figure 93

Consultation
Question

Page 19 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
TLC1

TC1

9.8

9.10

Figure 92

TC2 – Key issue 3

9.13
9.19
TC 2 Alternative
option 1
TC2
Alternative Option 2

Point C – It is not clear whether there is going
to be more than one ‘town centre’ The
wording in point c suggests multiple town
centres.
Whilst we support the intentions, points d,e,f
are very vague for policy criteria.
This paragraph could do with some further
explanation about how the spatial distribution
and uses can help promote healthy lifestyles –
e.g. Walking or restricting hot food takeaways.
The lack of alternative options for policy TC1
seems odd. Alternative options which still
involve a mix of uses could be included.
Neighbourhood Town Centre? Is it a town
centre or a neighbourhood centre? The
Neighbourhood centre classification needs to
be clearly defined.
“…to meet needs..” Can you clarify what you
mean by need. Is it to meet the projected need
for the development or local need or day to
day shopping needs?
Object to the word ‘fantastic’ which is too
objective.
Second sentence. Should say..”NPPF sequential
test”
Agree that the alternative option of Old Oak as
a Metropolitan centre should be dismissed.
Disagree, with the justification for dismissing
alternative option 2. Designating a lower order

Remove the plural

Add more definitive wording or explanation
about what is expected in order to accord
with these bullet points.
Add further explanation

Consider appropriate alternative options.

Delete ‘town’ from the Neighbourhood centre
classification in Figure 92 and elsewhere in the
document.
Suggest amending it to say:
“to meet local need generated by the
development”

Add NPPF to the second sentence.

Better reasoning need in the justification.

Page 20 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

TC2

TC2

TC2/TC3

centre would not preclude larger quantum of
retail floor space coming forward. A tightly
drawn boundary would be more restrictive to
the growth of a centre. The categorisation of
centres could be reviewed as the centre
establishes itself.
We acknowledge the need projected in the
Consider a lower categorisation of centre.
RLNS for the area, but there is concern about
designating high level centres before they
exist. A higher level of designation could put
pressure on a centre to live up to its
categorisation and potentially lead to
overprovision and vacancy. This is particularly
important given the changing nature of high
streets. In our view the categorisation of these
centres should be reviewed as the centre
evolves and, if categorisation is necessary, then
this should begin at a level more akin to the
initial phasing of the development e.g. 5-10
years. 5-10 years is considered to be the most
reliable period for projecting retail need.
Anything beyond that can only be considered
indicative.
We support the approach used to sequential
and impact testing and the proposed
thresholds. This approach is considered to be in
accordance with the NPPF.
The policies appear to be drafted to assess
Suggest adding separate policy or bullet points
what is appropriate in town centres and there
to manage local centres.
is nothing specific for the neighbourhood
Page 21 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

TC3

TC3 c) and para 9.33

TC3 f)

TC3 – para 9.32

TC4 a)

TC4

centres. There is an opportunity to have
policies which address the specific needs of the
lower order centres. Would a different mix be
appropriate in these centres for example.
Point a) 1. Tables and chairs on the public
highway (footpath) may need to be separately
considered from a highways perspective.
This may contradict the policies to provide a
certain mix of uses and a certain proportion of
independent traders. For example, an applicant
could immediately apply for permission to
expand his/her 80 sqm ‘independent’ unit
having previously adhered to the 10% rule in
point d)
Clarification on precisely where betting shops
etc are being restricted would be useful.
Otherwise it sounds like a zero tolerance policy
on such uses.
Can you define ‘meanwhile uses’ How are they
different to permanent uses. Will they have a
lifespan?
Point 3. Complementing other centres should
not be triggered by quantum, it should be done
regardless of whether the proposal exceeds
need. 9.43 says larger proposals. Can you
clarify what you mean by larger?
The RLNS projections are useful to identify
need, but TC4 reads as if they are targets to be
met for the area and for the specific centres.
Such prescription is inevitably going to

Review this from a transport perspective.
Signposting or cross referencing with relevant
transport policy would be useful.
Remove point c) as it undermines other
policies in the plan and doesn’t add anything
that cannot already be achieved through
permitted development.

Clarify where betting shops etc are being
restricted.

Define ‘meanwhile uses’

Remove text from ‘where’ onwards in point 3.

Put projected needs table in supporting text
and make it clear that the figures are
indicative. Perhaps use the phrase “up to”
rather than approximately in point B. It should
Page 22 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
encourage a developer to align with the high
figure rather than making their own judgement
on an appropriate level of retail for their
development.

also mention that this is subject to
assessment.

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

CHAPTER 10: SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy/paragraph

Consultation
Question

S12 Education

Refer to LBHF School Organisation and
Investment Strategy
LB Hammersmith & Fulham School
Organisation & Investment Strategy 2015

S12 Education

Key Issues: 1

-

The need for school places is based on a
calculation of the child yield from the
development.

S12 Education

Key Issues: 2

-

Funding for school development is derived
from a combination of Government grants,
planning negotiations and land deals with
developers.

Page 23 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
S12 Education

Preferred Policy
Option: C

The council will consider whether an allthrough school will be appropriate.

S12 Education

P40

The need for wider use of the schools portfolio
for Early Years’ services, childcare and other
services for children and young people should
be acknowledged.

S12 Education

P241

S12 Education

Allocate sites for the provision of new schools
(ages 3-18).

Remove picture of Westminster City School.
1. Page 238. Key issues. The Local Plan should
state who is the Local Education Authority
within the OPDC area.
2. Page 240 , para 10.14. Justification. There
needs to be recognition that there is more than
one authority around the OPDC area and clarify
how funding from individual approved
developments towards expansion of existing
educational facilities ‘in the surrounding
hinterland’ will be allocated to the various
authorities. Or recognise that further work
needs to be done in order to work out a process
for doing this. E.g. If each local authority makes
observations on a proposed development
Page 24 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
identifying likely child yields from a
development, and a sum is negotiated, how will
this funding be divided up between adjoining
authorities, or will the closest adjoining
authority be allocated the resources?
Page 240, para 10.15 - Justification. The OPDC
needs to engage at the earliest possible stage
with LBHF if it wishes to discuss the potential for
expansion of existing schools to accommodate
the additional educational facilities resulting
from development in the OPDC area as this
could impact on LBHF’s School Capital work
programme.

Amend 3rd sentence of para 10.15 to read:
‘The OPDC will undertake early discussions
with education providers to understand the
potential for the expansion of existing
facilities.’

CHAPTER 11: TRANSPORT
Policy/paragraph

Consultation
Question

T1
Strategic Policy for
transport

T2: Walking
T3: Cycling
T4 Rail
General

General

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

Strategic objective 18. Ensure there us a high
quality transport infrastructure, including a
Crossrail station and a HS2 rail hub to support
development in the north of the borough and
improve transport accessibility and reduce
traffic congestion and the need to travel.
crossing facilities were not mentioned
no comment
Potential for platforms on West Coast Main
Line at Willesden Junction in order to improve
access to the Opportunity Area and allow
Page 25 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

page 267
QT4a

Page 270
QT5b:

Do you have any
suggestions of
additional rail
connections to the
OPDC area that
should be provided?
Should OPDC seek
to encourage low
and zero emission
buses?

T5: Buses

Page 272
T6: Roads and
Streets

interchange from primarily outer suburban
services to London Overground and Bakerloo
Line, even if Crossrail connection to West Coast
Main Line is delivered.
Yes, to Hounslow via the North London Line
and Kew west curve, to Brent Cross and Luton
via the Dudding Hill line, and Chiltern Line
service to High Wycombe.

Yes it should.

Need to consider the following :
 when designing new roads to allow space
to facilitate bus operations.
 proposals should consider the latest bus
design guidance and aim to improve bus
movements and connectivity to the existing
bus network.
PPO

Preferred policy option must include all road users,
(note part d) does not mention disabled users
Justification 11.49 could be re-arranged and to start
with: ‘All new and improved roads must be built to
adoptable standards and any decision to adopt

Page 26 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
streets would need to be made in collaboration with
the relevant local councils.
reason: when reading this part it could be
interpreted that is for consideration for Park Royal
side, only.
•Road design principles- the following documents
to be considered: MfS 1 and 2; TfL’s Streetscape
Guidance; London Cycling Design Standards
Guidance;
Kerbside Loading Guidance; Accessible Bus Stop
Design Guidance;
• The Approach to road adoption- to be decided at
the outset of the proposal and in consideration with
the LHA processes and latest guidance as well as in
line with the latest, for example DfT’s Draft Advice
Note on Private Streets & Road Adoption

Page 272
T6: Roads and
Streets

Page 272
T6: Roads and
Streets

QTb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?

Not entirely. Roads and streets have the
capacity to help mitigate the effects of climate
change and can facilitate resilience of the OPDC
Area to impacts such as over – heating and
flooding. This issue should be covered briefly in
the PPO.
Preferred policy option must include all road
users, (note part d) does not mention disabled
users

Suggest adding a bullet point (or amending
bullet point (e) to refer to role that streets and
roads can play in helping provide resilience
against climate change impacts.

Preferred policy option must include all road
users, (note part d) does not mention disabled
users

Justification 11.49 could be re-arranged and to Justification 11.49 could be re-arranged and to
start with: ‘All new and improved roads must be start with: ‘All new and improved roads must
built to adoptable standards and any decision
be built to adoptable standards and any
Page 27 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
to adopt streets would need to be made in
collaboration with the relevant local councils.
reason: when reading this part it could be
interpreted that is for consideration for Park
Royal side, only.
•Road design principles- the following
documents to be considered: MfS 1 and 2;
TfL’s Streetscape Guidance; London Cycling
Design Stnadards Guidance;
Kerbside Loading Guidance; Accessible Bus Stop
Design Guidance;
• The Approach to road adoption- to be
decided at the outset of the proposal and in
consideration with the LHA processes and
latest guidance as well as in line with the latest,
for example DfT’s Draft Advice Note on Private
Streets & Road Adoption
Page276
T7: Car Parking

T8: Freight Servicing
and Deliveries
Page 284
T9: Construction

QTb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?

Not entirely. At least some car parks will
presumably be outside and be locations where
surface water run-off will need to be managed.
The role that car parking can play in providing
environmental management benefits should be
highlighted.

QTb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s

This PPO only deals with the transport aspects
of construction when presumably it should deal

decision to adopt streets would need to be
made in collaboration with the relevant local
councils.
reason: when reading this part it could be
interpreted that is for consideration for Park
Royal side, only.
•Road design principles- the following
documents to be considered: MfS 1 and 2;
TfL’s Streetscape Guidance; London Cycling
Design Stnadards Guidance;
Kerbside Loading Guidance; Accessible Bus
Stop Design Guidance;
• The Approach to road adoption- to be
decided at the outset of the proposal and in
consideration with the LHA processes and
latest guidance as well as in line with the
latest, for example DfT’s Draft Advice Note on
Private Streets & Road Adoption
Suggest adding a bullet point that states that
all external car parking will integrate measures
such as SuDS and will not direct run-off into
the combined sewer network.

Suggest including reference in the PPO to
other aspects of construction, including the
Page 28 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

T10: Transport
Assessments and
Travel Plans

preferred policy
with other aspects as well?
options? If not, what
might you change?
change text from the ‘Justification
11.81 The Travel Plan should be secured by a
planning obligation and include ongoing
management.’
To ‘Justification
11.81 The Travel Plan should be secured by a
S106 and include ongoing
management.’

T10: Transport
Assessments and
Travel Plans

need to employ sustainable construction
techniques, materials etc.
11.81 The Travel Plan should be secured by a
S106 and include ongoing
management.’

change the ‘Justification
11.81 The Travel Plan should be secured by a
planning obligation and include ongoing
management.’
To ‘Justification
11.81 The Travel Plan should be secured by a
S106 and include ongoing
management.’

CHAPTER 12: ENVIRONMENT AND UTILITIES
Policy/paragraph
EU1: Strategic
policy for the
environment and
utilities

Consultation
Question
QEUa: Are there any
other environment
and utilities policy
themes that you
think OPDC’s Local
Plan should be

Council’s response

Suggested change to text

Missing details of policy context.

Key Issues 1. Include;
Local authorities hold the specific
responsibility for the management of land
contamination within their boundary under
Part 2A of the EPA 1990 and will have to agree
in writing any proposed submissions or
Page 29 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
addressing?
EU1: Strategic policy
for the environment
and
utilities

EU4: Waste
Management

The comments under EU6 apply here as
well. Further, the synergy between measures
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air
pollutant emissions should be established
here. In addition, the need to ensure that good
indoor air quality is maintained where
insulation is proposed for CO2 emission
reduction.
QEUa: Are there any
other environment
and utilities policy
themes that you
think OPDC’s Local
Plan should be
addressing?

Page 304
EU4 Waste
management
EU5: Circular
economy and
resource efficiency

Page 312
EU6: Decentralised
Energy

actions with regard to the assessment or
remediation of land contamination

QEUb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?
QEUb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy

This policy does not deal with construction or
contaminated waste. As part of the proposals
for sustainable development, facilities for the
treatment of potentially contaminated soils
should be made available early in the overall
development process and should be included
as a factor in phasing plans.
The council supports the preferred policy
option to “safeguard the Powerday (Old Oak
Sidings) waste site in Old Oak”.

An additional point should be added to ensure
that adequate soil treatment and similar
facilities are incorporated to Waste Policies
now in order to satisfy the proposals
contained within the Decontamination
Strategy.

The policy should specifically include
contaminated arising from development

Amend preferred policy option a) ii. to read;
Maximising the use of secondary materials
and the opportunities for reuse,
remanufacture or recycling of soils and other
materials
Amend the PPO to reflect the need for
achieving high levels of CO2 emissions
reduction in pursuit of zero carbon through

Not entirely. Whilst the positive approach to
inclusion of decentralised is welcomed as a way
of minimising CO2 emissions etc, there may

No change

Page 30 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

EU6: Decentralised
energy

options? If not, what
might you change?

also need to be firmer commitments to zero
carbon development which encompasses not
just decentralised energy but also energy
efficiency and renewable energy generation..

implementation of a range of energy
efficiency and low/zero carbon technologies.

Preferred Policy
Option

This opportunity area sits within an a Local Air
Quality Management Area declared across the
borough due to exceedances of nitrogen
dioxide and fine particulate matter. The
European Commission has issued the UK with a
‘Letter of Formal Notice’ for breaching NO2
limit values. Defra and the GLA have written to
the Council calling for cooperation in tackling
the problem, but also reminding us of
Government powers that could require local
authorities to pay the associated EU fines.

OPDC will support and facilitate:
a) provision of energy supply
infrastructure that enables
development (electricity and gas);
b) the provision of infrastructure to
deliver a decentralised energy
network;
c) proposals which contribute to the
delivery of a decentralised energy
network subject to:
i. providing evidence that
appropriate management
mechanisms will be put in place
to ensure that end customers are
protected in respect of the price of
energy provided; and
ii. ensuring that heat losses from the
network are minimised.
iii) Proposals
will be expected to demonstrate
they shall not have a negative
impact on local air quality.

The relationship between local energy
generation and air pollution should be clearly
defined here and it should be made clear that
such energy generation shall not have a
negative impact on local air quality.

Development proposals will be required
to:
d) demonstrate a collaborative
Page 31 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
approach to working with OPDC
and its development partners to
contribute to the supply and capacity
of the decentralised energy network
unless it can be demonstrated that
this is not technically feasible or
economically viable;
e) be designed to enable connection to
the decentralised energy network,
where there is no connection to
a decentralised energy network
yet available, and/or where CCHP
or CHP would not be technically
feasible or financially viable;
f) demonstrate that provision is
included to accommodate routes
and land for energy centres and
utilities networks; and
g) submit an Energy Statement.
EU8: Green
infrastructure &
biodiversity

QEU8a: Where could
new green
infrastructure be
incorporated into
the layout of new
development in the
OPDC area?

Although poor air quality is identified as a key
issue, the preferred policy option does not
identify that greening should be used to
improve air quality and/or minimise the
exposure of people to poor air quality. This
should be added.

Development will be required to:
a) protect and/or enhance and create
multi-functional green and water
spaces and ensure they are
connected by street greening and
other green links;
b) demonstrate how green infrastructure
has been:
i. integrated with utilities
infrastructure; and
Page 32 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

Page 316
EU 8: Green
Infrastructure &
Biodiversity
Page 320
EU 9: Extraction of
Minerals

QEUb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?
QEUc: Are there any
other policy
alternatives that
could replace the
chapter’s preferred
policies?

Not entirely. Green infrastructure is likely to
play an important role in helping to manage
surface water flooding, so this could be
referenced in the PPO.
This policy is inappropriate for this location and
the policy should set out why this is not an
option. One alternative would be to not have a
specific PPO covering this issue. Need to
consider what would the implications of this
be. The implications of having the policy and
allowing licensing for such works would be

ii. planned, designed and managed
to contribute to and be integrated
with, the wider green infrastructure
network;
iii. used to improve air quality and/or
minimise the exposure of people to poor air
quality
c) take account of the proximity of
SINCs, and the habitat and species
targets in relevant Biodiversity Action
Plans (BAPs);
d) be accompanied by an Ecological
Statement for major applications;
e) have particular regard to the
measures for the protection and
enhancement of ecology and
biodiversity in Wormwood Scrubs
and for the Grand Union Canal.
Suggest amending bullet point (b) (i) or (ii) to
include this reference.

Consider deleting the PPO

Page 33 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

EU9: Extraction of
minerals

EU9: Extraction of
minerals

QEUb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?

contrary to the vision, placemaking and
regeneration objectives.
The local geology is extremely unlikely to
provide any opportunity for the discovery of
economically useful reserves of
unconventional oil and gas resources.
However, there is a minor possibility of ballast
and other materials being discovered during
investigation or construction works which
could become a useful resource over the
duration of the project.
If Oil and Gas Development is considered at
this site, it must be demonstrated that it will
not contribute to the poor air quality in the
borough which is already a Local Air Quality
Management Area. Pollution to local land and
perched waterways would also need to be
considered as it would create an offence under
the Environmental Damage Regulations 2009.

Amend preferred policy option to start;
Applications for mineral extraction, including
the exploration, appraisal and operation of
unconventional oil and gas resources, will be
considered against the following criteria:

Applications for mineral extraction,
including the exploration, appraisal and
operation of unconventional oil and gas
resources, will be considered against
the following criteria:
a) Protection of nearby residents and
businesses from the effects of the
operations, particularly in regard to
air quality and noise;
b) The operation’s design, including
its sensitivity to the character of the
urban landscape and to features
of national, London, and local
importance;
c) Site access, traffic generation and
the routing of heavy vehicles;
d) Safeguarding of water supplies and
the water environment, the safe and
sustainable disposal of waste water
Page 34 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

EU10: Air Quality

The European Commission has issued the UK
with a ‘Letter of Formal Notice’ for breaching
NO2 limit values. Defra and the GLA have
written to the Council calling for cooperation in
tackling the problem, but also reminding us of
Government powers that could require local
authorities to pay the associated EU fines. As
the borough is an Air Quality Management
Area (identified in the ‘key issues’) and due to
the potential of these fines being levied on the
Council, it is essential that the impacts of any
development is agreed with the Council. This
should be established in this policy. Point 4 of

and flood risk management including
surface water;
e) The effects on public rights of way,
open spaces or outdoor recreation;
f) The control and mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions and dust
during construction and operation;
g) The efficient use of resources (such
as construction materials or water);
h) The contribution of the operation to
the development of heat and energy
recovery or low carbon technologies;
i) Site restoration, and effective after use
following development; and
j) the safeguarding of biodiversity,
and sites of interest for nature
conservation.
Development will be required to
demonstrate through an air quality
assessment how it:
a) implements the recommendations
of the Old Oak and Park Royal Air
Quality Study (summarised in Table
15 below);
b) has regard to the relevant borough’s
Air Quality Management Plans and
the mitigation measures identified
therein;
c) considers air quality impacts during
construction and operation with the
Page 35 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
the options does identify that assessments
would be necessary, but it should be specified
that these are in agreement with the individual
local authorities.
EU12: Land
Contamination

EU12: Land
Contamination

EU12: Land
Contamination

QEUa: Are there any
other environment
and utilities policy
themes that you
think OPDC’s Local
Plan should be
addressing?
QEUb: Do you agree
with the chapter’s
preferred policy
options? If not, what
might you change?

Missing details of policy context.
The regulator for land contamination is the
Local Authority, not the Local Planning
Authority.

aim of being air quality neutral, with
mechanisms for how this will be
monitored over time; and
d) seeks to minimise air quality impacts
from surrounding uses.
12.104 Amend to include;
After remediation under planning, as a
minimum, land should not be capable of being
determined as contaminated land as defined
by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990 by the relevant local authority.

In order to satisfy part iii of policy option b),
five of the seven steps outlined in section
12.109 will need to have been satisfied.
For this to happen, the final design will need to
be fixed before planning permission can be
granted and site investigation work has to have
been completed and assessed, i.e. as a preapplication process prior to granting planning
permission.
The relevant local authorities will require
additional resources to deal with this level of
involvement.

No proposed text changes.

The focus here is wrong, the Local Authority is
the regulator for land contamination and the
Environment Agency provides additional
support where relevant.

12.107 Amend to:
Land contamination and remediation is the
subject of planning and other regulatory
regimes. A key to the successful
redevelopment of brownfield land is therefore

This issue requires a re-organisation of
priorities and assumptions with regard to the
management of land contamination and the
local authorities who have to agree any
submissions or proposals relevant to land
contamination which a mere textual change
will not address.

Page 36 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
early and continual engagement between
developers, planners and regulators. OPDC
will expect dDevelopers will be expected to to
work with OPDC, the relevant London
Boroughs, and the Environment Agency and
the OPDC in assessing the risks and the
management of contamination, in assessing
the suitability of the proposed use for the
conditions on that site, and in agreeing any
necessary steps for remediation. All steps
must be agreed with the local authority as the
regulator for contaminated land issues.
EU12: Land
Contamination

The focus here is wrong, the Local Authority is
the regulator for land contamination and the
Environment Agency provides additional
support where relevant.

12.108 Amend to:

Regulatory advice and guidance is available to
identify the principal matters which both the
Environmental Regulator will Planning
The full titles of CLR11 and the Guiding
Authority and environmental regulator look to
Principles should be included.
be undertaken when approaching
redevelopment and land contamination. The
A reference to Part 2A of the EPA1990 should
Environment Agency documents ‘Model
also be included as the primary definition of
Procedures’ and ‘The Guiding Principles’ are
‘contaminated land’, and the regulatory regime particularly useful as they highlight the main
stages in the process, best practice and refer
to further guidance.

Page 37 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
EU12: Land
Contamination

Insufficient understanding of the processes of
land contamination assessment and
management.
All assessment and remedial work has to be
undertaken by a competent person

12.109 Amend to:
Where land is known or found to be
contaminated, or where a sensitive use is
proposed or exists, this decision to be made
solely by the relevant local authority,
developers will be expected to assess their
proposals using the seven stage process
below:
1. Preliminary Risk Assessment. Comprising a
desktop study including details of past and
present uses at the site and the surrounding
area to identify any potential sources of
contamination, potential risks and sensitive
receptors. A conceptual site model should be
produced to demonstrate where any pathway
connects any of these sources to the sensitive
receptors. Information collected by the
relevant local authority as part of their
preliminary review of historical land uses must
be incorporated into the Preliminary Risk
Assessment and any risk assessment without
this information will not be accepted as
complete under CLR11.
2. Site Investigation Scheme. Based upon
stage one, setting out how the site
investigation will be carried out, how the
sources of pollution identified in the
conceptual site model will be targeted and to
determine the existence of the pathway to the
identified receptors.
3. Site Investigation. To be undertaken using
current guidance and methods.Page 38 of 46
4. Risk Assessment. Based upon site
investigations, to determine the degree and
nature of any contamination on the site and

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
EU12: Land
Contamination

Infrastructure
provision

Consistency across policies to be maintained

QDIc: Are there any
additional pieces
of infrastructure not
in Table 16 that you
think OPDC should be
identifying?

If the opportunities for local soil treatment are
to be taken seriously, a policy requiring a
proper assessment of the possibility for such a
facility should be incorporated in EU4
Missing infrastructure

Managing and
promoting
development

Resource provision?

Managing and
promoting
development
Managing and
promoting
development

Cannot access the list of information required
for planning applications
Decisions regarding the assessment and
management of land contamination must be
made by the relevant local authority and based
on the correct guidance and current best
practice.

Amendments required to 12.111 to match
revised commitments in EU4

13.26.
Include a commitment to provide facilities for
soil treatment and remediation as part of the
overall development project rather than on a
site only or ad-hoc basis.
13.34.
The provision of pre-application advice to
developers with regard to land contamination
issues will have to be by arrangement with the
relevant local authority. The OPDC is not
qualified to address these issues as they are
not the regulator.
13.35.
Include the current list of documents within
the document, not via a broken web link
Amend 13.38.
Once a planning application has been
submitted to, and validated by OPDC, it is
considered by the relevant regulating
authority against relevant planning policy and
any other material considerations. This Local
Plan, alongside NPPF, London Plan, the Old
Oak and Park Royal Opportunity Area Planning
Page 39 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

Monitoring Local
Plan effectiveness

Framework (OAPF), any neighbourhood plans,
and Supplementary Planning Documents and
other relevant guidance will form the basis for
assessing and determining planning
applications.
13.44
A regular summary of the area of brownfield
land brought back into beneficial use should
be included.

Some general points that do not fit into specific boxes:
The requirement that; after remediation under planning, as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined as contaminated land
as defined by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and that this decision can only be made by the relevant local authority does
not seem to have been considered as a key factor in the assessment and management of land contamination through the planning process. The
OPDC will not inherit this right as a Planning Authority.
There is no policy proposed to ensure that consistency of approach to the assessment and management of land contamination across the three
local authorities will be assessed and maintained.
If the OPDC becomes a land owner and developer, it will assume the full responsibility for ensuring that land contamination issues are dealt
with adequately, but the Local Authority will still remain the regulator for these issues.

Page 40 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

Decontamination Strategy
Why is this not called a Land Contamination Strategy?
Global Remediation Strategies
A Global Remediation Strategy in line with the Olympic Park Strategy is a potentially excellent start to the assessment and management of land
contamination in the ODPC area, but the following key points should be accepted;
 There is a major difference between the Olympic and ODPC sites. The Olympic park had a single completion date, the ODPC is seen as a long
term development process to be undertaken over twenty years.
 There was little or no change in the requirements for remediation during the Olympic Park development, but there is the possibility of
major revisions to the assessment of risk over twenty years
Therefore, the following questions need to be answered:
 Who will take ultimate responsibility for setting out the global strategy?
 Who will be responsible for the review and revision of the Global Remediation Strategy during the life of the ODPC following changes to risk
assessment, legislation, known site conditions etc.
 How with the strategy interact with the existing local authority contaminated land assessment and management policies or strategies?
 Who will be responsible for ensuring that decisions regarding land contamination will be consistent across the separate boroughs?
 Where more than one developer is involved in an area potentially covered by a single Site Specific Remediation Strategy, who will be
responsible for the design and execution of the Strategy?
 Ideally, any plan to ensure that waste soils are treated and re-used within the development area requires all relevant policies to be
designed to interact positively.
Sustainable Remediation and Waste
Setting out a common policy for the entire regeneration programme is another excellent step, but one that needs to be in place, together with
any infrastructure, before any major redevelopment takes place to get the maximum advantage of such a policy.
The Olympic Park was redeveloped over a much shorter period than the ODPC area regeneration is expected to take. As above, there will be a
requirement to review and revise policies as required over the life of the project.
Key points:
 The Main Olympic site was in common ownership for most of this time which provided opportunities that may not be available in the ODPC
regeneration area unless this too comes under single ownership.
Page 41 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016


There was a single boundary to the Olympic site, avoiding the need to move potentially contaminated material over public roads and
simplifying waste movement procedures.
Part of the Olympic site was given over to soil treatment works which were present during most of the construction phase, although they
were moved during the process as land was required for specific parts of the development. This was incorporated into the phasing of works.
To make the maximum benefit of these proposals, an estimate of the volumes and types of material to be treated or disposed of must be
made at the earliest opportunity, this information will be required to design any on-site treatment facilities and for these to be ready before
any major remedial works are undertaken.
Much of the information about possible contamination is already available with the relevant local authority and this information should be
sought out at the earliest stage as part of the initial Global Remediation Strategy work.

Therefore, if the strategy is to work properly the following questions will need addressing;
 If treatment works, such as a soil hospital are to be included in the overall waste management scheme for the ODPC site;
o When will it be available?
o Who will operate it?
o Will a single site be set aside for the duration of the projects?
o Will there be sufficient space for stockpiles of material to even out demand for treated soils or volumes of soils to be treated?
o Will the facility be open to other developers outside the OPDC area to maximise the overall efficiency over the OPDC project lifetime
by filling unused capacity during slack periods in the OPDC development programme?
As part of the overall regulatory programme for the Olympic Site, a suite of guidance documents was generated to ensure the right people
were engaged and the correct licenses, regulatory agreements etc. were in place when necessary. Is this model also t be followed for the OPDC
project?

CHAPTER 13: DELIVERY & IMPLEMENTATION
Policy/paragraph

Consultation
Question

Council’s response

Page 331
Delivery and

general comment
around funding and

There is reference to working with the
boroughs in para 13.5 to identify infrastructure

Suggested change to text

Page 42 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
Implementation

delivering
infrastructure
including legal
agreements.

As such is it critical that boroughs are involved
in any negotiations and agreements to secure
infrastructure which may have a direct bearing
on the councils services and budgets.
What are items UT3 and UT4? Presumably one
of these relates to water supply. Think the
issue should still be identified in the table even
if further work is to be undertaken.
Neither of the web-links in Paras 13.35 and
13.37 work.

Table 16:
Infrastructure
Requirements
Managing and
Promoting
Development

Page 346-

needs. It is also essential for the Pod to work
closely with the boroughs to set out
governance to agree the further prioritisation
of the infrastructure list over the life of the
project as the boroughs will have the local
working knowledge in terms of capacity, need
and demand . And also to agree any ongoing
management and maintenance of any items
delivered as there maybe major implications
for services that the borough provides and
therefore implications for ongoing revenue
budgets.

General

It may be worth referencing that each borough
is the Lead Local Flood Authority for the
relevant parts of the OPDC and must be
consulted on all major applications which must
provide surface water management strategies.
this section needs to consider how the

Refer to infrastructure issue in the table for
items UT3 and UT4.

Check hyperlinks and fix.

Suggest adding some text in Para. 13.38 to
cover this issue.

Page 43 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
Managing and
Promoting
Development

boroughs are involved in the assessment of
planning applications.

CHAPTER 14: GLOSSARY
Drainage Hierarchy

Definition not included

Lead Local Flood
Authority

Definition not included

Air Quality
Comments on Air
Quality Strategy

Include definition as outlined in London Plan
Policy 5.13.
Include definition

Air Quality Comments on Air Quality Strategy
The Executive summary states “modelling confirms that NO2 concentrations currently exceed the AQOs, but indicates that they will
reduce in the future as older vehicles are replaced by newer ones, with tighter emission standards” This does not make reference to
the issues such as VW emissions scandal and that Euro 6 diesel cars currently emit 6 times more than the official limit for NOx. New
real world driving tests from next year are proposed to test emissions from diesel cars but there will be a conformity factor of
double that and then 50% from 2020. So there continues to be uncertainty as to what reductions will be achieved by replacement of
older vehicles which is not detailed here.
The executive summary details “ the monitoring and modelling results suggest a pressing need for mitigation measures to be
implemented in order to meet the AQOs for NO2. It is important that, where possible, developments should not add extra
emissions to the area” However this is not supported by the wording of the recommended policies for the operational phase, which
do not go far enough to support this. “Policy 7 Freight: To minimise the impact of emissions from vehicles delivering and collecting
freight, the OPDC will investigate the possibility of establishing a freight consolidation centre that will facilitate undertaking the
final stage of delivery by zero emission vehicles.”
Also identified in the executive summary, “As there are existing particulate issues in the area and a huge amount of construction
activity will be required , it is vital that construction activities are planned in detail and dust emissions are avoided as far as possible
to avoid continued exceedance of the AQO”. Recommended policy for the construction phase includes “5 Monitoring: The OPDC
will investigate the possibility of establishing a construction monitoring website, in which real time monitoring data from all active
sites will be provided and tracked…this will enable a coordinated response when high particulate levels are recorded across a wide
area.” Again the wording of the statement does not provide adequate assurance that this vital measure will be implemented.

Page 44 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016
Review of policy context and legislation does not detail that because the opportunity area sits within an a Local Air Quality
Management Area declared across the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham due to exceedances of nitrogen dioxide and fine
particulate matter, Defra and the GLA have written to the Council calling for cooperation in tackling the problem, but also reminding
us of Government powers that could require local authorities to pay the associated EU fines. This appears to conflict with the
statement in section 2.2 “ While district councils have a statutory duty to carry out LAQM, it is important to note that councils are
not obliged to achieve the AQOs as they do not have sufficient control over all the sources that could potentially give rise to the
breach”
Section 2.4 details “It is stated that longer-term improvements to air quality (and other benefits such as urban cooling) can also be
delivered through a strategic approach to the provision of trees in the public realm which considers the form and structure of the
canopy and how groups or avenues of trees interact with the open space network to create ‘breeze pathways’ that optimise air
flow. The green infrastructure strategy is still to be developed, so this is unavailable for review at this time. The relationship
between breeze pathways and improved air quality remains to be expanded upon in the final planning framework, further to
comments on the draft planning framework.
Section 2.4 details Hammersmith and Fulham’s AQAP, in addition this section would benefit from detailing that the Council has
established a resident led Air Quality Commission that will recommend actions for the Council to include in a new AQAP.
The suggestion in section 3.2 for “further monitoring in certain areas in order to increase knowledge of air quality across the area
and to enable applicants to verify their dispersion modelling when they are preparing air quality assessments in support of planning
applications” is welcomed. The proposed location of the monitors should confirm which borough these will be located in and detail
how this data will be made available to members of the public and local authorities.
Section 3.6 details the dispersion modelling completed, specifying exposure to traffic pollution modelled. It is not clear whether any
point sources were considered for inclusion in the modelling. More information should be provided as to how these were
considered/discounted. Concentrations were not modelled at varying heights when one of the key recommendations of the study is
“Where possible, not locating residential units on the ground floor near to the A4000” Because varying heights have not been
modelled this statement is not well supported, avoiding residential units on the ground floor may not go far enough.
Appendix C details model verification, the statement “under-predicted at a greater number of sites (26 as opposed to 17)” should
be checked as the tables do not support this.
Section 3.7 states “ proposed individual developments should meet the tightest emission standards detailed in the Mayor of
London’s SPG on Sustainable design and construction” this is taken to mean Band B emission standards will be applied across the
opportunity area and this is welcomed.

Page 45 of 46

LBHF COMMENTS March 22, 2016

Operational phase recommended policy 3 parking is welcomed “ 1 car parking space per 5 residential units with one active electrical
point per space” as existing policies would not provide significant encouragement to the uptake of electric vehicles.
Appendix B states that ADMS –roads version used models the effect of street canyons on concentrations within the canyon…usually
only important when the aspect ratio …Is greater than 0.5” Appendix B goes on to state that in the study “street canyons, noise
barriers, buildings and complex terrain were not modelled” The air quality study should detail why these aspects were not
modelled. The results for the 163 receptors modelled have been presented visually but not tabled, which should be provided as an
appendix to assist with review of the document.
Operational phase recommended policy 12 master planning details that “developments should not create a new “street canyon” or
a building configuration that inhibits effective pollution dispersion” This should be expanded to detail that dispersion modelling
should utilise models that offer advanced treatment of street canyon. CERC newsletter winter 2015/16 details when this is
appropriate
ADMS-Urban 4 and ADMS-Roads 4 include an advanced street canyon modelling option, which is most appropriate:
 When modelling tall street canyons (height/width > 1);
 When modelling asymmetric canyons, with different building heights, densities or distances from the road on either side of
it;
 When modelling a road with substantial pavements within a canyon; or
 When looking at the variation of concentration with height within a road canyon.
The advanced street canyon option affects pollutant concentrations inside and outside canyons, which allows for a smooth
transition between modelling with and within a street canyon. Using this option requires more input data than the basic street
canyon option. This data can be generated either by hand or automatically from digitised road and building datasets using the
supplied ArcGIS Street Canyon Tool.
Policy for operational phase 15 assessment for planning purposes should provide more detailed guidance as to how dispersion
modelling should be completed and confirm when advanced modelling tools should be utilised such as ADMS advanced street
canyon modelling, to ensure a consistent approach to air quality assessment.

Page 46 of 46