greater london authority

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

INTO

OBJECTIONS

TO

THE WESTMINSTER UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW

PART ONE: STRATEGIC POLICIES STRA1 – STRA37

Inspector: J P MacBryde DA(Edin) DipTP(Lond) ARIBA MRTPI MCIT FRSA

Assistant Inspector: G E Roffey BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI

Dates of Inquiry: 15 October 2002 – 28 March 2003

PINS File Ref: X5990/429/3

City of Westminster Unitary Development Plan Review – Inspector’s Report

Part One: Strategic Policies STRA1 – STRA37



TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES

UDP PART I (VISION AND STRATEGY) 1-126

ST00 INTRODUCTION 1ST01 WORLD CLASS CITY 12ST02 CAPITAL CITY 20ST03 CENTRAL AREA 21ST03a MIXED USE 28ST04 REGENERATION 35ST05 PARTNERSHIPS 37ST06 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS 38ST07 PADDINGTON SPA 46ST08 SPECIAL POLICY AREAS 48ST09 SHOPPING IN WESTMINSTER 55ST10 SHOPPING IN THE WEST END 59ST11 TOURISM 62ST12 PROTECTING HOUSING 79ST13 HOUSING VARIETY 85ST14 RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT 88ST15 NOISE 91ST16 CRIME 94ST17 COMMUNITY SERVICES 95ST18 IMPROVING ACCESS 98ST19 TRANSPORT INTEGRATION 99ST20 WALKING 102ST21 TRAFFIC REDUCTION 103ST22 TRAFFIC CONGESTION 105ST23 SERVICING 109ST24 PARKING 110ST25 DESIGN 112ST26 CONSERVATION 114ST27 LISTED BUILDINGS 115ST28 HIGH BUILDINGS 116ST29 RIVER THAMES 118ST30 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 119ST31 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 120ST32 POLLUTION 121ST33 WASTE MANAGEMENT 122ST34 METROPOLITAN OPEN LAND 123ST35 NATURE CONSERVATION 124ST36 MONITORING 125ST37 ENFORCEMENT 125




Part One: Strategic Policies STRA1 – STRA37 page 1

PART ONE

ST00: General Introduction

Objectors and Supporters

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association2 Greater London Authority28 London Tourist Board90 Portman Estates108 Society of London Theatre129 Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association139 Westminster Society141 Burford Group plc161 London Transport Users' Committee162 NHS Executive London248 Empty Homes Agency375 Government Office for London381 South East Bayswater Residents Association473 Councillor Simon Stockill485 House Builders Federation532 Urbium Ltd (formerly known as Chorion) 555 Glen Suarez680 The Crown Estate695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1719 Charlotte Street Association724 Grosvenor Limited759 The Thorney Island Society779 London Business School785 Delancey Group plc795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)807 London School of Economics and Political Science812 Tony Rea852 George Wimpey

Summary of Objections and Supporting Statements

(a) (i) Conditional withdrawal since table relating to Towards the London Plan andWestminster’s contribution to London's role as a world class city is amended.[2]

(b) (i) Bullet point 3 add:“74 day time bus routes and (the number of) night time bus routes…”.[161]

(c) (i) These paragraphs do not reflect the approach set out in "Towards the LondonPlan". Paragraph 1.17d does not give any justification as to why the area north ofOxford Street and south of Marylebone Road should not be included. [90]

(d) (i) Objection to inclusion of Business Improvement Districts in para 1.26b. Theseeffectively disenfranchise residents and do not reflect their priorities, giveexcessive influence to large landowners and businesses to the disadvantage ofsmall business tenants and residents and are likely to lead to a reduction in thelevel of services provided by the local authority [719]

(e) (i) Support para 1.8g which states that "Investing in your education" is one ofWestminster's six key aims. [807]



(g) (i) Change aim to read:"The plan aims to support a goal of absolute traffic reduction in Westminster by acombination of demand management, congestion charging, improving publictransport, cycling and walking facilities." [161] [807]

(h) (i) Object to the list of benefits acceptable to the Council in para 1.29, which are, ofcourse, in addition to the Council’s requirements for affordable housing. Listssuch as this tend to increase the size of the ‘shopping list’ presented todevelopers by the Council such that the cumulative impact on the developer isgreat. It would be more helpful if the Council could make clear at a corporatelevel what its priorities are for planning obligations and benefits, make this clearin the policy, and on this basis negotiate in a more focused way. [485]

(i) (i) Make key diagram less complicated or replace by several diagrams of smallerareas with the same degree of clarity as those appended to Chapters 1 to 11.

(ii) The diagram also includes details that do not appear to be connected to thedetailed proposals in Chapters 1 to 11. The multitude of different UDPboundaries should be simplified. [759]

(j) (i) Reword STRA policies to make it clear what the City Council will or will not do,rather than what it does or does not want. [139]

(k) (i) That there are circumstances when the priority given to the provision of housingshould not apply, for example, where the developer is seeking to optimise thepotential of a wholly appropriate commercial site, especially in the CentralActivities Zone. It is necessary to ensure that the right balance is struck and thathousing does not become the overriding land use policy objective in allcircumstances. [1] [724]

(l) (i) The LBS consider that the table included in paragraph 1.11a be amended toinclude specific reference to the London Business School. [779]

(m) (i) Regent Street and other centres which contribute to the international context ofWestminster and its role and function as a world city, should be identified withinthis text. [680]

(n) (i) There appears to be no reason for the deletion of the reference to 89%, which isan appropriate statistical element of the Unitary Development Plan. [724] [1]

(o) (i) This paragraph explains that the Council has participated in the GLA assessmentof housing capacity and on this basis has made assessments of provision andset targets in its draft plan. The figures for housing provision are therefore notaccepted, as they have not been fully tested by an up to date capacity studyundertaken in accordance with PPG3. [852]

(p) (i) These Paragraphs do not adequately address the issue of residential carparking.

(ii) The need to cut car use referred to in Paragraph 1.80 is not followed through inits application to residents. This has particular implications on new residentialdevelopment and insistence on the provision of car parking spaces as minima isserving in practice to reduce the number of new dwellings being created, which iscontrary to the City Council’s Housing Policy objectives. [724] [1]



(q) (i) Paragraph 1.1 is important in that it sets the overall tone for many of thesubsequent strategies and policies of the UDP. It correctly identifies the City'sdual role as a World Capital City on one hand, and as a place to live on theother. Given the potential for environmental conflict of the nature so clearlyarticulated throughout the plan it would be inappropriate and contrary to theprovisions of planning policy guidance relating to noise to encourage thepotential for further land-use conflict. The UDP should, therefore, give priority toprovision of new housing outside the CAZ, whilst within the CAZ lesser priorityshould be given to the provision of housing in the interests of striking a moreappropriate balance of uses and securing sustainable locations for commercialand World City uses.

(ii) The text, however, states the council's intention to restrict the metropolitanfunctions, whilst giving priority to the provision of housing. This is inappropriatein view of Westminster's World City status and is not in accordance with regionalor strategic planning policy guidelines.

(iii) It is vitally important to support and promote the strategic role of the West End asthe heart of a World City. The significance attached to the vitality and diversity ofWestminster's economy is welcomed particularly given the importance that awide variety of commercial, leisure, entertainment and shopping functions play inmaintaining the City's pre-eminence as a centre of international repute.

(iv) Unfortunately, these key strategies do not appear to be carried through withsufficient clarity in the detailed Part 2 policies of the UDP. This is a fundamentalconcern relating to the Plan, inasmuch as the overall strategic objectives andpolicies are in themselves commendable, but their translation is diluted to such asignificant degree as to completely alter the balance and thrust of the Plantowards addressing more parochial local issues that fundamentally underminethe whole issue of support to the principal functions of the CAZ. [141] [108] [795]

(r) (i) Support STRA 37. "To vigorously pursue enforcement". However, we object tothe inclusion of the words "where it appears appropriate to do so", whichunnecessarily weakens the policy. [129]

(s) (i) It is considered that Westminster City Council should designate a new planningconcept for the UDP – a Wider Central Area. This would be in line with RPG 3.[90]

(t) (i) There has been much coverage in the press recently of the Mayor’s wish to see50% of all residential development affordable. This arises from an identifiedunmet need London-wide, as a result of rising property prices. The goal isalready starting to be achieved in other London Boroughs and can be achievedin the City of Westminster where the “total development cost” to “total salesproceeds” ratio has not been proven to be significantly different to other LondonBoroughs.

(ii) Greater pressure must be brought to bear upon private developers, through theUDP, to include affording housing elements on-site within their schemes.

See also objection to H4. [812] [473]

(u) (i) There needs to be reference to two importance pieces of legislation that the CityCouncil is bound to follow. First, section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998



and secondly the Human Rights Act 1998 ("HRA"). These are as much part ofthe National Planning context as PPG's etc. [555]

(v) (i) There needs to be a new section after paragraph 1.8:

The UDP recognises that because of its central location within London it will bean appropriate location for many central London activities. However, there hasbeen over-intensification of development in certain parts of Westminster whichhas led to serious problems of nuisance, noise, waste, crime and disorder, publicsafety and a rapidly changing character of these areas. It is clear that theinfrastructure to support development in these areas cannot cope with the levelof activity. As a consequence, the ability of residents and others to continue tolive in these areas with a tolerable quality of life has been seriously eroded to thepoint where in many cases the continued survival of the community is injeopardy. These areas have been designated in this plan as "Stress Areas" andcomprise Soho, Covent Garden, Edgware Road and Queensway. In these areasthe UDP proposes to prevent further noisy, late night, entertainment type usesand other development unless this development is likely to lead to animprovement in the conditions in the areas. In contrast to these Stress Areapolicies, the City Council has widened the area that it will designate as beingwithin the Central Activities Zone so that further development may take place in awider area in Westminster. However, many parts of the CAZ are almostresidential in character and the City Council will not permit development that islikely to lead to a material loss of amenity for residents in these areas (which lieoutside the Stress Areas). The City Council considers that areas outsideWestminster may in many cases be more suitable for new development. [555]

(w) (i) Support the seven strategic planning aims which underpin the UDP strategy asset out in this paragraph.

(ii) However, there is a very real concern that in many cases, the Part 2 policieswhich follow do not provide a positive, supportive or proactive policy frameworkto ensure that economic vitality and diversity will not only be sustained butenhanced over the plan period. Failure to provide such detailed policies willthreaten Westminster’s ability to properly fulfil its role as a significant driverbehind the continuing success of London as a World City.

(iii) In many cases the policies as drafted do little more than seek to retain theexisting pattern of land uses, with little in the way of a clear justification for doingso.

(iv) The City Council is therefore urged to consider further the relationship betweenthe strategy as set out in part 1 and the overall thrust of the part 2 policies whichshould provide clear and positive policy guidance to enable the UDP strategy tobe realised over the plan period. [680] [695]

(x) (i) Object to para 1.56a1. This confuses what the draft London Plan says onaffordable housing targets. The para should be replaced with:

“The draft London Plan sets an objective that 50% of new dwellings acrossLondon should be affordable”. It states that in reviewing UDPs “boroughs shouldseek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing” and that "theyshould demonstrate… accommodation [as in para 3A.7 of Plan].



The draft plan also states, in respect of negotiating affordable housing inindividual schemes for private residential or mixed use schemes, thatWestminster should adopt in its UDP an indicative target of 50% affordablehousing and that this target should be applied sensitively, taking account ofindividual site costs, economic viability, including the availability of public subsidyand other planning objectives. [2]

(y) (i) Supports reference to Regent Street and working to ensure the continuedsuccess of the centres through a radical improvement and working in partnershipwith business and landowners. Supports the designation of the West End as anInternational Centre. [680]

(z) (i) Supports BIDS initiative and considers that they are a key tool for improving theenvironment and economic performance of a defined area. [680]

(aa) (i) Supports Strategy 4 of the Replacement UDP as it aims to maintain services tolocal communities. [162]

(ab) (i) The inclusion of the Central London Co-ordination Diagram from Towards theLondon Plan is welcomed. [2]

(ac) (i) Supports Policy STRA 25 to promote "the highest standards of sustainable urbandesign and architecture" and "inventive architecture". [129]

(ad) (i) Supports paragraph 1.37a, which seeks to protect activities of national andinternational importance and to consider proposals favourably for consolidationof these facilities. [779]

(ae) (i) Support Policies STRA15-37. [28]

Summary of Council’s Responses

(a) (i) Withdrawal welcomed. [2]

(b) (i) The Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy - the London Plan - has been addedto the flowchart in paragraph 1.3 rather than the text as suggested. Paragraphs1.17-1.17c of the Introduction to the Plan set out in detail the strategic context forthe London Plan and the role of the Mayor's other strategies. [2]

(c) (i) The third bullet point has been amended to refer to the fact that 57 night busroutes operate in Westminster. [161]

(d) (i) In line with the draft London Plan (2002) the UDP maintains a Central ActivitiesZone (CAZ) and CAZ Frontages and the boundary of the CAZ and the CAZFrontages shown on Map 2B.2 of the draft London Plan (2002) are adopted inthe UDP, apart from Portland Place. Unlike 'Towards the London Plan' the draftLondon Plan (2002) does not include a 'Wider Central Area'.

(ii) The UDP reflects and supports the approach set out in paragraph 2B.15 of thedraft London Plan, 2002. This states, “the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) is thefocus of London’s wider linkages with the rest of the South East, as well as thewider UK and world. Sustaining its role as the core location for internationalbusiness and finance and as a national transport node is crucial for the widerSouth-East and for the Country. CAZ….contains a range of activities such ascentral government offices, headquarters and embassies, which are unique to



the centre of the capital and form distinct quarters. The largest part of London’sfinancial and business services sector is based in the CAZ, as are the offices oftrade, professional bodies, institutions, associations, communications, publishing,advertising and the media. Other uses and activities, such as those associatedwith tourism, are more concentrated, or on a larger scale than elsewhere in thecapital. These activities are at the heart of London’s world city role and should beprotected and their appropriate expansion supported.”

(iii) In addition, paragraph 2B.4 of the draft London Plan states, "There arevulnerable neighbourhoods, largely just beyond the Central Activities Zone,which contain long-standing communities and valuable small businesses thatcould be displaced by outward growth from the CAZ. These should be protectedand growth channelled into the areas designated for it." The UDP reflects andsupports this approach. [90]

(e) (i) The City Council actively supports the principle of BIDS as a means of improvingthe environment and economic performance of an area. They have a particularrole to play in overseeing and funding environmental improvements andcontributing to enhanced local services such as street cleansing, waste removal,lighting and public security, etc. It is not considered that BIDS 'effectivelydisenfranchise residents' nor 'give excessive influence to large landowners andbusinesses to the disadvantage of small business tenants and residents'. Theestablishment of BIDS in areas will be through consultation and co-operation withresidents and businesses and are not seen as a means of reducing the level ofservices provided by the City Council, rather enhancing them. [719]

(f) (i) Support welcomed. [807]

(g) (i) Statement is largely in line with existing 1.81, with the exception of the CityCouncil's objection to the proposed congestion charging scheme. It is taking thisstance for a variety of reasons, which are outlined in the Transport Chapter. Nochange considered appropriate. [161] [807]

(h) (i) Paragraph 1.29 illustrates the type of benefits that the City Council is seeking tosecure. The appropriate benefits that a development should provide will varyaccording to the individual circumstances of each case. Different proposals anddifferent localities will mean that the appropriate benefits in each case will vary.Policy STRA 6 and the supporting text aim to secure planning benefits to mitigateimpacts of development across a broad range of uses, and therefore, the rangeof appropriate benefits sought is also broad. The benefits provided should have aconnection with the development, and therefore not all of the examples referredto in paragraph 1.29 may be appropriate to an individual development.

(ii) In addition, the City Council is preparing as Supplementary Planning Guidance a'Section 106 Toolkit' which will set out in more detail when and how the CityCouncil will require and secure benefits and obligations, this is now referred to inparagraph 1.32.m [485]

(i) (i) A key diagram is required under the 1999 Development Plan Regulations. TheCity Council has not endorsed all the designations shown on the Diagram buthas included it for completeness. Those designations that the City Council hasendorsed are found on the Proposals Map. [759]

(j) (i) Policies in Part 1 of the Plan set out the overall strategic planning aims forWestminster. They provide the strategic framework for the more detailed policies



in Part 2 and, along with the more local policies and standards in Part 2 are thebasis on which we determine planning applications. Paragraph 3.17 of PPG 12states that "Structure plans and Part I of UDPs should avoid over-elaborate ordetailed policies and should concentrate on providing a strategic frameworkwithin which detailed policies can then be framed in local plans or in Part II of theUDP. They should not include detailed development control policies." No changeconsidered necessary. [139]

(k) (i) The City Council considers the Plan as whole strikes the right balance betweenproviding for change and growth in metropolitan functions and to increasing citycentre living, which is supported by national and regional planning policy. In Part2 of the Plan, Chapter 1: Westminster's Central Area sets out policies relating tosites within the CAZ and explains the policy approach to mixed use developmentin central Westminster.

(ii) The Plan seeks a balanced approach to development in Westminster and,through the changes made post-First Deposit, results in a UDP that provides avision for Westminster as the centre of a capital city of world importance and as aplace where people live. The table in paragraph 1.11a sets out how Westminstercontributes to London as a 'world city'. It is based on the Mayor's definition of aworld city contained in ‘Towards the London Plan’, the initial proposals for theMayor’s Spatial Development Strategy. No change necessary. [1] [724]

(l) (i) Amendments made to 1.11a as suggested. [779]

(m) (i) Agree the West End International shopping centre should be included in thistable. However, it is not possible to include specific mention of Regent Street inthis very summary table. Add to 1.11a 'Dominant in the UK economy in terms ofeconomic and financial weight' the following text 'The West End - Europe'sbiggest shopping centre with some 9,000 shops attracting around 200millionvisits each year. Oxford Street with an annual turnover of £5bn - providingemployment for about 50,000 people.' [680]

(n) (i) The latest government household projections (2000) show that single personhouseholds will account for 62% of the growth in households, with the remaindercoming from couples, lone parents and 'other'. The population projections usedto support the draft London Plan assume that household formation by singleperson households will not increase as rapidly as first thought because of thehigh cost of housing. Given these discrepancies, it was thought better not toquote a figure in the plan as it would rapidly become out of date. [724] [1]

(o) (i) The GLA's Housing Capacity Study was made up of detailed capacity studiescarried out by each of the 33 London Boroughs. Details of the components ofeach borough’s capacity can be found in the GLA publication London's HousingCapacity (September 2000). It was therefore carried out at a detailed rather thanstrategic level and GoL were represented on the Steering Group for the study.

(ii) The Housing Capacity Study indicated that fewer houses would be built in 2007-2016. This is partly because only a small number of sites were identified wherehousing development would occur during this period, as it is difficult to identifysites this far is advance. It is possible that this has underestimated the amountof housing development that will take place in this period. But the Plan will bereviewed and a new capacity study undertaken around 2006 (if not sooner) andthis will set a new target for the period 2007-2016.



(iii) Policy STRA 36 states that the City Council will monitor progress towards thehousing target annually and the Council will continue to produce an annual reporton this matter. The policy also states that the City Council will monitor changeand review the need to monitor the plan at least every five years. Therefore nochanges are required to meet the objection. [852]

(p) (i) The Revised (Second) Deposit UDP adopted maximum residential parkingstandards in line with national and regional guidance and advice and the Mayor'sdraft London Plan. No further changes recommended since. [724] [1]

(q) (i) The City Council considers the Plan as whole strikes the right balance betweenproviding for change and growth in metropolitan functions and to increasing CityCentre living which is supported by national and regional planning policy.Chapter 1: Westminster's Central Area in Part 2 of the Plan sets out policiesrelating to sites within the CAZ and explains the policy approach to mixed usedevelopment in central Westminster.

(ii) The Plan seeks a balanced approach to development in Westminster and,through the changes made post-First Deposit, results in a UDP that provides avision for Westminster as the centre of a capital city of world importance and as aplace where people live. The table in paragraph 1.11a sets out how Westminstercontributes to London as a 'world city'. It is based on the Mayor's definition of aworld city contained in ‘Towards the London Plan’, the initial proposals for theMayor’s Spatial Development Strategy. [141] [108] [795]

(r) (i) Support welcomed. The words 'where it appears appropriate to do so' are aPlain English replacement for 'expedient'. This means that even when it istechnically possible to take enforcement action, in law the Council is required firstto decide whether such formal action would be 'expedient'. Formal enforcementaction is discretionary and all the relevant planning circumstances of each casemust first be considered. [129]

(s) (i) In line with the draft London Plan (2002) the UDP maintains a Central ActivitiesZone (CAZ) and CAZ Frontages and the boundary of the CAZ and the CAZFrontages shown on Map 2B.2 of the draft London Plan (2002) are adopted inthe UDP, apart from Portland Place. Unlike 'Towards the London Plan' the draftLondon Plan (2002) does not include a 'Wider Central Area'. [90]

(t) (i) Circular 6/98 requires the City Council to have regard to the subsequentmanagement of affordable housing, so the policy needs to refer to this factor.Paragraph 3.27 has been changed to strengthen the City Council's policy stanceto providing on site affordable housing. Part (d) of the policy, which refers tofinancial contributions, has been deleted.

(ii) The formula has been increased to reflect better the benefits to the developer ofnot providing the affordable housing on site and has also been changed so thatthe ratio is now about 2.5:1 rather than 3:1.

(iii) There is no reason for the ratio for affordable housing provided under the mixeduse policies COM 2 and CENT 3 to be different than normal housingdevelopments.

(iv) The City Council is concerned that affordable housing provided by developersmeets priority housing needs: these are 2 or 3 bedroom units and not bedsits.



See response to H4. [814] [473]

(u) (i) New paragraph 1.2a states, "The Human Rights Act came into force in Englandon 2 October 2000. It gives teeth to the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR), which was ratified by the UK in 1951 and has been in force since 1953.The Act confers the direct protection of English law in relation to Conventionrights. For the purposes of the role of a local planning authority the relevantprovisions are: Article 2 - right to life, Article 6 – right to a fair hearing, Article 8 -right to respect for private and family life, Article 14 – prohibition of discriminationand Article 1 of the First Protocol - protection of property."

(ii) Paragraph 1.64 states that, "Crime and the fear of crime are important andincreasing concerns of residents, business and visitors. They have a very greateffect on peoples’ perception of places and their desire to live or work there, or tovisit. Government guidance in Circular 5/94 ‘Planning out Crime’ states that, withregard to development plans, “crime prevention is one of the socialconsiderations to which regard must be given in development plans” (paragraph12). The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) requires community safety to beconsidered in all decisions made by local authorities including planningapplications." [555]

(v) (i) In line with the draft London Plan (2002) the UDP maintains a Central ActivitiesZone (CAZ) and CAZ Frontages and the boundary of the CAZ and the CAZFrontages shown on Map 2B.2 of the draft London Plan (2002) are adopted inthe UDP, apart from Portland Place. Unlike 'Towards the London Plan' the draftLondon Plan (2002) does not include a 'Wider Central Area'. No further policychange is necessary. [555]

(w) (i) Support for the (now) six strategic planning aims is welcomed. It is notconsidered that the detailed elements in Part 2 of the UDP proscribe against theaims in Part 1. The Plan seeks a balanced approach to development inWestminster and, through the changes made post-First Deposit, results in a UDPthat provides a vision for Westminster as the centre of a capital city of worldimportance and as a place where people live.

(ii) The table in paragraph 1.11a sets out how Westminster contributes to London asa 'world city'. It is based on the Mayor's definition of a world city contained in‘Towards the London Plan’, the initial proposals for the Mayor’s SpatialDevelopment Strategy. [680] [695]

(x) (i) Disagree. See responses to H4. [2]

(y) (i) Support welcomed. [680] [28] [2] [129] [779]

(aa) (i) Support welcomed: this is now incorporated into strategic planning aim Point 3: Building sustainable communities. [162]

Inspector’s Reasoning and Conclusions

1.0.1 The several objections to the Introduction are wide-ranging as might be expected to avery general preface to the UDP’s Strategic Aims. That being the case, it is necessary toaddress them, if not individually at least in small groups as befits their diverse nature. Inmany cases, the objections are not so much aimed at the statements of general planningcontext and strategic aims as against, in some cases, the failure to introduce or modify Part IIPolicies and, in other cases, the detailed expression of strategic aims in the formulation of



such policies. Where I have dealt with the latter type of objections under the heading of PartII Policies, I shall direct attention to the later references in this report. My conclusions oneach objection (or group of objections) is referenced by the key letters (a-x) as used in theabove Summaries of Objections and the LPA Response to them.

(a) The GLA objection is withdrawn in recognition of the insertion of the helpful flowchartfollowing paragraph 1.3 of the Introduction.

(b) The reference to the level of service of the night bus network in Westminster’s is nownoted in the table following paragraph 1.11b (nb this is essentially a STRA 1 point butis later referred to in this report (see TA08-10).

(c) The boundary of the CAZ (see CA01) is for the individual London Boroughs todetermine in their Part II of their UDPs; its strategic aspects are for the London Planto establish.

(d) The BIDS initiative is designed to supplement funding for certain important activitiesthat may or may not be related to the development and use of land. Paragraph 1.26bhas been altered to reflect the latest position and does not seem to me to be germaneto the exercise of detailed planning control or implementation of the UDP’s Policies.

(e) Paragraph 1.8g has been introduced to cover the provisions of the Local GovernmentAct 2000 and appears to be the subject of support as far as educational investment isconcerned.

(f) No summary of objections appears under this sub-heading.

(g) It is not necessary to alter the aims of the UDP with respect to traffic reduction for thesimple reason that the City Council has deleted any references to congestioncharging which, coincidentally, appears to have had the effect of very largely securingthe UDP’s Chapter 4 Policies (see TR15).

(h) The possible planning advantages listed in paragraph 1.29 (under STRA 6) appear tome to be unexceptionable and are different in kind from the provision of affordablehousing (see HO04) in that the latter is a strategic requirement and the former will besought on a more pragmatic and site or area-specific basis. This will be the subject ofSPG (The so-called section 106 “Toolkit”)(see also ST06).

(i) The UDP’s Key Diagram does not strike me as being especially complicated, giventhat the Development Plan Regulations allow considerable discretion for LPAs toillustrate Written Statements with a variety of Maps and Diagrams. These the CityCouncil have employed in a generally very helpful manner. The complexity of UDPpolicy boundaries makes for very confusing cartography but is tolerably well depictedon the Proposals Map (see my later comments) and the smaller Maps in the text.

(j) The Part I Policies are mostly admirably forthright and concise, emanating in manycases from regional planning guidance. The Part II Policies generally set out in somedetail what development is intended to achieve. To the extent that these intentionsare unclear or imprecise, I make suitable recommendations to improve their precision.

(k) There may well be situations where development of an existing site, given itscomplexity or planning history, may not necessarily achieve all the planning goals setout in the UDP Parts I and II. Such situations need to be considered case by case; itwould not be right to try to anticipate, as a matter of strategic policy, what thesesituations might be. The primacy of housing as a form of land use is given the correct



weight in Chapters 1-3 of the UDP; it should always be remembered that housing iscapable of being introduced in a wide variety of physical situations. It is inherentlymore flexible and acceptable, in many land use planning contexts than manyemployment or entertainment uses and the UDP correctly follows strategic spatialguidance in seeking greater residential provision.

(l) The tabular listing of strategic Central London functions now appropriately includesthe London Business School.

(m) The West End International Shopping Centre is appropriately included in the sametabular listing and it would be inappropriate to specify its component parts, such asRegent Street, however significant they may be considered.

(n) The omission of the precise proportion of single-person households (89%) seems tome to be justified by the latest household population projections and is a figure whichis understandably treated with some caution in both the London Plan and the UDP.

(o) The housing capacity and dwelling provision targets have been arrived at by localisedjoint studies conducted by the GLA and the London Boroughs. The situation will bemonitored and reviewed but the overall and component housing provision is astrategic matter for the GLA and cannot be adjusted at this stage by the City Council.

(p) The strategic need to reduce the use (but not necessarily the resident ownership) ofprivate cars is adequately covered in paragraph 1.80 and later in Chapter 4 of theUDP. The issues of residential car parking are there fully addressed and, in the main,supported by me. However, I have some reservations about the imposition ofminimum standards for this particular land use and I later make the necessaryrecommendations as to modifications (see TR23).

(q) The UDP appears to me to strike the correct balance, essentially set out in theemergent London Plan (and very broadly supported by the EiP Panel of Inquiry inJune 2003) as between growth of the working and resident population ofWestminster, both inside and outside the CAZ. One of the key ways in which this isto be achieved is by the established concept of mixed development. This has beensuccessfully employed in Westminster during the currency of the adopted UDP andthe City Council is naturally bent on its continuation. The objectors in this caseappear predominantly to associate the metropolitan vitality and wellbeing ofWestminster with continued growth and expansion of employment floorspace andcommercial activity, rather than an increase in its residential population. The LondonPlan, on the other hand, looks for the growth of such floorspace by redevelopmentand intensification, which may properly include mixed development, rather thanoutright (and outwards) CAZ expansion.

(r) The use of the phrase “where appropriate” with regard to enforcement action correctlyreflects the statutory but discretionary powers enjoyed by the City Council.

(s) The advice of RPG 3 on the Wider Central Area (WCA) has been somewhatovertaken by the corresponding advice of the London Plan (see paragraph 1.3 andthe following flow chart in the UDP). In any event the RPG advice was not immutablein this respect (see CA01). Moreover, the WCA is not a concept which enjoys muchsupport from the London Plan nor is it one which I view as having any great planningsignificance or relevance to the City Of Westminster.

(t) It is true that the London Plan looks for 50% provision of affordable in a number ofLondon Boroughs, including Westminster. Its provisions were endorsed, with some



reservations, in the EiP Panel Report. My own conclusions are set out later (seeHO04). In any event, my recommendations in this respect will necessarily be affectedby the precise levels adopted by the GLA on adoption of the London Plan

(u) The necessary references to the Human Rights Act 2000 have now been inserted inparagraph 1.2a of the UDP.

(v) The very vexed questions of Stress Area designation and the concentration of a widevariety of entertainment uses both inside and outside the CAZ are the subject of anumber of Chapter 8 Policies (see TA08-10). The correct balance betweenresidential and entertainment uses is a very delicate one and is implicit in the keyobjectives set out following paragraph 1.9 of the Introduction. It is doubtful whetherthe competing claims of the resident and tourist populations can adequately beexpressed in the form of a strategic UDP Policy. In any case, the need for balance isimplicit in the totality of the UDP’s six planning aims and in the statement that “no oneaim should be considered in isolation”. Indeed, that single quotation should be keptin mind throughout a reading of this report and in the face of objections by single-interest groups, pursuing vested interests, often to the exclusion of all others.

(w) The objection which relates to the seven (now six) strategic aims and their detailedpolicy expression is concerned that the UDP seeks to preserve and protect the statusquo. This point is not taken by the LPA, neither is it supported by me. The City ofWestminster is very largely covered by conservation area designation. The pace ofdevelopmental change, both inside and outside these areas, is such as to make itprobable that much of the urban fabric will remain unaltered during the UDP’scurrency. From a sustainability point of view, this is no bad thing but it does implythat the status quo is going to form the essential matrix within which development isto be accommodated. This is a reasonable assumption which naturally affects theway in which Part II Policies are conceived and are likely to be implemented.

(x) The percentage of affordable housing is indeed a strategic issue, whether it be set at30% or 50%. My recommendations are set out later but it will again be noted thatthese must remain provisional in that the final level of provision will be set on theLondon Plan’s adoption.

Recommendation

� R1.0.1 Modify the Introduction to the UDP Written Statement in accordance withthe Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST01: World Class City Status


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association2 Greater London Authority8 Royal Parks28 London Tourist Board64 Shaftesbury PLC90 Portman Estates108 Society of London Theatre141 Burford Group plc370 The Theatres Trust376 London First381 South East Bayswater Residents Association



403 Councillor Barbara Grahame491 Mercers Company555 Glen Suarez730 White Star Line Restaurants748 British Land Company PLC756 Lloyds TSB Bank Plc765 Mapeley Ltd, Mapeley Columbus Ltd, Mapeley Columbus III ltd772 Land Securities Properties Limited777 J D Wetherspoon Plc779 London Business School780 Selfridges & Co.785 Delancey Group plc788 Consortium of Registered Social Landlords794 Six Continents Retail Ltd795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)803 Standard Life Assurance Company807 London School of Economics and Political Science


(a) (i) STRA 1 is inconsistent with the principle of fostering Westminster’s World Cityrole and providing for sustainable growth in Westminster's economy. Neither isthis consistent with current market evidence that suggests that many Europeanbusinesses wish to be represented within Central London and the West End inparticular. [795]

(b) (i) Support this policy but would like to see included mention of the uniqueimportance of the commercial theatres of the West End. No other area in theworld has such a concentration of theatres open all year round. Paragraph 1.14mentions renewal and refurbishment of businesses: no mention of theatres. [370]

(c) (i) Designate a new area " Education Policy Area". [807]

(d) (i) STRA 1 is contradictory to the principles of supporting a ‘world class city’ byplacing too much emphasis on the protection of residential amenity within theCentral Activities Zone.

(ii) The strategic objectives regarding residential amenity (Policies STRA 14 & 15)should be applied differently inside and outside the CAZ where the character ofthe environment is substantially different.

(iii) Residential amenity should be a secondary consideration, subject to appropriatecriteria, at the heart of a world city.

(iv) The draft policies are contrary to government guidance (particularly containedwithin PPG 6) and do not represent a balanced approach to commercial andresidential activities within the CAZ. [777] [8] [795]

(e) (i) Even in locations where there is no residential use in proximity, within the CAZand outside the “Stress Areas” there is still a presumption against any new orexpanded A3 use. There is no justification for this policy position, particularlyoutside the “Stress Areas” and this is contrary to Government guidance,particularly as contained within PPG1 and PPG6.



(ii) Do not consider that the reference to “exceptional circumstances” within thestress areas reflect Central Government guidance, and in particular PPG6, whichseeks to encourage such uses in city centre locations to enhance the eveningeconomy and as they encourage travel by public transport.

(iii) The policies should set out the criteria for assessing when such uses areacceptable. The wording of the policy stating that such uses are acceptable onlyin “exceptional circumstances” does not comply with Government guidance. Thepolicy presumption against needs to be changed to reflect the appropriatebalance between residential and commercial uses within the centre of a worldcity.

(iv) Support the principles behind Policy STRA 1 and accompanying reasons; butpropose the addition of sentences to give sufficient safeguard to the interests ofthe Royal Parks and their contribution to Westminster's World City Status. [8]

(f) (i) The policy must give greater strength to housing as the highest priority. [788]

(g) (i) The Plan fails to recognise that the area outside the CAZ and identified inStrategic Guidance as the "Wider Central Area" is far from dominated byresidential uses. Many significant Central London functions exist in this area,particularly to the north of Oxford Street, and as a consequence, the CAZboundary will require reconsideration and expansion in this area toaccommodate the future World City role that is being asked of Westminster byStrategic Planning Guidance.

(ii) These should be greater support for office development. Westminster's CAZ iscentred upon and at the heart of all London's public transport infrastructure andas a consequence will always represent the most attractive and sustainablelocation for the full range of commercial and entertainment activities. [108] [90][795] [141] [64] [2] [64] [772]

(h) (i) Welcomes the more pro-regeneration approach, but comments on office policyneed clarification. Environmental considerations could be more spelt out andstrengthened. Reference to the need for affordable housing. [403]

(i) (i) Paragraph 1.13 states that there will be no specific accommodation of growth inthe financial sector.

(ii) This issue should not be prejudged over a plan period of 15 years. Thiscomment can be interpreted as discouraging an increase in office employment,which would be contrary to the principles of sustainable development espousedin the Unitary Development Plan. It also implies stagnation, which is detrimental.[1] [376]

(j) (i) This policy (and subsequent paragraphs) has been amended from the FirstDeposit draft to include reference to a ‘World Class City’ instead of a ‘World City’as previously included in the Plan. There is no explanation as to why this changehas been made, nor what is meant by a “World Class City”. [780] [491]

(k) (i) The policy should therefore be qualified to one that fosters World City statusfunctions and appropriate housing within the CAZ. Family and larger sizedhousing units are not normally appropriate within the CAZ. [795] [141] [64]



(l) (i) Given the potential for environmental conflict of the nature so clearly articulatedthroughout the plan it would be inappropriate and contrary to the provisions ofPlanning Policy Guidance relating to noise to encourage the potential for furtherland-use conflict The UDP should, therefore, give priority to provision of newhousing outside the CAZ, whilst within the CAZ lesser priority should be given tothe provision of housing in the interests of striking a more appropriate balance ofuses and securing sustainable locations for commercial and World City uses.[64]

(m) (i) Add new wording:

(ii) "To make an appropriate contribution to the development of London as a WorldCity in conjunction with other London boroughs and cities and to allowsustainable developments that promote London World City Status." The currentwording places all the emphasis on Westminster in developing London's worldcity status, but there needs to be recognition that other parts of London will playan appropriate role in this.

(iii) Add new paragraph after 1.12:

"However, as a result of the intensification of uses, parts of central Westminster -the Stress Areas - have become environmentally degraded as a result of theconcentration of entertainment uses. In these areas new entertainment uses willbe discouraged".

(iv) Paragraph 1.13: Strike out sentence referring to the City of London as a financialcentre. With the emergence of Canary Wharf, the majority of the financial centreof London has moved east and there is a major development issue facing theCity of London. It is here that new entertainments should be directed.

(v) Paragraph 1.15 the sentence beginning "the importance of extensive.." shouldcontinue "high-quality residential districts within and close to the heart of theCity...." [555]

(n) (i) Support this policy and supporting paragraphs. [28]

(o) (i) Support the promotion of London as a World City. Support the recognition thateducation can help contribute to foster Westminster’s key "World City" role. [779][785] [748] [765] [730] [756]

(p) (i) Strategic Planning Guidance sets out that UDPs should reflect the special role ofCentral London as the seat of Government and as a national and internationalcentre for business, shopping, entertainment, cultural, educational andprofessional activities. We believe that these World City and metropolitanfunctions should be maintained and allowed to develop and change. [794]

(q) (i) STRA 1 supported. Support addition of class in World Class City [381]



Summary of Council’s Response

(a) (i) Para 1.14 has been reworded to delete these statements and to reflect the policydirections towards accommodating growth in global economic functions set out inTowards the London Plan. Para 1.14 now states "Policies in Part 2 of the UDPdo, however, seek to accommodate the changing requirements of the economy.These will be met through the refurbishment and renewal of business premisesand also through a limited number of new, large ‘state of the art’ businesspremises such as those permitted in the PSPA - see Chapter 5. This approachis consistent with ‘Towards the London Plan – the Initial proposals for theMayor’s Spatial Development Strategy’, which envisages parts of the City ofLondon and Canary Wharf, and some main rail termini, as the areas where theadditional capacity for London’s global economy sectors will be provided.(Paragraph 2.19)". [795]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. A new para 1.11a has been added under policy STRA 1. Thetable in paragraph 1.11a sets out how Westminster contributes to London as a'world city'. It is based on the Mayor's definition of a ‘world city’ contained in‘Towards the London Plan’, the initial proposals for the Mayor’s SpatialDevelopment Strategy. Westminster's theatres have been included as examplesof the contribution to the unequalled range of arts and cultural activity in London.

(ii) Para 1.14 has been reworded to reflect the policy directions towardsaccommodating growth in global economic functions set out in Towards theLondon Plan. It is not appropriate to include theatres in this context. Para 1.14now states "Policies in Part 2 of the UDP do, however, seek to accommodate thechanging requirements of the economy”. See also response (a). [370]

(c) (i) The UDP defines a number of Special Policy Areas, most of which are locatedoutside of the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). A new Arts, Culture and EducationSPA has been identified around the Royal Albert Hall and Imperial College, asthis contains a concentration of Central London Activities located outside theCentral Activities Zone. Policies for SPAs tend to protect existing uses andencourage further provision.

(ii) It is considered that policies already provide for the protection andencouragement of educational uses. Policy SOC 1 protects and encouragescommunity uses, including educational uses. Policy CENT 1 in Chapter 1:Westminster's Central Area protects and encourages Central London Activities inthe CAZ. Table 1.1 defines appropriate non-residential activities for centralWestminster which include "Centres of excellence for higher education andresearch". Chapter 1 and Supplementary Planning Guidance on CentralActivities Zone: Area Profiles provide detail on the character of different parts ofthe CAZ, and describe the Strand area as being characterised by legal (RoyalCourts of Justice and the Middle Temple) and educational (London School ofEconomics and King’s College) functions.

(iii) A more detailed response is provided in the City Council's response proofWCC/807/WR/ALL section 21. No change considered appropriate. [807]

(d) (i) It is not considered that the detailed elements in Part 2 of the UDP underminethe aims in Part 1. The Plan seeks a balanced approach to development inWestminster and, through the changes made post-First Deposit, results in a UDPthat provides a vision for Westminster as the centre of a capital city of worldimportance and as a place where people live. The table in paragraph 1.11a sets



out how Westminster contributes to London as a 'world city'. It is based on theMayor's definition of a world city contained in ‘Towards the London Plan’, theinitial proposals for the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy.

(ii) Paragraph 1.15 states that " Westminster makes a substantial contribution toLondon’s World City status through the provision of high-quality housing and theprotection of residents’ amenities and quality of life. The importance of extensivehigh-quality residential districts, close to the heart of the city, and of highenvironmental and amenity standards to the success of world cities was stressedin the authoritative study of world cities….and is also recognised in ‘Towards theLondon Plan’ – the initial proposals for the Mayor’s Spatial DevelopmentStrategy’….’The London Plan will seek to protect and enhance those features,which are valued by local communities. Among these are safety and security,privacy, amenity and open space’ . Although it is recognised that differing levelsof amenity will exist between, for example, Soho and St. John's Wood, this doesnot mean to say that striving for an acceptable level of amenity throughout theCity is inappropriate and unreasonable.

(iii) The draft policies are considered to conform with Government Guidance,particularly that contained within PPG6, and represent a balanced approach tocommercial and residential activities within the CAZ. [777] [8] [795]

(e) (i) The revised policies in Chapter 8, TACE 8-10, do not contain blanket controls tonot permit all A3 and entertainment uses across the city. There are certain areashowever that are under 'stress' and Council has acknowledged this andintroduced policies accordingly. [8]

(f) (i) Para 1.55 makes clear that housing should continue to be the highest priority inthe replacement UDP, as it is in the Adopted UDP. This section of the plan hasbeen changed to refer to the need for affordable housing both in the policy STRA12 and in the accompanying justification. [788]

(g) (i) It is considered that STRA 1 should relate to Westminster as a whole. Thepredominantly residential areas outside the CAZ and the substantial amount ofhousing in the CAZ also contribute to and support the World City role. As Part 2of the Plan indicates existing Central London activities in Westminster are notentirely confined to the CAZ.

(ii) It is not considered necessary or helpful to add a further layer of designation bydefining an area of Westminster as the ‘Wider Central Area’. The CAZ is a well-recognised, well-understood and long-established planning concept andintroducing an additional designation would not aid users of the Plan. Para 1.17dalso explains that 'The Council considers that areas like Knightsbridge andMillbank are almost wholly residential in character while predominantlyresidential areas like Marylebone and Bayswater are also characterised by smallor more local scale activities. To include them in a ‘Wider Central Area’ couldlead to confusion as to why these particular areas are included whilst other,almost wholly residential areas, outside the ‘Wider Central Area’ are not.Furthermore, including these areas in a ‘Wider Central Area’ could lead to afurther expansion of commercial activities and, in particular entertainment andlate night activity, to the detriment of the amenity of residents.'

(iii) The UDP therefore maintains a Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and CentralActivities Zone Frontages. Chapter 1: Westminster’s Central Area sets out howthe City Council has interpreted RPG 3, LPAC’s advice and ‘Towards the London



Plan’, the initial proposals for the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy’ onappropriate Central London Activities and has dealt with the provision of mixeduses within commercial schemes.

(iv) The CAZ boundary has been revised to reflect significant land use change inareas close to the CAZ boundary over the last ten years. The resultant changesare indicated on illustrative maps 1.2 to 1.6 at the end of Chapter 1:Westminster's Central Area.

(v) Para 1.14 has been reworded to reflect the policy directions towardsaccommodating growth in global economic functions set out in Towards theLondon Plan. Para 1.14 now states "Policies in Part 2 of the UDP do, however,seek to accommodate the changing requirements of the economy. These will bemet through the refurbishment and renewal of business premises and alsothrough a limited number of new, large ‘state of the art’ business premises suchas those permitted in the PSPA” (See Chapter 5.) This approach is consistentwith ‘Towards the London Plan’ the initial proposals for the Mayor’s SpatialDevelopment Strategy’, which envisages “parts of the City of London and CanaryWharf, and some main rail termini, as the areas where the additional capacity forLondon’s global economy sectors will be provided. (Paragraph 2.19)". [108] [90][795] [141] [64] [2] [64] [772]

(h) (i) The support for the Part 1 policies is welcomed. Paragraph 1.21 has beenamended to be more positive towards office development and the policies in theEnvironment Chapter in Part 2 and affordable housing (policy H4) have beenstrengthened. [403]

(i) (i) Para 1.14 has been reworded to delete these statements and to reflect the policydirections towards accommodating growth in global economic functions set out in‘Towards the London Plan’. Para 1.14 now states "Policies in Part 2 of the UDPdo, however, seek to accommodate the changing requirements of the economy.These will be met through the refurbishment and renewal of business premisesand also through a limited number of new, large ‘state of the art’ businesspremises such as those permitted in the PSPA”. (See Chapter 5) This approachis consistent with ‘Towards the London Plan’ – the Initial proposals for theMayor’s Spatial Development Strategy’, which envisages “parts of the City ofLondon and Canary Wharf, and some main rail termini, as the areas where theadditional capacity for London’s global economy sectors will be provided.(Paragraph 2.19)". [1] [376]

(j) (i) Paragraph 1.11 states that the aim of STRA 1 is to "Enhance the strategic role ofthe West End as a World Class city centre of historic interest by retaining itscharacter of mixed commercial, residential, cultural and other activities." WorldCity is defined in the Glossary as "a globally successful business locationparalleled only by a small number of the world’s great cities. These are NewYork, Tokyo and London and are measured on a wide range of indicators suchas financial services, government, business, higher education, culture andtourism." The City Council's aspiration is for Westminster to be a ‘world class city’rather than simply a world city. [780] [491]

(k) (i) It is considered that STRA 1 should relate to Westminster as a whole. Thepredominantly residential areas outside the CAZ and the substantial amount ofhousing in the CAZ also contribute to and support the World City role. As Part 2of the Plan indicates, existing central London activities in Westminster are notentirely confined to the CAZ. [795] [141] [64]



(l) (i) The City Council considers the Plan as whole strikes the right balance betweenproviding for change and growth in metropolitan functions and to increasing CityCentre living, which is supported by national and regional planning policy.Chapter 1: Westminster's Central Area, in Part 2 of the Plan, sets out policiesrelating to sites within the CAZ and explains the policy approach to mixed usedevelopment in central Westminster.

(ii) The Plan seeks a balanced approach to development in Westminster and,through the changes made post-First Deposit, results in a UDP that provides avision for Westminster as the centre of a capital city of world importance and as aplace where people live. The table in paragraph 1.11a sets out how Westminstercontributes to London as a 'world city'. It is based on the Mayor's definition of aworld city contained in ‘Towards the London Plan’. the initial proposals for theMayor’s Spatial Development Strategy. [803]

(m) (i) The proposed wording is little different from the First Deposit STRA 1. Paragraph1.53 states that "the effect of the night time economy on Westminster’sresidential communities is particularly pronounced as Westminster contains thelargest concentration of entertainment and late-night premises in London andpossibly the UK. The majority of these uses are inside the Central ActivitiesZone (CAZ) in Soho and Covent Garden. Significant numbers are also found inBayswater and Queensway-Westbourne Grove. As a result, some areas havebecome ‘saturated’ with entertainment uses and their character is being erodedas is the amenity of residents. For these reasons these areas have beenidentified as ‘Stress Areas’ and are shown on the Proposals Map. "

(ii) Despite the growth of Canary Wharf, the City of London remains London'sprincipal financial centre. No further changes considered appropriate. [555]

(n) (i) Support welcomed. [28] [779] [785] [748] [765] [730] [756] [381]


1.1.1 Many objections to Policy STRA 1 of the UDP, like other objections to the group ofPolicies STRA 1-3, are essentially directed against the detailed later expression of the UDP'sPart I Aims, as distinct from the Aims themselves. That being the case, I do not intend todeal with them in any great detail in this part of the Report but rather to refer to myconclusions under the relevant Part II references. For example, the objection by TheTheatres Trust [370] is met by a tabular insertion after paragraph 1.11a but is also fully dealtwith later by me (see TA06). Close conformity with the emergent London Plan is alsosecured by a series of alterations such as paragraph 1.14a [795]. Certain objections toomissions in Part II are also noted [807] which, to an extent, are dealt with by Part IIalterations (see CA01).

1.1.2 There are a number of objections [8, 777, 795] dealing with the principle of StressAreas, the subject of Policies TACE 8-10, and more particularly, the way in whichentertainment uses are likely to be controlled. Such restrictions are viewed as being inimicalto Westminster’s World City functioning and status. Not only do I not accept this argument(see TA08-10) but I fully accept the City Council’s concern that the uncontrolled clusteringand intensification of certain Class A3 and D2 uses are likely to de-stabilise the delicatebalance of tourist, artistic and cultural attractions which, together with controlledentertainment activity, forms the vital mix of land uses which the Chapter 8 Policies of theUDP is designed to protect and promote. In any event, I have some very considerablereservations regarding the detailed Policies and, whilst endorsing the principle of Stress Area



designation and control, my recommendation to the Council is to carry out a very thoroughand detailed review prior to their adoption.

1.1.3 The questions of promoting further residential development and generally protectingits amenity are the subject of further objections [[8, 64, 141, 777, 795] which appear to me tooverlook the clear guidance of RPG3 and subsequent London Plan Policies. These mattersare more fully considered elsewhere (HO03-05) and I generally support the City Council’sintention to increase residential provision in the CAZ and elsewhere, consistent with thestrategic spatial guidance issued by the GLA. As for amenity, I take the view that quality oflife for residents is the outstanding touchstone for controlling the local mix of activity. So farfrom standards being justifiably lowered inside the CAZ, I agree with the Council that thesuccess of planning policies designed to secure increased housing and the concept of mixeduse depends vitally on the achievement and maintenance of reasonable standards offreedom from noise, disturbance and unruly or anti-social behaviour.

1.1.4 The spatial definition of the CAZ within Westminster is fully dealt with later (seeCA00-01). The support for future office development in the various UDP Policies wouldappear to me to be consistent with the strategic objectives of the London Plan. It should beremembered that one of these objectives is to steer the spatial implementation of officefloorspace expansion and modernisation in the direction of metropolitan polycentricity, ordecentralisation to use a simpler term. This particular objective has been recently (July2003) endorsed and indeed emphasised in the Report of the EiP Panel (R8.11 at paragraph1.57). The local expression of this objective is the retention of the existing CAZ inWestminster but the active encouragement and achievement of very substantial employmentfloorspace expansion in the designated PSPA (see SA00-02).

1.1.5 The point made by several objectors [2, 64,141, 772,795] to the effect that thereshould be even greater support for office development on account of the CAZ’s being at thehub of London’s transport infrastructure is not entirely taken. Firstly, the London Planenvisages a degree of employment increase in both the Central London Sub-Region and theCAZ. It seems to me that the UDP provides for this. Secondly, the effect of implementingthe various Crossrail, Thameslink and Cross River Transit proposals (possibly within thecurrency of the UDP) will be very considerably to accommodate easy centrifugal (as well ascentripetal) movement from the centre. In plain language, this means that residents ofCentral London will in future enjoy even greater accessibility to decentralised employmentopportunities, much as job opportunities in the CAZ have enjoyed a wide labour catchmentarea in the past. This alone vindicates the mixed-use emphasis of the UDP Policies.

Recommendation

� R1.1.1 Modify Policy STRA 1 and its Reasoned Justification in accordance withthe Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST02 Capital City Status


2 Greater London Authority28 London Tourist Board381 South East Bayswater Residents Association555 Glen Suarez777 J D Wetherspoon Plc779 London Business School794 Six Continents Retail




(a) (i) See comments on STRA 1. The changes proposed there should be tracked here.[555] [777]

(b) (i) Support this policy and supporting paragraphs. [28]

(c) (i) Support this policy and emphasise the importance of roles such as the location ofnational and international schools of excellence in promoting London's Capitaland City status. [779]

(d) (i) Strategic Planning Guidance sets out that UDPs should reflect the special role ofCentral London as the seat of government and as a national and internationalcentre for business, shopping, entertainment, cultural, educational andprofessional activities. We believe that these World City and metropolitanfunctions should be maintained and allowed to develop and change. [794]

(e) (i) STRA 2 supported [381]


(a) (i) See response to policy STRA 1. [555] [777]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. [28] [779] [381]

(d) (i) Agree. Part 1 of the UDP does reflect the special role of Central London as theseat of government and as a national and international centre for business,shopping, entertainment, cultural, educational and professional activities. Policiesin Part 1 and Part 2 maintain, and allow to develop, these World City andMetropolitan functions. [794]


1.2.1 Policy STRA 2 appears to me to adequately reflect both RPG 3 and, more pertinently,emergent London Plan strategic planning guidance especially with the addition of paragraph1.16a in the Pre-Inquiry Version of the UDP, which I fully endorse. The above objectionstherefore appear to me to be very largely expressions of support (or merely repeat STRA 1objections that I have already addressed (see ST01)) and accordingly I have no furtherrecommendations to make on them.

Recommendation

R1.2.1 Modify Policy STRA 2 and its Reasoned Justification in accordance withthe Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST03: Westminster’s Central Area


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association2 Greater London Authority28 London Tourist Board90 Portman Estates104 Consort House Residents Assn.131 Marylebone Association



138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association159 Queen's Park Estate Society321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association)376 London First381 South East Bayswater Residents Association403 Councillor Barbara Grahame532 Urbium (formerly known as Chorion)555 Glen Suarez680 The Crown Estate695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1711 HCA International (formerly known as PPP Columbia Healthcare Ltd)719 Charlotte Street Association724 Grosvenor Limited759 The Thorney Island Society772 Land Securities Properties Limited777 J D Wetherspoon Plc794 Six Continents Retail795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)


(a) (i) This policy is welcome but needs to be strengthened: there is concern thatexemptions will in practice undermine the policy. Experience with CAZ3 in thecurrent UDP bears out these concerns. [719]

(b) (i) The boundary of the CAZ between Victoria and Millbank is very complicated andinvolves several bends and changes of direction. The boundaries of 'CentralLondon' and the 'Central Statistical Area' however tend to be aligned with majorroads, thereby making it much easier to determine what lies within a particularzone. The Central Statistical Area boundary also tends to follow relativelystraight lines.

(ii) The underlying principle of the CAZ requires the adoption of a reasonably clear-cut boundary, rather than a building-by-building division. The Council shouldconsider a more straightforward boundary following the route of a major road andexclude the whole of the area south of Birdcage Walk from the CAZ. [759]

(c) (i) Support the Council's position that the CAZ boundary should not be extendedsouth to Vauxhall Bridge Road. [321]

(d) (i) The City Council has rightly recognised that within central Westminster there area number of areas that are saturated with development and are suffering stressand have been so designated: Soho and Covent Garden, Edgware Road andQueensway. I believe that in these areas the Council cannot do otherwise, giventhe requirements set out in Article 8 of ECHR and the associated case law. Togive effect to guidance in RPG3 there must be an emphasis on the developmentof London’s World City status. In circumstances where development in the StressArea is restricted, a narrow interpretation of the CAZ would be highlyinappropriate. Accordingly I believe that the City Council should adopt the LPACdefinition of central London. To protect residents in these areas from nuisanceetc., the Council should adopt policies that give it the power to preventdevelopment in those areas of the CAZ where development would lead tonuisance for residents and should state formally that its policies will be to givepriority to its obligations under Article 8. [555]



(e) (i) The adopted UDP has different policies for the CAZ from the rest of the city.Whilst recognising the importance of protecting residential uses in the city centre,the adopted Plan promotes and enhances the strategic role of the central part ofthe city. The change in the RUDP merely seeks to protect and enhance, andfalls short of the impetus which is necessary to encourage change through thepromotion of requisite investment. [794]

(f) (i) The City Council should adopt a ‘Wider Central Area’. [90]

(g) (i) The continued focus on the distinction between the CAZ and the rest of the Cityis unhelpful. The boundary is porous. The overall impression is of a Council thatfeels beleaguered and unable to manage the tensions between all the variousgroups that have a stake in the development of the City, rather than anappreciation of the huge opportunities this multi-faceted activity brings. [403]

(h) (i) The policy and reasoned justification do not comply with RPG3 and fail to adoptthe concept of a Wider Central Area. It is not the case that much of this area isalmost wholly residential in character and, indeed, the Council has designatedcommercial special policy areas outside the CAZ. [1] [795] [680] [724] [695] [90]

(i) (i) The revised UDP substantially curtails the activities permitted in the CentralActivities Zone.

(ii) A ‘mission statement’ should be included within this policy and indeed within thestrategic aims of Westminster City Council. Proposed wording for this statementsuggested. [532]

(j) (i) Do not support CAZ frontages on Edgware Road and Marylebone Roads whichrequire as much protection of residential amenity as elsewhere. [131]

(k) (i) The Central Activities Zone (CAZ) is defined far too narrowly, contrary to RPG3:the CAZ boundary should be reviewed and updated. [376]

(l) (i) Support the City Council's view that Marylebone, parts of Bayswater,Knightsbridge and Millbank are almost wholly residential in character and toinclude them in LPAC's diagram, as being within a Wider Central Area boundarybeyond the Central Activities Zone, could lead to a further expansion ofcommercial activities and late night activity, to the detriment of the amenity ofresidents. [159]

(m) (i) Support but emphasise need for sensitivity to differences in local areas. [138]

(n) (i) 1.17c and 1.17d supported. Agree that the CAZ is a well established planningconcept and that there is no need to add an extra layer of complexity by usingthe designation ‘Wider Central Area’, as proposed by the Mayor which at the veryleast will only lead to confusion. [104]

(o) (i) Support this policy and supporting paragraphs. [28]

(p) (i) London should retain a residential centre and residential amenity can only bepreserved if there is restriction of inappropriate activities. [131]

(q) (i) Endorse the reasons given (paras 1.17 - 1.19) for a central area and believe thatit is correct to distinguish between the CAZ, CAZ Frontages and the PSPA andother, mainly residential, areas in regard to policies on shopping and services,



tourism, culture and entertainment, and other policies; so as to protect thecharacter of areas outside the CAZ and PSPA and to preserve the quality of lifeof their residents. [381]


(a) (i) It is not considered the policy needs strengthening. Exceptional circumstancesmay arise during the life of the Plan in relation to individual proposals which maylead to their acceptability. [719]

(b) (i) The boundary of the CAZ in the First Deposit UDP is the same as in the adoptedUDP. It has been delineated by examining whether individual street blocks are inpredominantly commercial or in predominantly residential use and is notdelineated only with regard to the distribution or location of late nightentertainment uses. It is therefore not considered that the area south of BirdcageWalk should be excluded from the CAZ.

(ii) For the Second Deposit Plan the boundary of the CAZ has been revised toreflect significant land use change in areas close to the boundary over the lastten years. The resultant changes to the CAZ boundary are indicated onillustrative maps 1.2 to 1.6 in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Plan.

(iii) The Stress Areas relating to a saturation of entertainment uses have been furtherconsidered in light of representations received to the First Deposit. Theboundaries of these have been modified and can be found on Maps 8.2, 8.3 and8.4. [759]

(c) (i) Support welcomed. [321]

(d) (i) Support for Stress Areas welcomed. In line with the draft London Plan (2002)the UDP maintains a Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and CAZ Frontages. Theboundary of the CAZ and the CAZ Frontages shown on Map 2B.2 of the draftLondon Plan (2002) are adopted in the UDP, apart from Portland Place. Unlike'Towards the London Plan', the draft London Plan (2002) does not include a'Wider Central Area'.

(ii) The City Council has had regard to the definition of Central London Activities inRPG 3 and LPAC’s Central London UDP Co-ordination Guidelines and Co-ordination Diagram, as well as Towards the London Plan’ - the initial proposalsfor the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy. Paragraph 1.17b of states that,'Figure 28 of ‘Towards the London Plan’ includes all of Marylebone, parts ofBayswater and Knightsbridge and Millbank as being within a Wider Central Areabeyond the Central Activities Zone boundary (see Key Diagram, Map P.1).‘Towards the London Plan’ defines the ‘Wider Central Area’ as, “…the areawithin Central London which is characterised by small or more local scaleactivities. This area will be protected by planning policy which will resist thespread of uses and activities from the Central Activities Zone…”. ' Para 1.17csummarises why the designation of a Wider Central Area has not been includedin the UDP. It states 'The thrust of the policy approach in ‘Towards the LondonPlan’ of focusing central London activities within the Central Activities Zone andgenerally resisting the spread of such uses and activities into the areassurrounding the CAZ, such as Marylebone, parts of Bayswater and Knightsbridgeand Millbank, is supported. The City Council’s policies in the UDP are consistentwith this approach. However it is not considered necessary or helpful to add afurther layer of designation by defining an area of Westminster as the ‘Wider



Central Area’ The CAZ is a well-recognised, well-understood and longestablished planning concept and introducing an additional designation would notaid users of the Plan.' Para 1.17d also explains that the Council considers thatareas like Knightsbridge and Millbank are almost wholly residential in character,while predominantly residential areas like Marylebone and Bayswater are alsocharacterised by small or more local scale activities. To include them in a WiderCentral Area could lead to confusion as to why these particular areas areincluded whilst other, almost wholly residential areas, outside the Wider CentralArea are not. Furthermore, including these areas in a Wider Central Area couldlead to a further expansion of commercial activities and, in particularentertainment and late night activity, to the detriment of the amenity of residents.

(iii) The UDP therefore maintains a Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and CentralActivities Zone Frontages. Chapter 1: Westminster’s Central Area sets out howthe City Council has interpreted RPG 3, LPAC’s advice and ‘Towards the LondonPlan – the initial proposals for the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy’ onappropriate Central London Activities and deals with the provision of mixed useswithin commercial schemes. [555]

(e) (i) See response (d). [403] [794]

(f) (i) See response (d). [1] [795] [680] [724] [695] [90]

(g) (i) Disagree. The policy approach towards the CAZ in the First Deposit UDP issimilar to that in the adopted UDP. The wording of policy STRA 3 supports theenhancement of the strategic role, historic character and social and culturalimportance of central Westminster and the polices in Part 2 of the Plan set outthe detailed policy approach as to the how such enhancement will beaccommodated within the CAZ and CAZ Frontages. New policies for North WestWestminster have been included in the plan in Chapter 5: Policies for North WestWestminster. [403]

(h) (i) In line with the draft London Plan (2002), the UDP maintains a Central ActivitiesZone (CAZ) and CAZ Frontages and the boundary of the CAZ and the CAZFrontages shown on Map 2B.2 of the draft London Plan (2002) are adopted inthe UDP, apart from Portland Place. Unlike 'Towards the London Plan' the draftLondon Plan (2002) does not include a 'Wider Central Area'.

(ii) The City Council has had regard to the definition of Central London Activities inRPG 3 and LPAC’s Central London UDP Co-ordination Guidelines and Co-ordination Diagram, as well as Towards the London Plan - the Initial proposalsfor the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy. Paragraph 1.17b states that, 'Figure 28 of ‘Towards the London Plan’ includes all of Marylebone, parts ofBayswater and Knightsbridge and Millbank as being within a Wider Central Areabeyond the Central Activities Zone boundary (see Key Diagram, Map P.1 ).‘Towards the London Plan’ defines the ‘Wider Central Area’ as, “…the areawithin Central London which is characterised by small or more local scaleactivities. This area will be protected by planning policy which will resist thespread of uses and activities from the Central Activities Zone…”. ' Para 1.17csummarises why the designation of a Wider Central area has not been includedin the UDP. It states 'The thrust of the policy approach in ‘Towards the LondonPlan’ of focusing central London activities within the Central Activities Zone andgenerally resisting the spread of such uses and activities into the areassurrounding the CAZ, such as Marylebone, parts of Bayswater and Knightsbridgeand Millbank, is supported. The City Council’s policies in the UDP are consistent



with this approach. However it is not considered necessary or helpful to add afurther layer of designation by defining an area of Westminster as the ‘WiderCentral Area’. The CAZ is a well-recognised, well-understood and longestablished planning concept and introducing an additional designation would notaid users of the Plan.' Para 1.17d also explains that 'the Council considers thatareas like Knightsbridge and Millbank are almost wholly residential in characterwhile predominantly residential areas like Marylebone and Bayswater are alsocharacterised by small or more local scale activities. To include them in a WiderCentral Area could lead to confusion as to why these particular areas areincluded whilst other, almost wholly residential areas, outside the Wider CentralArea are not. Furthermore, including these areas in a Wider Central Area couldlead to a further expansion of commercial activities and, in particularentertainment and late night activity, to the detriment of the amenity of residents.'

(iii) The UDP, therefore, maintains a Central Activities Zone (CAZ) and CentralActivities Zone Frontages. Chapter 1: Westminster’s Central Area sets out howthe City Council have interpreted RPG 3, LPAC’s advice and ‘Towards theLondon Plan – the Initial proposals for the Mayor’s Spatial DevelopmentStrategy’ on appropriate Central London Activities and deals with the provision ofmixed uses within commercial schemes." [1] [795] [680] [724] [695] [90]

(i) (i) It is not considered that the activities in the CAZ have been substantially curtailedthrough the policies set out in the UDP. The Plan seeks a balanced approach todevelopment in Westminster and, through the changes made post-First Depositresults in a UDP that provides a vision for Westminster, as the centre of a capitalcity of world importance, and as a place where people live. The Introduction toChapter 1 in Part 2 of the Plan sets out a detailed description of the characterand function of central Westminster and acknowledges its role.

(ii) It is agreed that the West End contains a mixture of uses which befits a capitaland world city. The West End can remain the focus of entertainment with itsmixture of theatre, cinema, dining and general nightlife activities. It is the CityCouncil's aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a mix ofresidential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitableenvironment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress. [532]

(j) (i) It is recognised that not all the frontages within the CAZ Frontages are incommercial use and that the frontages contain varying degrees of residential usewithin them as well as housing blocks adjoining and to the rear. This isacknowledged in paras 1.46 and 1.47 of the Plan in Chapter 1: Westminster'sCentral Area. However, these frontages are all major roads on which centralLondon activities have been long established. It is considered appropriate toretain the CAZ Frontages designation along the Marylebone and Edgware Roadswhich have been incorporated from the adopted Plan. [131]

(k) (i) See also response (d). [376]

(l–o) (i) Support welcomed. [159] [138] [104] [28]

(p) (i) Agree. This is what the policies in Plan aim to achieve. [131]

(q) (i) Support welcomed. [381]




1.3.1 The objections to Policy STRA 3 are very varied and cover many aspects of theUDP’s aims as they are later elaborated in Part II Policies. For that reason, the individualobjections will be addressed, as in my Conclusions on the earlier objections to theIntroduction to Part I.

(a) Policy STRA 3 is admirably brief and it is difficult to see how it could be significantlystrengthened without distorting the strategic requirement to define the CAZ, asrequired by RPG 3 and the London Plan. There is no evidence that the equivalentPolicy CAZ3 of the adopted UDP has been conspicuously unsuccessful; even if it hadbeen, that would be no reason to depart from strategic guidance in either CAZdefinition or the formulation of Part II Policies.

(b) It is necessary to define the CAZ with reference to the actual pattern of land use thatmay or may not show the same pattern of division as the street network. The areasreferred to have been inspected in detail and I am confident that the CAZ has beencorrectly defined in their vicinity.

(c) The boundary of the CAZ in the vicinity of the Vincent Square Conservation Area issupported and my inspection confirms this definition as appropriate.

(d) The concept of Stress Areas, inside which excessive concentration or intensificationof entertainment uses will be controlled, is supported and this overall view is taken byme when I consider the merits of Policies TACE 8-10. The general definition ofCentral London is that which appears in the emergent London Plan (see CA01) and Ilater recommend accordingly.

(e) The City Council is entitled to adopt differential policies within and outside the CAZwhich is why it needs detailed definition in order to reflect the relevant spatialguidance set out in the London Plan.

(f) The need to define a Wider Central Area is not contained in the London Plan, otherthan the wider definition of the CAZ Frontages and the location on the ground of thevarious Opportunity Areas in Westminster.

(g) A firm distinction between the CAZ and elsewhere in Westminster is needed in orderbroadly to confine employment floorspace and its relative growth in conformity withthe detailed sub-regional strategy of the London Plan.

(h) The relevant guidance of the RPG has been modified and that of the London Plan isnow relatively more important. The existence of relatively extensive residential areason the fringe of the CAZ and their widespread conservation area status arguesagainst the significant extension of the CAZ.

(i) I do not accept that CAZ activities have been substantially curtailed by the Policies ofthe UDP. The need to achieve an increase in residential population, to conserve thehistoric buildings and areas of Central London and generally to restrict high buildingswill have the overall effect of restraining employment growth but these are derivedfrom the London Plan and from RPG advice and are not locally-determined orpursued in isolation.

(j) The concept of CAZ Frontages along Edgware and Marylebone Roads derives fromstrategic guidance. I endorse this continuing concept and recommend that such



frontages should include Portland Place. However, I have some concern regardingthe depth of CAZ use penetration along these frontages and recommend accordingly.

(k) See my earlier Conclusions under (f-h) above.

(l) The CAZ definition in Marylebone, Bayswater, Knightsbridge and Millbank aresupported and this view is endorsed by me, following my detailed inspection of theareas in question.

(m) The need to develop SPG in the form of Area Appraisals and Conservation AreaAudits is entirely accepted and I recommend accordingly in relation to several Part IIPolicies.

Recommendation


ST03A: Mixed Use Development

Objectors

1 Westminster Property Owners' Association64 Shaftesbury PLC68 Howard de Walden Estates259 Marks & Spencer PLC491 Mercers Company680 C B Hillier Parker (The Crown Estate)694 Dalton Warner Davis707 BT Plc710 London Electricity724 Grosvenor Limited748 British Land Company PLC772 Land Securities Properties Limited777 J D Wetherspoon Plc780 Selfridges & Co.795 Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited803 Standard Life Assurance Company

Summary of Objections

a) (i) New Policy STRA 3a duplicates criteria within Policy CENT3 and COM2. Paragraph (B) of Policy STRA 3a relates to the requirement for developmentsin the CAZ and CAZ frontages to include residential accommodation. This isunnecessary because Policies CENT3 and COM2 contain similar criteria.Furthermore, paragraph (B) of Policy STRA 3a is inconsistent with PoliciesCENT3 and COM2. Policies CENT3 and COM2 suggest that “residentialaccommodation should comprise an amount of floorspace equivalent to theincrease in….”, whilst Policy STRA 3a implies a more definite aim, because itstates “to require the equivalent provision of housing when increases…”.

(ii) Paragraph (A) of Policy STRA 3a is inconsistent with the approach previouslyset out in draft Policies CENT3 and COM2. Policies CENT3 and COM2(before the Pre-Inquiry Changes) stated that the “retention and enhancementof the mix of uses on sites in Central Westminster will be sought `where



appropriate and practical”. However, Policy STRA 3a fails to recognise thatthere may be circumstances where the aim to maintain and enhance the mixof uses may not be appropriate or practical. Paragraph (B) of Policy STRA 3aalso refers to residential floorspace exceeding the increase in commercialspace in CAZ frontages. The Pre-Inquiry Changes to CENT3 and COM2 havechanged the wording of policy to exclude “exceeding” and replaced with“should exceed”. The latter wording implies some flexibility in specificcircumstances, whilst the wording of STRA 3a implies a more inflexibleapproach. Therefore, STRA 3a is inconsistent with CENT3 and COM2. [259]

b) (ii) Notwithstanding the inconsistency between STRA 3a and CENT3 and COM2,we believe that the more onerous requirement to provide more residentialaccommodation in CAZ frontages compared with the CAZ is unjustified. Ourreasons for this objection are set out in our previous representations toPolicies CENT3 and COM2. [259]

c) (i) The Council’s response to Marks and Spencer’s representations to CENT3 and COM2 suggest that these differences between CAZ frontages and theCAZ have been carried forward from the Adopted UDP. This is not the case.Adopted Policy CAZ2 currently permits Central London Activities within CAZfrontages, but developments are required to provide residentialaccommodation at least equivalent in floorspace to the increase in offices.Any developments within the CAZ Frontages are therefore required to providean equivalent amount of residential floorspace as a minimum. The proposedwording of STRA 3a (and CENT3 and COM2) is not consistent with AdoptedPolicy CAZ2, as suggested by the Council. The new reference to residentialdevelopment “exceeding” commercial space in CAZ frontages, is significantlymore restrictive than the Adopted policy reference to “at least equivalent”.The Adopted policy requires an equivalent amount of residential floorspace ormore, to the increase in commercial use, but the Pre-Inquiry Policy STRA 3arequires an unspecified amount of residential space. In our view this is asignificant change in policy, which imposes a more onerous and unjustifiedrequirement for residential space in CAZ Frontages. Policy STRA 3a and thesupporting text should be deleted, or failing that should be amended asfollows:“Policy STRA 3a – Mixed Use DevelopmentIt is the City Council’s aim where appropriate and practical:(A) To maintain and enhance the mix of uses in central London. (B) To require the equivalent amount of housing when increases incommercial floorspace are proposed in the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) andexceeding it on the CAZ Frontages. [259]

d) (i) Representations submitted objecting to Policy STRA3a in relation to mixeduse development. Criterion A) of this policy states that it is the Council’s aim tomaintain and enhance the mix of uses in central Westminster. Our concernrelates specifically to criterion B) which seeks: ‘to require the equivalentprovision of housing when increases in commercial floorspace are proposed inthe Central Activity Zone (CAZ) and exceed it on the CAZ frontage’.

(ii) Object to the prescriptive nature of this policy, which effectively requires 50% of the floorspace of all new commercial schemes to be for housing, and over 50% where new commercial floorspace is proposed on a CAZ frontage. PPG1 (1997), General Policy and Principles advises that ‘it is essential that planpolicy and proposals are realistic and provide for choice and competition.’(Paragraph 42)



(iii) The Development Plan seeks to guide developments to appropriate locations with regard to accepted planning principles. The development control officersat the authority then apply these policies on a case by case basis. Theessence of objection is that the proposed policy stance is overly prescriptiveand favours an inflexible approach over the merits of each proposal. Planningpolicies need to be significantly flexible in order to make the most efficient useof sites, taking into account locational characteristics, the demand for differentland uses, sustainability and regeneration potential. We consider theproposed policy should have regard to specific circumstances, planninghistory and any number of other appropriate policy aims within the UDP. Thisneed for flexibility is already recognised by Policy COM2: Offices and Mixed-use Development, which identifies that the provision of such levels of housingfloorspace within new developments is not always either appropriate orpractical. The supporting text to the policy qualifies this by stating that whenassessing the proportion of residential floorspace required the following wouldbe taken into account:

� the size and nature of the development;� the physical constraints of the site and buildings;� the relationship of the site to adjoining properties; � the character and function of the locality.

(iv) Contend that Strategic Policy should also take into account what is both appropriate and practical in each case. The strategic policy context needs tobe both compliant with the local policies as well as being practical andreasonable.

(v) In order to satisfy this objection we submit that Criteria B) of Policy STRA 3ashould be amended to read as follows:‘To require, where appropriate and practical the equivalent provision ofhousing when increases in commercial floorspace are proposed in the CentralActivity Zone (CAZ) and exceed it on the CAZ frontage’. [710]

e) (i) Part One policies should set the broad framework upon which the Part Two policies should be based. This policy, particularly the second part of it, merelyrepeats the advice already set out in CENT3 and COM2 and is unnecessary.The policy should seek to ‘encourage’ rather than ‘maintain’ the mix of useswithin the CAZ. By encouraging a range and variety of uses within the CAZ tobe provided the City Council will ensure that a economically viable centre toLondon is sustained.

(ii) However the City Council has interpreted the term ‘mixed use’ to be synonymous with the provision of residential accommodation and seeks to maintain and promote this use over and above all other uses. This does notaccord with the draft London Plan which envisages the CAZ as being capableof sustaining intensive growth over the next ten years. The draft London Planrecognises the importance of new residential accommodation, particularlyaffordable housing within the CAZ, but also recognises that it is only one of awide range of uses, including offices, which need to be encouraged andsupported within the CAZ. [795]

f) (i) Part One policies should set the broad framework upon which the Part Two policies should be based. This policy, particularly the second part of it, merelyrepeats the advice already set out in CENT3 and COM2 and is unnecessary.



The policy should seek to ‘encourage’ rather than ‘maintain’ the mix of useswithin the CAZ. By encouraging a range and variety of uses within the CAZ tobe provided the City Council will ensure that a economically viable centre toLondon is sustained.

(ii) However the City Council has interpreted the term mixed use to besynonymous with the provision of residential accommodation and seeks tomaintain and promote this use over and above all other uses. This does notaccord with the Draft London Plan which envisages the CAZ as being capableof sustaining intensive growth over the next ten years. The Draft London Planrecognises the importance of new residential accommodation, particularlyaffordable housing within the CAZ, but also recognises that it is only one of awide range of uses, including offices, which need to be encouraged andsupported within the CAZ. [803]

g) (i) The Crown Estate has no objection to the inclusion within Part One of the replacement UDP of a strategic policy which seeks to promote a mix of landuses, since such an approach is now a well established objective of nationalplanning policy. Paragraph 3B.26 in the draft London Plan which provides thejustification to Policy 3B.5 states that this policy (which’, according toparagraph 3B.25, is intended to apply to strategically important employmentdevelopment) will be taken forward through sub-regional framework and takeninto account Westminster’s UDP policy based upon 50% office and 50%housing. Thus, the Mayor’s policy is based upon well-established WestminsterUDP policy which seeks to provide further housing in connection with newoffice development. What the draft London Plan does not do is to extend thepolicy to other commercial uses as is suggested by pre-Inquiry UDP PolicySTRA3a. Objections have already been made to policies CENT3 and COM2.The Crown Estate’s objection to this policy is that within the framework of aUDP which seeks to maximise the provision of housing and one which seeksto promote mixed use development within the CAZ, there are a number oflocations within the CAZ, where alternative ways of providing mixed uses canbe achieved whilst at the same time satisfying other objectives of UDP policy.A specific area for the Crown Estate is in respect of Regent Street where theEstate has an ambitious and far reaching strategy. The Crown Estate’sstrategy for Regent Street is to make a successful business location throughthe upgrading of the office stock as well as upgrading the retail offer toreinforce and strengthen Regent Street’s role as part of the West EndInternational Shopping designation, and the country’s leading retaildestination. The Crown Estate’s programme is one which is wholly consistentwith the strategic UDP objectives of strengthening Central London’s WorldCity role, and it is also consistent with Shopping policy SS5. Such proposalsneed to deal with heritage issues arising out of conservation area designationand, certainly as far as Regent Street is concerned, the constraints imposedby the listed status of all of the buildings on the street which impact on thepracticalities of providing residential floorspace and indeed the viability ofindividual schemes. [680]

h) (i) British Land objects to this new strategic policy, in particular, Part B, which requires the equivalent provision of housing when increases in commercial floorspace are proposed in the CAZ and exceeding on the CAZ frontages.

(ii) It is considered that this policy is in conflict with Policy STRA4, which relates to regeneration and economic development. This policy should take intoaccount circumstances where it is not appropriate or practical to provide



residential accommodation or other uses in proposals for commercial floorspace. In particular, when new commercial development makes a significantcontribution to the character and function of the CAZ or CAZ frontage.

(iii) It is unreasonable to require residential accommodation to be provided as part of “any increase in commercial floor space”. The application of this policymay cause small office schemes to be unviable. Whilst British Land generallysupports mixed use development, the policy should include a minimumthreshold, where residential accommodation may be provided. [748]

i) (i) Paragraph 8 of PPG1, which is partially quoted by the Council, also says that “what will be appropriate on a particular site will be determined by the characteristics of the area . . . and the likely impact on sustainability”. PPG3(para 49) also lends support to mixed use development and goes as far as tosay that local authorities should identify sites or areas where mixed usedevelopment will be required, including where appropriate, specifying theproportion of floorspace which should be residential within suchdevelopments. This cannot reasonably be interpreted as a mandate toprescribe fixed proportions across such a wide diverse, unique and nationallyimportant area as the Central Activities Zone. The reference is moreobviously to be applied to town centres, sites or discrete areas. Neither PPG3nor Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities (RPG3) provides aplatform for the prescriptive approach proposed by the City Council.

(ii) Reliance on the draft London Plan is similarly unsustainable until it has been through the full consultation process and is adopted. Part B of Policy STRA3acannot be justified and should be removed. Because paragraphs 1.18a, b, c,d, e, f, g, h and cannot reasonably support STRA3a (B), they too should beremoved or substantially amended to refer to STRA3a (A) only. [694]

j) (i) This new policy has been introduced as a means of achieving additionalhousing from all commercial schemes in the CAZ which involve an increase infloorspace. The potential extent of application of the policy can only beunderstood by referring to the definition of “commercial” in the glossary to theUDP, and it is noteworthy that supporting text to this new policy does notdirect the reader to the glossary. “Commercial uses” are there defined as:

“uses which include offices, industry, showrooms, hotels, retail, entertainmentand private educational health and leisure facilities other than social andcommunity uses that are principally provided by the public sector. This doesnot include residential use.”

The implication of this new policy, when combined with the Part 2 policyCENT3 (as amended) is that increases in floorspace in a wide range of useswill now be expected to provide equivalent residential floorspace, or if theycannot, to contribute to an affordable housing fund. Under adopted UDPpolicy, as applied in practice, it is increased office floorspace which hasattracted the obligation to provide residential floorspace. Now, even useswhich planning policy positively encourages to expand, such as retail andindustry, will be subject to this requirement.

(ii) The policy is likely to act as a significant deterrent to new development,contrary to the overall aims of the UDP which include enhancing the attraction of Central London and fostering economic vitality and diversity.



(iii) Supporting text to the new policy, paragraphs 1.18a to 1.18k, justify theapproach on the basis that it is supported by central government Guidance inPPG1 and PPG3, and by strategic planning guidance in RPG3 and theMayor’s draft London Plan. The statements in those documents, which arereferred to in the supporting text, do not support the policy. For example,paragraph 10 of PPG1 (referred to in paragraph 1.18b of the amended draftUDP) makes clear that even in an area where the general intent of policy is topromote mixed use, as is the case in the CAZ, it is only on suitable [ouremphasis] sites that development will be expected to incorporate a mix ofuses. The blanket approach of Policy STRA 3a is not supported by PPG1.

(iv) Similarly, the policy approach cannot be supported by the Mayor’s Draft London Plan. Policy 3B5 (referred to in paragraph 1.18g of the amended DraftUDP) is categoric in its statement that it is office floorspace increases whichshould contain a considerable amount of residential floorspace. For all theabove reasons, the policy and its supporting text should be deleted.Delete Policy STRA3a and paragraphs 1.18a to 1.18k. [780]

k) (i) Object to the imposition of a requirement for residential use as part of all redevelopment schemes as a matter of course, regardless of site-specificcharacteristics. This strict obligation does not reflect the flexibility provided forwithin the Mayor’s draft policy on mixed-use development, and referred to atparagraph 1.18g of the pre-Inquiry changes. It is also contradictory to otherpolicies within the plan which seek to safeguard residential properties againstpotential harmful affects from commercial uses. [777]

l) (i) This new policy has been introduced as a means of achieving additional housing from all commercial schemes in the CAZ which involve an increase infloorspace. The potential extent of application of the policy can only beunderstood by referring to the definition of “commercial” in the glossary to theUDP, and it is noteworthy that supporting text to this new policy does notdirect the reader to the glossary. “Commercial uses” are defined as “useswhich include offices, industry, showrooms, hotels, retail, entertainment andprivate educational health and leisure facilities other than social andcommunity uses that are principally provided by the public sector. This doesnot include residential use.”

The implication of this new policy, when combined with the Part 2 policyCENT3 (as amended) is that increases in floorspace in a wide range of useswill now be expected to provide equivalent residential floorspace, or if theycannot, to contribute to an affordable housing fund. Under adopted UDPpolicy, as applied in practice, it is increased office floorspace which hasattracted the obligation to provide residential floorspace. Now, even useswhich planning policy positively encourages to expand, such as retail andindustry, will be subject to this requirement.

(ii) The policy is likely to act as a significant deterrent to new development, contrary to the overall aims of the UDP which include enhancing the attraction of Central London and fostering economic vitality and diversity.

(iii) Supporting text to the new policy, paragraphs 1.18a to 1.18k, justify the approach on the basis that it is supported by central government Guidance in PPG1 and PPG3, and by strategic planning guidance in RPG3 and theMayor’s draft London Plan. The statements in those documents, which arereferred to in the supporting text, do not support the policy. For example,



paragraph 10 of PPG1, referred to in paragraph 1.18b of the amended draftUDP, makes clear that even in an area where the general intent of policy is topromote mixed use, as is the case in the CAZ, it is only on suitable [ouremphasis] sites that development will be expected to incorporate a mix ofuses. The blanket approach of Policy STRA 3a is not supported by PPG1.

(iv) Similarly, the policy approach cannot be supported by the Mayor’s Draft London Plan. Policy 3B5 (referred to in paragraph 1.18g of the amended DraftUDP) is categoric in its statement that it is office floorspace increases whichshould contain a considerable amount of residential floorspace. For all theabove reasons, the policy and its supporting text should be deleted. [491]

m) (i) The introduction of the policy indicates a substantial change in the nature and application of mixed use policy in the City which has not been justified. Thepolicy will limit the scope for additional commercial development, which wouldserve the City’s key economic functions, and therefore the policy will not serveto drive forward the economy of Westminster in the most positive wayconsistent with its role as the centre of a world city. [1] [68] [772] [724]

n) (i) Object to Policy STRA3a, criterion B. It is not reasonable to propose that permissions for commercial floorspace will only be permitted if an equivalentprovision of housing is provided within the Central Activity Zone (CAZ) orexceed it on CAZ frontages. Agree that mixed use development should beencouraged within the CAZ, but feel the policy should be less restrictive. BTpropose a more suitable wording as set out below and request that the policyis amended accordingly: “The City Council will seek additional housing to beprovided in association with commercial development where appropriate andpractical to do so” [707]


(a-n) The responses to all the objections to STRA 3a are provided in writtenrepresentations and proofs of evidence submitted in appearance at the publicinquiry.


1.3A.1.The intention of the Plan to maintain the characteristic mix of uses and in particular itspriority for supporting and growing the residential communities of Central Westminstersuggest a need to manage the content of development. This is a feature of the adopted UDPand the policy follows on from Policies ECON2 and CAZ3. If not all property ownerssupported the view, the City Council consider the policy to have worked well, supporting theestablished use pattern while allowing natural changes to take place and adding to thehousing stock. While clearly a policy approach to be used with care and sensitivity, I acceptthat the policy has been effective.

1.3A.2.In the UDP the detailed application of the policy is covered in a number of the Part IIpolicies. The requirement for the provision of residential accommodation when commercialfloorspace is extended, to which many of the Objections were directed, is guided by PolicyCENT3 and COM2. For North West Westminster, where the policy also applies, PoliciesPSPA2-3 and NWW1-2 are applicable. The Objections to those Policies are similar to thoseto STRA3A. It was complained that the Plan extends the requirements to all forms of“commercial” development, but the adopted plan also does this, following my predecessors’recommendations, if the residential gains were to come, and may continue, from officedevelopment. Provided there were reasonable flexibility to accommodate requirements to



the situation of the development rather than simple blanket requirements this did not seemother than a reasonable approach. This is considered in relation to the Part II policies and itis concluded that the way the policies are presented (and the experience of the operation ofthe policy) to date gives assurance as to its practicality and reasonableness in operation.

1.3A.3.The support for such a policy, from Government advice, is detailed in the Reasonsgiven in the Plan. The encouragement of homes in the central areas of towns and cities andof mixes of compatible uses in support of the residential communities and the economic wellbeing of town centres is seen, among other things as, as an element in achievingsustainability. The aim represented by this Policy is wholly appropriate to the Plan.

1.3A.4.There were several comments as to the way the Policy and Reasons are presentedand worded. Some were to stress that the policy would depend on what is appropriate andpractical in relation to the development and its location. This is I consider implicit in thePolicy as it is developed in Part II and does not need to be specifically stated here. Thejustification for seeking a more than equivalent residential provision in development in theCAZ frontages is considered in relation to policies in Part II. Apart from some small revisionsto relate the adopted version Plan to the position reached, on its adoption, by the LondonPlan, modification of STRA 3a is not recommended.

Recommendation

� R1.3A.1 Modify Policy STRA 3a and its Reasoned Justification in accordancewith the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association2 Greater London Authority28 London Tourist Board131 Marylebone Association381 South East Bayswater Residents Association403 Councillor Barbara Grahame555 Glen Suarez748 British Land Company PLC772 Land Securities Properties Limited785 Delancey Group plc


(a) (i) Supported, but would like to see policy (A) strengthened by replacing the words"particularly where" with the word "provided". [131]

(b) (i) The situation in the Stress Areas is not one which can be allowed to persist forany length of period, given the centrality and importance of these locations.Therefore the City Council must take active steps to restore the appropriatebalance in these areas by taking steps to reduce the intensity of uses that arecausing the stress. Recommend that additional points be introduced into PolicySTRA 4: “To discourage new entertainment and late night uses from locating inthe Stress Areas unless there are exceptional reasons to do so”, and “Wheresuitable opportunities arise which are economic and sustainable, to encouragelate night and entertainment uses operating within the Stress Areas in locationsnear residents homes to find alternative locations for their activities in other areas

ST04: Regeneration and Economic Development



of Westminster and London. In exceptional circumstances the City Council mayitself take steps to modify or revoke existing planning permissions especiallywhere they have become lawful as a result of the tenure of the use rather thanpursuant to a formal planning consent given by a planning authority.” [555]

(c) (i) It is stated that there is unlikely to be any great overall increase in totalemployment in Westminster during the Plan period. Such a reference is notconsistent with the positive promotion of London as a world city and the centralarea in particular as an employment centre of national and internationalsignificance. This reference should therefore be deleted. [1] [772]

(d) (i) Strongly support the aim to increase the benefit to residents from regenerationprojects, but planning policies do not necessarily facilitate this, particularly withregard to the inadequate policies for affordable housing. [403]

(e) (i) Welcome and support this policy and supporting paragraphs. [28] [2] [785] [748]

(f) (i) STRA 4 supported. [381]


(a) (i) Economic growth which is not environmentally sustainable may still contributetowards meeting sustainable development aims by providing employmentopportunities. The qualification suggested is not considered appropriate. [131]

(b) (i) Agreed that there needs to be a balanced mix of uses in the City. It is the CityCouncil’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix ofresidential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitableenvironment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress. Theplanning policies provided in Chapter 8, TACE 8-10 deal specifically withEntertainment uses and Stress areas. It is considered that these new policiesadequately cover the issues raised here. It is considered that it is not the CityCouncil role to find alternative locations for existing venues which have currentlawful planning consent or rights. City Council would not normally consider theissue of revoking or modifying an existing permission. [555]

(c) (i) Para 1.14 has been reworded to delete these statements and to reflect the policydirections towards accommodating growth in global economic functions set out inTowards the London Plan. Para 1.14 now states "Policies in Part 2 of the UDPdo, however, seek to accommodate the changing requirements of the economy.These will be met through the refurbishment and renewal of business premisesand also through a limited number of new, large ‘state of the art’ businesspremises such as those permitted in the PSPA - see Chapter 5. This approachis consistent with ‘Towards the London Plan’, the initial proposals for theMayor’s Spatial Development Strategy’, which envisages parts of the City ofLondon and Canary Wharf, and some main rail termini, as the areas where theadditional capacity for London’s global economy sectors will be provided.(Paragraph 2.19)" [1] 772]

(d) (i) Support noted. The City Council's revised approach to the provision of affordablehousing is set out under policy H4. [403]

(e) (i) Support welcomed. [28] [2] [785] [748] [381]




1.4.1. This Aim generated considerable support. There was objection that, as originallyexpressed, it implied that no great increase in total employment was envisaged over the Planperiod, something at variance with the promotion of London as a World City and theimportance attached to Central Westminster in this regard by the draft London Plan. TheCity Council proposed changes to note the developments taking place in the City, as well asthe substantial redevelopment of the Paddington SPA.

1.4.2. There was a request to strengthen the Policy by asking for all growth to beenvironmentally sustainable, on the face of it a reasonable request, but it can be acceptedthat sustainability should be seen in the round rather than just in relation to individualdevelopments and that the change might be counter productive. The City Council quoted theexample of employment generating development which could be beneficial to a growingpopulation in central Westminster.

1.4.3. There was also a suggestion that the Part I policy take account of the problemsof entertainment uses in juxtaposition to residential accommodation in the Stress Areas. Itincluded not just the restraint on the growth of such activities where they were damaging toresidential amenity, but the relocating of such uses. While the case for such action can bereadily understood, the City Council’s reluctance to embark on a policy that could involvelitigation and considerable expense in the attempt to relocate or extinguish legitimate usescan be no less appreciated. The Plan, in the policies of Chapter 8, is taking as robust a lineon the location of entertainment (etc), uses and their effects on the residential environmentas is reasonably practical.

Recommendation

� R1.4.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 4 (A-C) and its Reasoned Justification inaccordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST05: Public and Private Sector Partnerships


28 London Tourist Board381 South East Bayswater Residents Association680 Crown Estate724 Grosvenor Limited


(a) (i) Support the BIDs initiative. [680] [724] [28]

(b) (i) STRA 5 Supported [381]


(a)(b)(i) Support welcomed. [680] [724] [28] [381]


1.5.1. The responses to this Policy were of support. The Policy and Reasons had beenchanged at various stages of the Plan making process, by way of refining the accuracy of the



Policy, and some further changes were proposed prior to the Inquiry. It is recommended thatthese be accordingly now made.

Recommendation

� R1.5.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 5 and its Reasoned Justification inaccordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

ST06: Planning Obligations and Benefits


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association28 London Tourist Board64 Shaftesbury PLC68 Howard de Walden Estates73 London Underground Limited74 Railtrack Properties77 St Mary's Hospital131 Marylebone Association138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association141 Burford Group plc159 Queen's Park Estate Society259 Marks & Spencer PLC269 St James Homes370 The Theatres Trust376 London First381 South East Bayswater Residents Association555 Glen Suarez724 Grosvenor Limited772 Land Securities Properties Limited790 The Berkeley Group795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)803 Standard Life Assurance Company807 London School of Economics and Political Science814 St Martins Property Investments Limited


(a) (i) The rewording of this policy continues to avoid the unambiguous wording set outin Circular 1/97. The policy should be rewritten to state that planning obligationswill only be sought where they are necessary; relevant to planning; directlyrelated to the proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale andkind to the proposed development; and reasonable in all other aspects.

(ii) No justification is seen for the introduction of policy that appears to establish ageneral principle of seeking planning benefits as a matter of general course inrelation to all developments.

(iii) The policy goes beyond the clear limitations of the recommended scope ofplanning obligations and benefits envisaged in Circular 1/97 and PPG 1.

(iv) This policy has the potential to create significant delay and uncertainty in thedevelopment process: the implication being that planning obligations andbenefits will be sought with all new development. This would be contrary to the



specific provisions of Circular 1/97, where obligations can only be sought wherecircumstances dictate that planning permission ought otherwise be refused.

(v) In the policy statement, an additional bullet point should be added to state thatthe provision of planning benefits should also "be necessary for thedevelopment". The text of the bullet points in policy STRA 6 should also beamended to make it clear that the provision of planning benefits should be fairlyand reasonably related to scale and in kind to the development. [64] [803] [795][141]

(b) (i) The issue of planning obligations is a difficult one. Firstly, we would wish to seepolicies consistent with national Guidance, which is embodied in Circular 1/97.This confirms that planning objections are necessary and relevant to thedevelopment itself. The Council may wish to seek other planning benefits butthey cannot be 'requirements' if they are not justified in accordance with nationalguidance.

(ii) Developers wish to see certainty and the proposed policy has the potential toincrease uncertainty for developers in understanding when and why planningobligations will be necessary, together with the costs. It is not acceptable thatthe Council shall have a general policy of "seeking" benefits as a general matterof policy. [772]

(c) (i) It is noted that this policy now forms part of Westminster’s overall strategy inseeking to achieve the plan's objectives and now includes residentialdevelopment. See also LUL objections to policies H3, 4 & 5. [73]

(d) (i) Objectors seek a wider range of benefits sought. Objector 77 seeks provision ofnew and improved health care facilities, whilst Objector 370 seeks improvementof cultural facilities. [77] [370] [131]

(e) (i) Marks and Spencer support part of the amended wording of STRA6. Agree thatobligations and benefits must (rather than should) be related to the proposeddevelopment. However, the amended wording of STRA6 still suggests thatPlanning Obligations and the provision of related benefits will be sought in alldevelopments, regardless of whether they are necessary to make the proposalacceptable in land use planning terms. Furthermore, the additional reference to“in all types of development” in STRA6 will also give this impression. Therefore,the revised STRA6 still conflicts with national Guidance at paragraph B2 ofAnnex B of circular 1/97. The reference to Circular 1/97 in the supporting text(paragraph 1.32) does not provide sufficient guidance to prospective developers.The first sentence of STRA6 should be amended as follows:

“To actively seek and secure planning obligations and the provision of relatedbenefits in all types of development where they are necessary to make aproposal acceptable in land use planning terms.”

(ii) Marks and Spencer also object to the new supporting text at paragraph 1.29,because it incorrectly suggests that all new developments will increase demandfor social and community facilities and will put pressure on the local environment.However, in some cases redevelopment may have no additional impact (or mayreduce existing impact). Therefore, the first sentence of paragraph 1.29 shouldbe amended as follows:



New developments in the City may bring new residents, visitors and workers,which could put pressure on the local environment and on existing social andcommunity facilities and create demand for new ones. [259]

(f) (i) It would not be appropriate to allow development of new or extensions to existingentertainment or late night uses in the Stress Areas pursuant to a Section 106agreement. This should be made clear. The provision of public toilets forexample will not justify additional late night nuisance, for example. [555]

(g) (i) This policy is not considered to be necessary in light of PPG12, para. 3.3, andduplicates government guidance contained in Circular 1/97.

(ii) Should this policy be retained, it will require review, as it needs to moreaccurately reflect the provisions of Circular 1/97, specifically all of those tests inrespect of which planning obligations may be sought. Reference is made withinparagraph 1.32 to the Council’s intent to have regard to the Circular whenseeking and accepting planning obligations, however this needs to be madeexplicit within the policy. [269] [790]

(h) (i) The proposed alteration to the draft First Deposit UDP to include the new text“Public art should not be seen as a planning benefit but should be integral to thedevelopment” is not acceptable for the following reasons. [a] Public art is aplanning benefit, as it would not be appropriate for all forms of development in allcircumstances to provide public art. [b] Unless the City Council is willing toaccept public art provision through imposition of a planning condition andrequires a S106 Agreement to secure public art, then by definition of the Act, it isa ‘benefit’. [c] Public art may enhance a development and its surroundings, butthis does not necessarily mean that without its provision development would beunacceptable. It is correct therefore to consider public art as a benefit. [d] Thisparagraph is contradictory as it states that “in certain cases, therefore, proposalsthat provide these types of improvements (that is “public art”) to buildings and tothe environment adjacent to the building may be taken into account”. Off-siteprovision that is not part of the development site and not subject to planningcontrol by condition (as also stated in this paragraph) implies that a S106agreement would be necessary to secure its provision. If it is not provided on-sitethen there is doubt that it can be considered as “integral to the development”.

(vi) The Unitary Development Plan should be amended as follows:Delete the last sentence of paragraph 1.30. [790] [269]

(i) (i) Specific proposals for planning obligations should form part of the RUDP ratherthan being dealt with merely by Supplementary Planning Guidance.

(ii) The policy and the reasoned justification have the potential to create significantconfusion as to the City Council’s intentions in respect of planning obligationsand benefits. On the one hand planning obligations should be required wherethey are necessary for the reasons specified in Circular 1/97.

(iii) On the other hand and quite separately, the Council may wish to seek otherplanning benefits but these cannot be requirements if they are not justified inaccordance with national guidance.

(iv) The proposed policy and reasoned justification have the potential to createsubstantial uncertainty for developers in understanding when and why planning



obligations will be necessary and the practical and financial cost of complyingwith such obligations, particularly in advance of site acquisition.

(v) In blurring the clear distinction, which needs to be made, the impression beingcreated is that the City Council will be “seeking” benefits as a matter of generalpolicy.

(vi) As a matter of procedure, WPOA consider that the policy should make clear thatthe City Council is willing to negotiate and to agree planning obligations prior toapplications being considered by Committee in order to reduce substantially thetimetable of the consideration of planning applications and the conclusion of legalagreements. Such a process might be taken forward on the basis of developersagreeing to meet the abortive costs of the City Council in adopting this approach,as is already the case in certain instances. [1] [724] [814]

(j) (i) The amendments proposed do not address the key criterion of necessity and therelevant text set out in Circular 1/97, which should form the basis of the policyitself.

(ii) Specific proposals for planning obligations should form part of the RUDP ratherthan being dealt with merely by Supplementary Planning Guidance. [724] [807][68] [772]

(k) (i) The policy creates uncertainty for developers over the extent in planningobligations which will act as a deterrent to development and hence the renewalof the current stock. The City Council should state that it will negotiate and agreeobligations prior to the committee hearing applications in order to speed up andstreamline the service. [376]

(l) (i) The policy fails to take into account the overall community benefits that woulddirectly result from transport investment schemes. It is recommended that PolicySTRA 6 include the following as an additional criterion: to take into account otherpublic benefits which would directly result from the proposed development. [74]

(m) (i) We would add to the list of acceptable benefits in new developments commercialand residential, e.g. Post Office. Depending on the area and distance from shopsand transport available and also security cameras on the buildings and entrances[159]

(n) (i) Supported. [28] [381] [138]


(a) (i) The policy in seeking to mitigate the impacts of a development is fully inaccordance with Government guidance. In addition, reference is made to Circular1/97and government guidance at paragraph 1.32.

(ii) The policy accords with government advice. Circular 1/97 (paragraph B7) notesthat planning obligations "provide a means of reconciling the aims and interestsof developers with the need to safeguard the local environment or to meet thecosts imposed as a result of development" and that "where development willcreate a need for extra facilities … it may be reasonable for developers to meetor contribute towards the cost of providing such facilities." Supporting text toSTRA 6, at paragraph 1.28, quotes Circular 1/97 (paragraph 36) that "planningobligations are useful instruments, where they are necessary to the development



and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind, as they can enable aproperty owner to overcome obstacles which would otherwise prevent planningpermission from being granted. Planning obligations should be directly related tothe proposed development".

(iii) STRA 6 has also been amended to state "It is the City Council’s aim: To secureplanning obligations and the provision of related benefits in all appropriate typesof development. These should: have an identifiable connection with thedevelopment; be in line with the policies in Part 2; be appropriate to the location,scale and nature of the development, and; seek to mitigate the economic,environmental, transportation, social and community consequences of thedevelopment." [64] [803] [795] [141]

(b) (i) The policy accords with government advice. Circular 1/97 (paragraph B7) notesthat planning obligations "provide a means of reconciling the aims and interestsof developers with the need to safeguard the local environment or to meet thecosts imposed as a result of development" and that "where development willcreate a need for extra facilities … it may be reasonable for developers to meetor contribute towards the cost of providing such facilities." Supporting text toSTRA 6, at paragraph 1.28, quotes Circular 1/97 (paragraph 36) that "planningobligations are useful instruments, where they are necessary to the developmentand fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind, as they can enable aproperty owner to overcome obstacles which would otherwise prevent planningpermission from being granted. Planning obligations should be directly related tothe proposed development".

(ii) STRA 6 has also been amended to state "It is the City Council’s aim: To secureplanning obligations and the provision of related benefits in all appropriate typesof development. These should: have an identifiable connection with thedevelopment; be in line with the policies in Part 2; be appropriate to the location,scale and nature of the development, and; seek to mitigate the economic,environmental, transportation, social and community consequences of thedevelopment." [772]

(c) (i) Comments noted. See response to H3-H5. [73]

(d) (i) Paragraph 1.29 now states, "New developments in the City will bring newresidents, visitors and workers, which will put pressure on the local environmentand on existing social and community facilities and create demand for new ones.It is important, therefore, that an appropriate and accessible range of servicesand facilities for existing and future local communities is maintained. Thisincludes training and education, arts, cultural, health, social, community,recreation and leisure services and facilities, refuse collection and cleansing andcommunity safety…." [77] [370] [131]

(e) (i) The policy accords with government advice. Circular 1/97 (paragraph B7) notesthat planning obligations "provide a means of reconciling the aims and interestsof developers with the need to safeguard the local environment or to meet thecosts imposed as a result of development" and that "where development willcreate a need for extra facilities … it may be reasonable for developers to meetor contribute towards the cost of providing such facilities." Supporting text toSTRA 6, at paragraph 1.28, quotes Circular 1/97 (paragraph 36) that "planningobligations are useful instruments, where they are necessary to the developmentand fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind, as they can enable aproperty owner to overcome obstacles which would otherwise prevent planning



permission from being granted. Planning obligations should be directly related tothe proposed development".

(ii) STRA 6 has also been amended to state "It is the City Council’s aim: To secureplanning obligations and the provision of related benefits in all appropriate typesof development. These should: have an identifiable connection with thedevelopment; be in line with the policies in Part 2; be appropriate to the location,scale and nature of the development, and; seek to mitigate the economic,environmental, transportation, social and community consequences of thedevelopment." [259]

(f) (i) Paragraph 1.32 states, "...The provision of benefits or the offer of obligations willnot make developments that are contrary to the Plan’s policies acceptable to theCity Council." It is not the City Council's intention to seek public toilets indevelopments that are inappropriate. [555]

(g) (i) The policy accords with advice in PPG 12 with regard to planning obligations andCircular 1/97. STRA 6 has also been amended to state see (e) (ii)

(ii) Paragraph 1.32 clarifies this by saying that, "…..The City Council will have regardto Circular 1/97: Planning Obligations on the seeking and acceptance of planningobligations, as well as SRB and other bidding guidance and emergingGovernment advice." It is not considered that all the tests of C1/97 need to beincluded in the policy. [269]

(h) (i) The last sentence of paragraph 1.30 has been deleted. [790] [269]

(i) (i) The policy in seeking to mitigate the impacts of a development is fully inaccordance with Government guidance. In addition, reference is made to Circular1/97and government guidance at paragraph 1.32.

(ii) The policy accords with government advice. Circular 1/97 (paragraph B7) notesthat planning obligations "provide a means of reconciling the aims and interestsof developers with the need to safeguard the local environment or to meet thecosts imposed as a result of development" and that "where development willcreate a need for extra facilities … it may be reasonable for developers to meetor contribute towards the cost of providing such facilities." Supporting text toSTRA 6, at paragraph 1.28, quotes Circular 1/97 (paragraph 36) that "planningobligations are useful instruments, where they are necessary to the developmentand fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind, as they can enable aproperty owner to overcome obstacles which would otherwise prevent planningpermission from being granted. Planning obligations should be directly related tothe proposed development".

(iii) The City Council considers that the level of detail that will be contained in thesupplementary planning guidance is not necessary or appropriate in the RUDP.Policy STRA 6 provides the framework for securing planning obligations, thesupplementary planning guidance will set out in more detail the requirements andprocedures. It will contain all the necessary guidance on what the City Councilmay require in terms of planning obligations and on the procedure for securingobligations. The SPG will be subject to public consultation and will follow goodpractice set out in PPG 12. However, the underlying principles are all to be setout in policy STRA 6 and the explanatory text, and are therefore subject to thefull rigour of independent scrutiny through the UDP inquiry process. [1] [724][814]



(j) (i) The policy in seeking to mitigate the impacts of a development is fully inaccordance with Government guidance. In addition, reference is made to Circular1/97and government guidance at paragraph 1.32.

(ii) The City Council considers that the level of detail that will be contained in thesupplementary planning guidance is not necessary or appropriate in the RUDP.Policy STRA 6 provides the framework for securing planning obligations, thesupplementary planning guidance will set out in more detail the requirements andprocedures. It will contain all the necessary guidance on what the City Councilmay require in terms of planning obligations and on the procedure for securingobligations. The SPG will be subject to public consultation and will follow goodpractice set out in PPG 12. However, the underlying principles are to be all setout in policy STRA 6 and the explanatory text, and are therefore subject to thefull rigour of independent scrutiny through the UDP inquiry process. [724]

(k) (i) STRA 6 has been amended to state "It is the City Council’s aim:

To secure planning obligations and the provision of related benefits in allappropriate types of development. These should: have an identifiable connectionwith the development; be in line with the policies in Part 2; be appropriate to thelocation, scale and nature of the development, and; seek to mitigate theeconomic, environmental, transportation, social and community consequences ofthe development."

(ii) Paragraph 1.32 clarifies this by saying that " the City Council will have regard toCircular 1/97: Planning Obligations on the seeking and acceptance of planningobligations, as well as SRB and other bidding guidance and emergingGovernment advice." It is not considered that all the tests of C1/97 need to beincluded in the policy.

(iii) Also, with regard to the comment made on procedures, the City Council ispreparing supplementary planning guidance 's106 Toolkit' which will set out inmore detail when and how the City Council will require and secure benefits andobligations, this is now referred to in paragraph 1.32. [376]

(l) (i) Paragraph 1.32 notes that "The City Council will have regard to Circular 1/97:Planning Obligations on the seeking and acceptance of planning obligations, aswell as SRB and other bidding guidance and emerging Government advice andlegislation."

(ii) Policy STRA 6 has been amended to state "It is the City Council’s aim: Tosecure planning obligations and the provision of related benefits in all appropriatetypes of development. These should: have an identifiable connection with thedevelopment; be in line with the policies in Part 2; be appropriate to the location,scale and nature of the development, and; seek to mitigate the economic,environmental, transportation, social and community consequences of thedevelopment."

(iii) In addition, Chapter 5 the supporting text to policy PSPA 5 'Transport in thePSPA', paragraph 5.52, has been amended to read "Any large developments inthe PSPA will have potentially large impacts on traffic and public transport.Minimising road traffic and promoting integrated public transport are key issueswhich are outlined in detail in the Transport Chapter. The contribution which



developments make to resolving these issues will be a significant factor inconsidering development proposals." [74]

(m) (i) Paragraph 1.29 now states, "New developments in the City will bring newresidents, visitors and workers, which will put pressure on the local environmentand on existing social and community facilities and create demand for new ones.It is important, therefore, that an appropriate and accessible range of servicesand facilities for existing and future local communities is maintained. Thisincludes training and education, arts, cultural, health, social, community,recreation and leisure services and facilities, refuse collection and cleansing andcommunity safety…." A Post Office could only be provided if the Post Office wasprepared to provide one. Security cameras would be covered by 'communitysafety'. [159]

(n) (i) Support welcomed. [28] [381] [138]


1.6.1. It can be appreciated that since the publication of Circular 1/97, the principal sourceof advice on planning obligations and benefits, subsequent developments, not least thePlanning Green Paper and its associated paper, Planning: Delivering a FundamentalChange, have suggested or discussed a much greater role for planning obligations. TheGreen Paper favoured a tariff system by which all or most developments would contribute tofunds that could be used for a variety of planning objectives. In the event this was notfavoured and currently there appear to be no proposals for new legislation, if there may benew advice to be issued, on planning obligations.

1.6.2. The draft London Plan evidently sees planning obligations as a key deliverymechanism for the policies of the plan, in much the same way as is envisaged in the UDP.The Panel Report following the Examination in Public was, however, critical of the proposals,for anticipating changes in legislation that seem unlikely to come about and for straying toofar from the regime that currently exists. My recommendation is that the policy be amendedmore closely to follow and reflect Circular 1/97. The most weighty objections to this Policywere that it did not properly reflect the current Government advice on the use of planningobligations and benefits, particularly that of Circular 1/97. The City Council was of the viewthat the Policy was in accordance with the advice, and subsequent developments, and hadmade or proposed a number of changes to the Policy and the Reasons to make this moreapparent.

1.6.3. In the Plan, Policy STRA 6 has its antecedents in Policy ECON 4 of the adoptedUDP, following changes suggested by the Inspector, which was expanded to allowobligations and benefits to be sought in appropriate circumstances from all forms ofdevelopment. Now, the inclusion of a policy relating to obligations and benefits in Part I ofthe Plan, when they are to be an important means of implementing a number of Part IIpolicies, is desirable. PPG12 suggests that where planning obligations are to be expected ona regular basis in relation to particular sorts of development, a policy should be set out in thedevelopment plan.

1.6.4. Thus, that the Policy and its general purpose are reasonable, is seen to be fullysupported. How the Policy should be worded and justified raised several questions. Theadvice of the Circular is that planning obligations should only be sought where they arenecessary, relevant to planning, directly related to the proposed development, fairly andreasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and reasonable in allrespects. Subsequently, this advice has been given various glosses or interpretations. Forexample PPGs 12, 13 and 17 expand on the sorts of things planning obligations might be



used for, as does Circular 6/98, Planning and Affordable Housing. The trend is, however,for planning obligations to be used more widely, particularly as a means to achievingsustainability.

1.6.5. In general, the further advice and interpretations while seeming to widen the scope ofplanning obligations have kept to the criteria of the Circular when considering theirjustification. Nevertheless, there is a certain degree of uncertainty in the advice as it is atpresent and some apparent conflict between the advice and case law. The DTZ PiedaStudy, commissioned by the City Council, came to the conclusion that Circular 1/97 was tooprescriptive and somewhat contrary to the discretion that Councils have recognised to begiven to the decision maker in accordance with the principles stated in the Tesco case.

1.6.6. It may be that before the Plan is adopted new advice will be issued that will clarify thepurposes and the criteria for the use of planning obligations. As things stand, I consider thatas in the case of the draft London Plan, the Policy, or its Reasons, should refer more directlyto the advice and the circumstances in which planning obligations may be sought, asopposed to volunteered, of Circular 1/97. A suggestion is that the Policy be reworded torefer only to the last of the criteria in the revised list, in which the second, “be in line with thePolicies in Part II” could be incorporated. The first paragraph of the reasons could beexpanded to include the criteria of the Circular, obviating the need to include the other criteriaof the Policy, and the gist of paragraph 1.32. Paragraph 1.28a, a proposed Pre-InquiryChange, will need to be reconsidered in the light of changes made to the London Planfollowing consideration of the EiP Report.

1.6.7. Beyond this I make no suggestions as to how the Policy and its reasons should beworded. The City Council will be aware of the comments of the EIP Panel. It will also wishto consider any changes that may be incorporated the adopted version of the London Planand also any future changes that may be made to the C1/97 advice. Apart from thesematters, the general intention of the Policy, and its importance to the Plan, is appreciated andthe inclusion of a policy with these intentions is accordingly supported.

Recommendations

� R1.6.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 6 and its Reasoned Justification as suggestedin paragraph 1.6.7 above.

� R1.6.1 Otherwise Modify Part I Policy STRA 6 (A-B) and its ReasonedJustification in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry Version of the Review UDP.

ST07: Paddington Special Policy Area


28 London Tourist Board73 London Underground Limited138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association159 Queen's Park Estate Society381 South East Bayswater Residents Association555 Glen Suarez794 Six Continents Retail




(a) (i) Support proposals listed for the PSPA, but add another proposal, and that is alandmark to the history of Paddington and the part it played in medical research,engineering, the canal, education and housing for the working classes, libraries:a museum for Paddington and its famous people, or a historical centre. [159]

(b) (i) Paddington represents an opportunity to achieve a fully integrated interchangestation which can be achieved through the co-operation of current developmentaspirations. These should not be dependant on Crossrail but specificallyendorsed in the reasons as separately attainable. Cross reference with PSPA 1and make clearer the public transport interchange needs. [73]

(c) (i) Support provision of maximum housing with appropriate infrastructure. [138]

(d) (i) Support this policy and supporting paragraphs. [28]

(e) (i) To preserve the World City Status of London, the City Council needs to identifyand promote new areas for development, provided these can be provided in asustainable fashion, given the existing situation in the West End. [555]

(f) (i) The Paddington area is on the margin of the Central Area and providing formixed use development would be consistent with PPG6 having regard to itsproximity to the important transport interchange. [794]

(g) (i) The balance between central London activities, such as hotels, restaurants,entertainment uses, residential and other land uses must be considered on acase by case basis. The extent of central London activities of these kinds shouldbe less than in the CAZ to maintain a mix of uses and residential amenity. Thecase by case review should be informed by an assessment of the cumulativeamount so far of central London activities of the kinds mentioned above. [381]


(a) (i) Too much detail for Part 1. However a separate section has now been added inPart 2, under PSPA 2 paragraph 5.35a, so as to give more emphasis to socialand community facilities. [159]

(b) (i) Paragraph 1.35 already makes it quite clear that integrated public transport is akey objective at Paddington and that it is already (before CrossRail) animportant interchange for London. PSPA 5 also already makes this clear. [73]

(c) (i) Support welcomed. [138] [28]

(e) (i) Support welcomed. The City Council has long designated the Paddington SPAfor the promotion of Central London Activities outside the CAZ and West End.Mixed use developments are encouraged. The new North West WestminsterSPA also encourages commercial development outside the CAZ, in appropriatecircumstances. [555]

(f) (i) Agreed. Support welcomed. [794]

(g) (i) It is the City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where asuitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in asuitable environment. That environment is considered to be currently under



stress as a result of a saturation of entertainment uses in some areas. Policieshave been provided in Part 2 of the Plan to attempt to create a balance of uses.Proposals are considered on a case by case basis, subject to the provisions ofthe policies. [381]


1.7.1 Most of the above objections are met by the contents of Part II of the UDP and, inparticular, by Policies PSPA 1-6 (see SA03-06). The specific objection [159] regarding aspecific proposal cannot be sustained, firstly because ir is not a strategic matter andsecondly because development proposals must originate from the City Council by whom theyought to be sanctioned before inclusion in Part II of the UDP. As I later make clear (SA05),there is great scope for transport interchange improvements at Paddington. Some suchimprovements have been made, others will need to await and indeed be facilitated by theimplementation of Crossrail 1. This scheme is now considerably more likely to come aboutthan was evident at the time of the UDP Inquiry.

1.7.2 The identification of the Paddington Special Policy Area in the UDP appears to befully consistent with the emergent London Plan, where it is listed (Table 2B.1) as the soleOpportunity Area for Central London within the City of Westminster. This means in effectthat it constitutes a satellite part of the CAZ and my several inspections of the area indicatethat the pace of development is such as to ensure the imminent location of significantemployment and residential floorspace within it, combined with a variety of ancillary activities.Accordingly, I do not doubt that the various Chapter 5 Policies will be implemented in amanner consistent with the aims and objectives of Chapter 2 of the London Plan and itsdetailed spatial policies.

Recommendations

� R1.7.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 7 (A-B) and its Reasons in accordance withthe Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

ST08: Special Policy Areas


28 London Tourist Board64 Shaftesbury PLC73 London Underground Limited74 Railtrack Properties108 Society of London Theatre121 St James's Conservation Trust131 Marylebone Association141 Burford Group plc381 South East Bayswater Residents Association526 City & West End Development Ltd711 HCA International (formerly known as PPP Columbia Healthcare Ltd)757 Gascoyne Estate779 London Business School795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)


(a) (i) Whilst it is appreciated that Special Policy Areas have been identified in order tosupport and encourage the particular activities within each area, these may not



come within the scope of planning control. As such it is not always possible to'protect' specialist uses as is intended by the policy. This policy does not allowfor any flexibility, and as such, does not allow for new activities to grow. TheCouncil is not able to control occupiers within the B1 Use Class and as such lightindustrial premises can be lawfully used for office purposes for example withoutthe requirement for planning permission, where there are no specific conditionsor legal restrictions on the property. The equivalent policy in the 1997 adoptedUnitary Development Plan, STRA5, deals with this matter satisfactorily, providingthe basis for the identification of such areas, but not requiring the protection ofsuch uses.

(ii) Delete "protect and" so that STRA8 (B) reads:

"To encourage specialist used as set out in the relevant chapters in Part 2 ofthe Plan, in specific areas of Westminster".

(iii) Include supporting text demonstrating that the Council recognises there will becircumstances where it does not have control as contained in current adoptedUDP policy as follows:

(iv) 'Although planning legislation allows certain categories of industrial premises tochange to office use without requiring planning permission, the City Council willencourage the retention and provision of light industrial premises as far as itspowers allow, to preserve the special character and attraction of parts of centralLondon'.

(v) Also refer to representations made in respect of Policies COM8 and COM9. [526]

(b) (i) The intention to maintain, promote and encourage specialist uses and areaswithin the City that contribute to its overall character and function is welcomed.

(ii) In particular, it is considered that Chinatown area of Soho should have its ownclear policy area status as recommended in RPG3, especially given thedynamism of change and the cultural differences associated with use anddevelopment of land in the area as distinct from elsewhere in the City.

(iii) Furthermore, the Theatreland area around Shaftesbury Avenue and Sohorequires recognition and support as capital's primary entertainment venue.Designation of this area in a positive manner as opposed to the essentiallynegative definition of a "Stress Area", as set out in Part 2 policies, would be amuch more preferable approach to the future planning of the area. The conceptof the "Entertainment Route" as contained in the 1997 UDP should be carriedforward and strengthened to identify and promote that part of the City where thefull range of entertainment uses will be encouraged to locate.

(iv) The UDP must look forward and create positive designations to encouragechange rather than relying upon archaic and dated designations relating to pastuses of dying significance, for example, the showroom and rag trade activitiesnorth of Oxford Street. [64] [795] [108]

(c) (i) The intention to maintain, promote and encourage specialist uses and areaswithin the City that contribute to its overall character and function is welcomed.However, the UDP does not address this issue satisfactorily in respect of thesignificant concentration of private health establishments in the City. Theopportunity needs to be taken to provide clear positive guidance for maintaining



and enhancing this particularly important function to the economy and characterof the City.

(ii) In particular the medical uses in the Marylebone area extend far beyond thelimited confines of the historic designation of the Harley Street Special PolicyArea. As a consequence, the area deserves and requires recognition throughdesignation of the Wider Central Area to incorporate positive encouragement forthese internationally significant and nationally important uses.

(iii) The UDP must look forward and create positive designations to encouragechange rather than relying upon archaic and dated designations relating to pastuses of dying significance, for example, the showroom and rag trade activitiesnorth of Oxford Street. This would be more consistent with the objectives ofRPG3 and emerging guidance provided by the Spatial Development Strategy.[711]

(d) (i) This representation should be considered in conjunction with objection toTACE 7. The Council should include an additional Education Special Policy Areain Policy STRA 8. This designated area would be located north of MaryleboneRoad, outside the Central Activities Zone, and would comprise a number ofleading educational institutions including the London Business School, RoyalCollege of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Music and RoyalCollege of Physics which are of national and international importance. [779]

(e) (i) Object to the omission of designation of St James's "Clubland" Special Policyarea. [121]

(f) (i) Leicester Square should have an Entertainment Route.

1. State the following in Paragraph 1.40:

“A new Entertainment Route has been identified for Leicester Square to helpguide Class A3 and Class D2 uses to this area thus ensuring protection ofamenity elsewhere”.

2. The Proposals Map to be amended to show the Leicester SquareEntertainment Route as set out on the attached Maps 2 and 3. [757]

(g) (i) Railtrack support the references to Victoria Station within the First Deposit DraftWestminster UDP as set out below but considers that overall these deserve to bebrought together in the light of the Government's commitment to the plan ledsystem. In addition, the Council is aware that Railtrack is preparing a masterplan for the redevelopment of Victoria Station comprising a mixed use, highdensity development. It is therefore important that additional policy referencesare incorporated allowing for the flexibility necessary to deliver the stationimprovements.

(ii) It is therefore, proposed that the Council prepares a Special Policy Area forVictoria Station and its environs, as has been prepared for Paddington. Thisshould not only include the railway station but also the underground station,Terminus Place, and Victoria Coach Station. This should be formulatedalongside the planning brief that the Council recommended in the committeereport dated 16 January 2001. [74]



(h) (i) The nature of such areas are by definition sensitive. They may containUnderground stations that face congestion problems that can only be remediedby extension or replacement. Public transport access to these areas is of highpriority if the environmental objectives of the plan are to be achieved. [73]

(i) (i) With regard to the boundaries of the North-West Paddington SPA, seecomments on Chapter 5. [381]

(j) (i) SPAs, such as Harley Street and Portland Place, play an important part in thefunction of Westminster as a World City without damaging the surroundingresidential areas. [131]

(k) (i) Welcome and support this policy and supporting paragraphs. [28]

(l) (i) Support the establishment of the new Special Policy Areas, not least as aprecedent for designation of a St. James's Conservation Special Policy Area.[121]


(a) (i) Policy STRA 8 is a strategic policy which in part (B) refers to relevant chapters ofPart 2 of the Plan. STRA 8 covers a wide range of areas and uses withinWestminster. As regards the Creative Industries SPA it has been recognisedunder policy COM 8 that light industrial uses can only be protected whereplanning permission is required and this has been clarified in paras 2.58 and2.58a of the Plan. [526]

(b) (i) It is not considered appropriate to designate a special policy area relating to'Chinatown'. Chinatown forms part of the Soho area within the CAZ and this isreferred to in the summaries describing sub-areas of the CAZ in the introductionto Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Plan, para 1.9. This recognises that Chinatown isthe home of London's Chinese community.

(ii) It is not considered appropriate to designate a special policy area relating to'Theatreland', focusing on Shaftesbury Avenue and Soho, or reintroduce theconcept of an entertainment route. The Plan has been amended to emphasisethe importance of Theatreland in paras 1.10a, 8.2a, 8.41a, 8.49 to 8.49a . Theimportance of the entertainment industry and supporting activities and thelinkages between activities in the West End has been emphasised - for example,see paras 8.56a to 8.56j. The summaries describing sub-areas of the CAZ in theintroduction to Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Plan refer to the importance of theatresin contributing to the character and function of Soho, Covent Garden and Strandareas. Para 1.12 of Chapter 1, Part 2 has been amended to emphasise thisfurther. [64] [795] [108]

(c) (i) Part 1 acknowledges the role of medicine to Westminster as a World and CapitalCity in policies STRA 1, 2 and 8. In addition, Chapter 1: Westminster's CentralArea recognises the role of uses such as medical establishments to the role ofLondon as a World and Capital City. Table 1.1 lists appropriate non-residentialactivities for Central Westminster, which includes "medical establishments ofregional, national and international importance". Policy CENT 1 aims to protectand encourage such uses in the Central Activities Zone.

(ii) In paragraph 6.47 the Plan states "Westminster contains many private medicalfacilities which operate outside the National Health Service. These increase the



range of health facilities available in Westminster and are important to thenational and local economy", and at paragraph 6.46 "Private medical facilities ofregional, national and international importance should also be considered withregard to Chapter 1: Westminster’s Central Area, policies CENT 1 and CENT 2regarding appropriate uses within the Central Activities Zone and CentralActivities Frontages."

(iii) For those facilities located outside the CAZ, the following text has been added tothe end of SOC 5: "Outside of the Harley Street Special Policy Area proposals forprivate medical facilities will be assessed in relation to the demand for them, thescale and location of the facility and its impact on the area in environmentalterms." The following text has also been added to paragraph 6.48 "Outside of theHarley Street Special Policy Area there are also a number of long establishedmedical uses that provide a valuable service."

(iv) Reference is also made in paragraph 6.46 to policies in Chapter 1: Westminster'sCentral Area. Policy CENT 1(C) in Chapter 1 notes that "To protect and supportCentral London Activities of national or international importance outside centralWestminster where these do not harm residential amenity or local environmentalquality. " Paragraph 1.42a notes that "Whilst the Plan seeks to guide centralLondon activities to the CAZ it is recognised that there are certain existing centralLondon activities located outside central Westminster which are of sufficientnational and international importance that they should be protected andsupported. Such activities include Lord’s Cricket Ground, London Zoo andcertain private hospitals and educational facilities including the London BusinessSchool (see also policies SOC 1 and SOC 5). "

(v) Para 1.17c in Part 1 summarises why the designation of a Wider Central Areahas not been included in the UDP. It states 'The thrust of the policy approach in‘Towards the London Plan’ of focusing central London activities within theCentral Activities Zone and generally resisting the spread of such uses andactivities into the areas surrounding the CAZ, such as Marylebone, parts ofBayswater and Knightsbridge and Millbank, is supported. The City Council’spolicies in the UDP are consistent with this approach.' [711] [64] [795] [108]

(d) (i) The plan recognises that not all Central London Activities are located within theCAZ or on CAZ Frontages. The Arts, Culture and Education Special Policy Arearelates to a specific concentration of arts, culture and education uses locatedoutside the CAZ centred around the Royal Albert Hall and Imperial College. Ithas been designated as a result of regional planning guidance in RPG3 whichstates that ‘Boroughs should identify areas which demonstrate a concentration ofarts, culture and entertainment activities when reviewing plans and preparepolicies to support the activities of this sector, particularly in and around theCentral Area.’ RPG3, page 19, also recognises that the area around the RoyalAlbert Hall and the South Kensington museums complex (in the Royal Boroughof Kensington and Chelsea) contains important cultural and educational facilities.The area within and near to Regents Park referred to by the objector does nothave a similar recognition in RPG3 and contains a small cluster of educationalinstitutions and no arts or cultural uses. Educational uses would generally beprotected under policy SOC 1 in the Plan. It is therefore not consideredappropriate to designate a Special Policy Area, although additional referenceshave been added to the protection of Central London Activities of an national orinternational importance outside CAZ under policy CENT 1(C) and to the LondonBusiness School in para 1.42a. Offices which are not ancillary to educational usewould be considered under policy COM 1 and are generally considered



inappropriate outside the CAZ, CAZ Frontages, the PSPA and the NWWSPA forthe reasons set out in the Plan. [779]

(e) (i) It is not considered appropriate to add a new policy or designate a Special PolicyArea as suggested in relation to the London Clubs and associated specialisthistoric retailing uses. It is recognised that these clubs are an appropriate non-residential Central London Activity for the Central Activities Zone. Policy CENT 1protects such uses where they contribute to the character and function of theCAZ. The summary of character and function of the St. James's area in para1.16 of the Plan also refers to the gentlemen's clubs in and around Pall Mall.Table 1.1 in Chapter 1 specifically identifies the London Clubs of St. James's asan example of arts, culture and entertainment uses of regional, national andinternational importance. Retailing uses within the CAZ are protected underpolicies SS1, SS2, SS4 and SS6 in the Shopping and Services chapter of theplan.

(ii) Within the SPG on sub-areas of the CAZ, published at the same time as theSecond Deposit UDP, the area profile for St James's also recognises theimportance of the London clubs to the character and function of the St. James'sarea. [121]

(f) (i) It is not considered appropriate or justified to remove Leicester Square from theWest End Stress Area or to define an entertainment route as suggested. TheCovent Garden Entertainment Route in the adopted UDP has been deleted ascircumstances have overtaken its usefulness. The West End Stress Area hasbeen modified but still includes Leicester Square as part of it. The suggestedamendments to para 1.40 are not accepted. [757]

(g) (i) It is not considered appropriate to designate a Special Policy Area as suggestedfor Victoria Station, as Victoria forms part of the CAZ where, in principle, largescale office and other development may be acceptable subject to the applicationof relevant policies in the Plan. The Paddington SPA lies outside the CAZ andcontains a large amount of vacant and underused land and therefore meritsSpecial Policy Area status. The summary of character and function for theVictoria area in the Introduction to Chapter 1 in Part 2 of the Plan has, however,been expanded. New para 1.22a now states 'The railway, underground, bus andcoach stations at Victoria provide the gateway for many people arriving in thearea. The railway station is the busiest mainline terminus in London. Theunderground station is the busiest in London. Over 250 buses per hour at peaktimes serve the bus station and nearby bus stops. The coach station is servedby national and international coach services. Many people’s perception of thearea is formed as they pass through the stations on their way to their destination.There are likely to be major opportunities to improve the stations and localenvironmental quality during the period covered by this plan.'

(ii) Since the UDP was deposited the City Council has also issued a draft planningbrief for the station and its environs in order to achieve the aims set out in thedraft brief. [74]

(h) (i) Comments noted and agree that public transport access to such areas will assistenvironmental objectives of the Plan. [3]

(i) (i) Support welcomed. See response in Chapter 5. [381]

(j-l) (I) Support welcomed. [131] [28] [121]




1.8.1. The definition of areas in which distinctive use patterns or physical character is to beprotected has been a feature of earlier development plans for the City. It is encouraged bothby RPG3 and the draft London Plan. In the Plan eleven such areas are defined, ten withthese objectives in mind, as expressed in this Policy, nine having appeared in earlier plans inbroadly similar form, the tenth – the Thames SPA - having been added in the Plan inresponse to RPG3. The eleventh, North West Westminster SPA, was introduced in the Planat Second Deposit stage following a planing study of the area and intended to encourage theregeneration of an area in one of the entry corridors to the centre of London and spread thebenefits arising from the intensive development of the Paddington SPA.

1.8.2. It is clear that the Special Policy Areas (SPAs) have been valuable in facilitating andguiding development, maintaining the complex use pattern of the Central Areas of the Cityand allowing transitions to take place. There appears to be little objection from respondentsto the principle of defining such areas. There was comment that it is not always possible toprotect uses and that the policies could be inflexible. This is accepted and is returned to inthe cases of the individual areas in Part II. There is considerable variation between thedifferent areas and the action that is required. In general, there is scope within planningpowers to pursue the individual objectives without unreasonably obstructing change.

1.8.3. There were suggestions for further areas to be added. The Chinatown area of Sohowas among the suggestions. Chinatown is recognised in the Plan as the centre of London’sChinese community. While distinctive, it is a part of Soho and the CAZ. It is not noticeablyunder threat, nor at this time in need of special protection or promotion. With no great needfor policies beyond those that apply to the CAZ generally or the location of particularactivities, such as entertainment uses and restaurants, the City Council’s view that a specialpolicy area is not required seems the right one. A second suggestion related to“Theatreland”. The Plan has removed the Covent Garden Entertainment Route of theadopted Plan as being no longer required as the use pattern of the area has matured, butpays considerable attention to entertainment and the supporting activities and in no wayunderestimates their importance. Again, there seems no need to specifically recognise,foster or protect what is a dominant activity in much of the area concerned.

1.8.4. There are in Part II policies which protect the CAZ activities, the Area Profilesidentifying many specific activities that are characteristic, such as the Clubs of St James’s.Within the CAZ the mix of activities is fostered and protected and only in some particularcases is a SPA appropriate. Where specific activities spread beyond the CAZ, as in theHarley Street medical area and Portland Place, the special policy areas allow a balancing ofthe special needs of the activities identified with the residential priority of the Plan.

1.8.5. The Paddington SPA is something of a special case, since it is well outside the CAZbut nevertheless offers opportunity for substantial redevelopment that would allow the growthof important Central London activities, including major office development and the provisionof a substantial amount of housing. The SPA designation allows the co-ordination ofredevelopment. A similar case was made by objectors in respect of Victoria Station. Thedraft London Plan sees this as an “Area for Intensification”, recognising that there could befurther opportunities for regeneration. However, the list of special policy areas included inthe Plan identifies those areas where there is a current need for special policies. It is notnecessarily definitive in the longer term. As things stand, Victoria Station is within the CAZ,which would permit office and other development. The Plan has had added a fuller note ofthe opportunity the Station could present.



1.8.6. The City Council proposed a number of Pre-Inquiry additions to the Reasons by wayof updating and further explanation. It is recommended that these changes are made but nofurther modification need be made in respect of the Objections.

Recommendation


ST09: Shopping in Westminster


64 Shaftesbury PLC91 Tesco Stores104 Consort House Residents Assn.131 Marylebone Association138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association141 Burford Group plc375 Government Office for London381 South East Bayswater Residents Association491 Mercers Company680 The Crown Estate695 Ropemaker Properties Ltd 1724 Grosvenor Limited748 British Land Company PLC780 Selfridges & Co.785 Delancey Group plc


(a) (i) Reword the policy more positively to encourage investment in new and improvedretail floorspace in Westminster’s shopping centres and to underline importanceof investment in the public realm to improve overall attractiveness of individualcentres.[680]

(b) (i) Concerned that the policy is inflexible in seeking to maintain the number andrange of shops in a dynamic retail sector. Regular "health checks" of the City'sshopping centres should involve landlords, developers and retailers in assessingthe future viability of shops. [785]

(c) (i) The overall objective of the policy is to enhance the vitality, viability and diversityof Westminster's shopping centres. If this is to be achieved, there cannot be"maintenance" of the number and range of shops in the City, since this impliesno change upwards or downwards. Change in either direction, in relation tonumber or range of shops, could still meet the overall objective of the policy, andcan only be assessed in the context of an individual centre. Furthermore, thepolicy fails to take account of the dynamics of the retail sector. These includepressures on department and chain stores, such as Marks & Spencer and C & A,arising from a polarisation at the upper and lower ends of the retail market, and ashrinking of the "middle market": a greater focus on quality branded goods asopposed to "own brand" products, often leading to a requirement for larger floorplates: and shopping as a more leisure oriented, "lifestyle" experience, leading toa requirement for associated facilities such as coffee shops and restaurants.



Continuing change in the retail sector is inevitable and will contribute to thevitality and viability of Westminster's shopping centres.

(ii) In part (A) of the policy, delete the words "and maintain the number and range ofshops in the City" [780] [490]

(d) (i) The reasoned justification should make specific recognition of the role of themajor estates in managing tenant mix and give recognition to the benefits thatcan be achieved by flexibility in the distribution of shopping centre uses under themanagement of the major estates and property owners. [724]

(e) (i) This policy concerns itself primarily seeking to ensure the retention of localservice uses in shopping centres, where often there will be little or no controlover changes of use within Class A1. The policy and its background reasoningsuggests that the City Council will be seeking to influence and control the retailmarket in a manner that Planning Acts presently do not provide for. The vitalityor viability of shopping areas can be significantly enhanced and supported by thepresence of supporting activities such as restaurants, service uses and otherleisure activities. The exclusively Class A1 retail frontages of Carnaby Street forexample, can only be sustained by ensuring there is a strong supply ofrestaurants, bars, service uses and other leisure uses in neighbouring streets,where a concentration naturally exists to balance the concentration of retail inCarnaby Street itself. The policy reasoning should reflect this more clearly,rather than concentrating on the concern over loss of local shopping functionswhere, technically, the City Council have no control. [64] [141]

(f) (i) Enhancement of the vitality, viability and diversity of Westminster’s shoppingcentre as set out in the first part of (A) of this policy is supported. However, it isnot adequate simply to aim to ‘maintain’ the number and range of shops. Thequality and overall level of retail provision needs to be constantly improved ifcentres are to remain competitive. This is particularly true of the West End whichthe following policy STRA 10 goes only some way towards addressing. Thispolicy should positively encourage investment in new and improved retailfloorspace in Westminster’s shopping centres but also underline the importanceof investment in the public realm to improve the overall attractiveness ofindividual centres. [695]

(g) (i) We continue to support the concept of ‘District Centres’, and the designation ofQueensway-Westbourne Grove within this category. [381] [104]

(h) (i) Whilst the overall approach of this strategic policy is supported, it is notconsidered that it focuses widely enough on the appropriate retail context inWestminster. It is considered that the primary strategic aim should be to ensureaccessibility for Westminster residents to as wide a range of retail facilities as theneighbours of surrounding boroughs. The approach of this policy, focusingsolely on enhancing the centres, does not necessarily achieve this objective. Forinstance, it is not always possible to accommodate main food shopping facilitieswithin existing centres, due to the size of accommodation they require. In thesecircumstances the rigid approach of the current policy would prevent suchfacilities being located elsewhere, thereby meaning that Westminster residentswould have to travel further afield, possibly outside of the Borough, to fulfil thisneed. We do not consider this is a balanced approach to retailing across anentire borough and that accordingly the objectives of this policy need to berefocused primarily to ensure the accessibility of shopping facilities to



Westminster residents and thereafter seek to enhance the vitality and viability ofthe shopping centres. [91]

(i) (i) Support, but concerned about Government's changes on Use Classes Order asthis could lead to loss of amenity shops and proliferation of take aways,restaurants, bars, etc. [138]

(j) (i) Protection of shops is vital to the retention of a residential heart to Westminster.[131]

(k) (i) There is constant pressure to convert shops to restaurants and entertainmentpremises for commercial gain, at the expense of residential amenity, whichshould be resisted in order to sustain the quality of life of the local communities.[104]

(m) (i) Concern that this policy is inflexible in seeking to maintain the number and rangeof shops in a dynamic retail sector. British Land consider that "health checks" ofthe City's shopping centres should involve landlords, developers and retailers inassessing the future viability of shops. [748]


(a) (i) Include references to new and improved retail floorspace and investment in thepublic realm. In reasons to Policy STRA 9, cross reference to Appendix 7.4 andtable showing 'Environmental status of shopping areas in Westminster'. [680]

(b) (i) Change to the duration of long-term vacancy to 18 months (para. 7.10) shouldhelp to reflect the dynamic nature of retailing. The City Council is currentlycarrying out Health Checks of 65 shopping areas in Westminster. It is notfeasible to involve landlords, developers and retailers in these health checkswhich largely follow the methodology set out in PPG6. In many individualinstances involving planning applications for loss of shop use, the City Counciloften makes its own inquiries to local agents as to the viability of particular retailunits. Applicants are invited to submit evidence that the unit has been marketedat a reasonable rate but without success. This is reflected in para. 7.10 of PolicySS 1. Together with the long-term vacancy clause and aspects of the healthchecks, such as overall vacancy rates, retailer representation and rents, whichare used to assess whether a centre is thriving, neutral or in decline, it isconsidered that there are sufficient means available to indicate the future viabilityof shops in particular locations. [785]

(c) (i) Diversity refers to the different character and function of centres in Westminster.Do not agree that the aim of enhancing the vitality and viability of centres iscompromised by aiming to maintain the number and range of shops in the City.Numbers of shops are declining. Because this threatens the health of centresand the quality of life of residential communities, the City Council wishes to havepolicies which give a high level of protection to A1 uses. Policies do recognisethat this is not always feasible, hence for example SS 1 allows for change of usefrom A1 in the case of long term vacancy, which has now been reduced to 18months. Agree that the policy should include the aim of increasing the number ofshops. Add 'and increase' to policy. STRA 9 is a general policy and Part 2shopping policies contain different policies according to the location of individualshop units and the type of centre in which they are located. Policies for individualDistrict Centres differ according to the character, function, and health and futureaims for the centre.



(ii) Change from a 'variety store', such as Marks and Spencer, to a store likeNiketown, selling 'branded' goods, does not need planning permission. Alsosome variety stores selling own brand goods, e.g Gap, are doing very well andare occupying large retail spaces. In store coffee shops and restaurants do notgenerally require planning permission as long as they are ancillary to the mainA1 use. Such facilities are very prevalent in stores in Oxford Street. In addition,coffee shops are an A1 use so do not require planning permission to locate in anA1 unit. As most of the concerns expressed are West End related, Policy STRA10 and relevant Part 2 policies should also be read in conjunction with STRA 9.[780] [490]

(d) (i) It is not considered appropriate to comment on land ownership or the ways inwhich major estates manage their retail properties in the UDP. The role of themajor estates and landowners is covered in paragraph 1.115. [724]

(e) (i) The aim of the policy is twofold: firstly to enhance the vitality, viability anddiversity of the designated shopping centres: secondly, to maintain the numberand range of shops in the City. Do not agree that the Council has no control overthe loss of local shops. The City Council is aware that service uses, including A3uses, play a role in the vitality and viability of shopping centres. Policy SS 2specifically protects these uses. The Reasons for STRA 9 have been amendedto clarify the intention of the policy. [64] [141]

(f) (i) Cross reference to Appendix 7.4 - table showing 'Environmental status ofshopping areas in Westminster'. Include references to new and improved retailfloorspace and investment in the public realm in Reasons to Policy STRA 9 .[695]

(g) (i) Support welcomed. [381] [104]

(h) (i) Policy STRA 17 deals with protecting and encouraging an appropriate range ofshops to meet the needs of residents. Following advice in PPG6, the focus of theCity Council's retail policy is on sustaining and enhancing the vitality and viabilityof town centres. In addition to the West End, which is the largest retail centre inEurope, Westminster contains major shopping areas in Knightsbridge, Victoria,Edgware Road and Baker Street, and has seven District centres and 39 Localcentres. Suggest that this range of shopping facilities constitutes a greater rangeof shopping facilities than neighbouring boroughs. This objection appears to be acriticism of policy SS 12 'Superstores, Supermarkets and other major retaildevelopments' : please see responses to objections to policy SS 12.[91]

(i) (i) The City Council is also concerned about this issue and made these concernsknown in its response to the Government's consultation document.[138]

(j-l) (i) Support welcomed. [131] [104]

(m) (i) Change to the duration of long-term vacancy to 18 months (para. 7.10) shouldhelp to reflect the dynamic nature of retailing. The City Council is currentlycarrying out ‘Health Checks’ of 65 shopping areas in Westminster. It is notfeasible to involve landlords, developers and retailers in these health checkswhich largely follow the methodology set out in PPG 6. In instances involvingapplications for loss of shops the City Council will, where appropriate, make itsown inquiries to local agents as to the viability of particular retail units. Applicantsare invited to submit evidence that the unit has been marketed at a reasonable



rate but without success. This is reflected in para. 7.10 of Policy SS 1. Togetherwith the long-term vacancy clause and aspects of the health checks such asoverall vacancy rates, retailer representation and rents, which are used to assesswhether a centre is thriving, neutral or in decline, it is considered that there aresufficient means available to indicate the future viability of shops in particularlocations. [748]


1.9.1. This Policy has two aims, the first to enhance the vitality, viability and diversity of theCity’s shopping centres. The Plan presents a hierarchy of centres within the CAZ, itself acentre, identifying two International Centres and in the remainder of the City identifying sevenDistrict Centres and some 39 local centres. In general, this aspect of the Policy was notcontroversial. Objection was mainly to an apparent failure to recognise and allow for theconstantly changing retail scene and the dynamics of the industry, a criticism was mainlylevelled at the second aim, to maintain and increase the number and range of shops in theCity.

1.9.2. Both aims are developed in the Shopping and Services Chapter. Experience is thatthe number of shops in the City has declined, while the Plan proposes a further growth inpopulation. The loss has no doubt been in reflection of changes in shopping needs, althoughno small part of it is attributable to the growth of non-retail uses seeking shop premises. Thisprocess, itself part of the dynamism of shopping centres, is not sought to be halted by laterpolicies, but a more careful control is introduced and to redress the balance and ensure thatlocal residents in particular are not further disadvantaged the replacement and the addition ofshops where appropriate is proposed.

1.9.3. The Plan is restricted in what it can achieve in protecting retail uses. The UseClasses Order imposes only a limited measure of control of retail uses. There is also anecessity for flexibility in seeking to achieve balance in the uses that make up a shoppingcentre, retail and non-retail. A number of changes have been made or proposed to meetobjections. These result in more detail of the hierarchy of centres being included and of theprocess of “health checks”. It was asked that these should include input from a wider rangeof interests, including landlords, developers and retailers. This, where it is feasible, would bedesirable but I accept that the methodology of PPG6 does not make this necessary andmight indeed be a complicating factor. In individual cases it seems the City Council doesinvolve these interests and they might hope to be involved in the ideas for town centremanagement proposed in Chapter 7.

1.9.4. In my view, with the changes proposed for the Policy and its Reasoned Justificationare the most appropriate for the UDP.

Recommendation


ST10: Shopping in West End and Knightsbridge


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association28 London Tourist Board64 Shaftesbury PLC108 Society of London Theatre



141 Burford Group plc376 London First381 South East Bayswater Residents Association555 Glen Suarez729 Bass Hotels and Resorts785 Delancey Group plc795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)803 Standard Life Assurance Company


(a) (i) The draft UDP policies fail to recognise the inter-relationships between retail,culture and entertainment which are becoming increasingly important,especially as the West End faces increasing competition from out of towncentres. Failure to understand the importance of this mix will lead to thedecline of the West End. [376]

(b) (i) The principle of this policy as it applies to shopping in the West End issupported. However, the policy fails to recognise the significance of thelinkages between all the major CAZ functions, and more particularly therelationship between shopping and leisure functions which include restaurantsand wine bars and theatres. In the West End the importance of thesesupporting activities should not underestimated their role towards enhancingthe attractiveness of an area as a destination retail location. Positive guidanceand partnership management in the West End will help secure the long-termvitality and strength of the West End as one of the country's pre-eminent retaildestinations. [141] [64] [795] [108]

(c) (i) It is not appropriate for the City Council to resist developments that willcompete with the shopping success of the West End and Knightsbridge.Competition is the lifeblood of success and only by facing competition will theWest End and Knightsbridge maintain and enhance their success. The lastsentence of this paragraph should be deleted. [555]

(d) (i) The policy and reasoned justification are drafted on the basis of the West Endand Knightsbridge being first and foremost shopping centres. There is acontinuing failure, in planning policy and elsewhere, to consider the economyof the West End as a whole and the management of this economy as a whole.This goes well beyond just shopping and there needs to be a clearerintegration between shopping policy and tourism, culture and entertainmentpolicy, and the promotion of economic activity generally. It is largely the lackof an effective structure for the management of the West End as a wholewhich has led to certain of the problems, which are of concern to the CityCouncil and others. [1] [729]

(e) (i) The principle of this policy as it applies to shopping in the district centres likeQueensway is supported. However, the policy fails to recognise thesignificance of the linkages between the various functions to be found in suchdynamic centres, and more particularly the relationship between shopping andleisure functions, which include restaurants and wine bars and theatres. In theWest End and District shopping centres, the importance of these supportingactivities should not be underestimated in their role towards enhancing theattractiveness of an area as a destination retail location. Positive guidanceand partnership management in shopping areas will help secure the long-termvitality and strength of the various centres. [803]



(f) (i) Support this policy and supporting paragraphs. [28]

(g) (i) Support the objective to balance retail with other activities in shopping centres.[785]

(h) (i) STRA 10 supported. [381]


(a) (i) The UDP is necessarily divided into policy areas. Shopping is one such policyarea. STRA10 is about shopping in the GLA designated International ShoppingCentres. The presence of this policy does not imply that shopping is the mostimportant activity in the West End. Other policies covering different aspects ofland use management, which have particular relevance to the West End, areSTRA 1, 2, 3, 8, and 11. The City Council appreciates the need for an integratedapproach and most policies aim to balance the needs of the different uses in theWest End. [376]

(b) (i) The UDP is necessarily divided into policy areas. Shopping is one such policyarea. STRA10 is about shopping in the GLA designated International ShoppingCentres. The presence of this policy does not imply that shopping is the mostimportant activity in the West End. Other policies covering different aspects ofland use management which have particular relevance to the West End areSTRA 1, 2, 3, 8, and 11. The City Council appreciates the need for an integratedapproach and most policies aim to balance the needs of the different uses in theWest End. The City Council is also is actively involved in the work of the NewWest End Company which seeks to address the following issues in the WestEnd: maintenance or improvement of the street environment, structural renewal,public transport, security and policing, resourcing, cultural initiatives, andmarketing. [141] [64] [795] [108]

(c) (i) PPG 6 clearly states that the vitality and viability of town centres should beprotected. The West End and Knightsbridge have been designated by the GLAas the two International Shopping Centres in London. Developments whichthreaten their health, such as new, or expansions to, out-of-town shoppingcentres, or major retail proposals in inappropriate locations near to these centreswill be resisted. [555]

(d) (i) The UDP is necessarily divided into policy areas. Shopping is one such policyarea. STRA10 is about shopping in the GLA designated International ShoppingCentres. The presence of this policy does not imply that shopping is the mostimportant activity in the West End. Other policies covering different aspects ofland use management, which have particular relevance to the West End, areSTRA 1, 2, 3, 8, and 11. The City Council appreciates the need for an integratedapproach and most policies aim to balance the needs of the different uses in theWest End. However, the UDP is primarily a document which sets out theplanning policies on which the Council will base its decisions on planningapplications. It therefore needs to be easy to use for prospective applicants andgrouped in terms of land use. Chapter 1 covers the CAZ, which includes theWest End.

(ii) The City Council is actively involved in the work of the New West End Companywhich seeks to address the following issues in the West End: maintenance or



improvement of the street environment, structural renewal, public transport,security and police resourcing, cultural initiatives, and marketing. [1] [729]

(e) (i) The UDP is necessarily divided into policy areas. STRA10 is about shopping inthe GLA designated International Shopping Centres. The STRA policy whichcovers the District Centres is STRA 9. This policy clearly states the aim as 'Toenhance the vitality, viability, and diversity of Westminster's shopping centres…'.This indicates that the City Council appreciates the need for an integratedapproach to the management of shopping centres and the policies in Part 2reflect this. Policy SS 2 clearly recognises that town centres are suitablelocations for a wide array of service and leisure uses. [803]

(f) (i) Support welcomed. [28] [785] [381]


1.10.1. There is a difficulty in a Plan with an approach directed to policy areas to make clearthat each policy area is part of a coherent whole. It is accepted that the West End inparticular contains a wide range of activities as well as shopping, which together contribute toits character and attraction. The Plan recognises this quite clearly and its aims are to fosterall those activities that contribute to the whole and, most importantly, to achieve asatisfactory balance between the complementary but at the same time, in terms of locationand floorspace, competing activities. In its original form it may be that the Plan did not makesufficient of the linkages, or the aims of the City Council for the management of the WestEnd, but in the changes made and proposed as far as this Policy is concerned that iscorrected and many of the objections met.

1.10.2. This Policy is concerned with the two identified International Centres in the West Endand Knightsbridge. These are at the top of the London and National shopping hierarchies.In the West End the Primary Shopping Frontages take up a prominent but quite restrictedpart of the CAZ and, in view of the unique mix of retail uses and the character of thesefrontages, together with that of the part of Knightsbridge in the City, it is appropriate toconsider what is needed to foster and protect the retail function in these frontages. This isdeveloped in the later Chapters of the Plan.

1.10.3. There was objection that it was not necessarily in the interests of retailing in Londonfor the City Council to oppose new shopping developments that might compete with theInternational Centres, inside or outside the City. The words used are “adversely affect thesuccess of the West End and Knightsbridge”. This can be interpreted as affecting theirvitality and viability, and even if competition between centres is to be welcomed, it is notunreasonable to seek to maintain the position of these unique centres. Compared with out oftown or out of centre retail developments which is seen as the particular threat, the approachis in support of development that is sustainable.

Recommendation

� R1.10.1 Modify Policy STRA 10 and its Reasoned Justification in accordancewith the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST11: Tourism, Hotels and Visitor Attractions


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association2 Greater London Authority



10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association)28 London Tourist Board64 Shaftesbury PLC90 Portman Estates104 Consort House Residents Assn.108 Society of London Theatre131 Marylebone Association141 Burford Group plc259 Marks & Spencer PLC370 The Theatres Trust375 Government Office for London376 London First381 South East Bayswater Residents Association403 Councillor Barbara Grahame555 Glen Suarez692 London & Regional Properties698 Abou Zaki Holding Company706 City and Central Developments707 BT Plc724 Grosvenor Limited729 Bass Hotels and Resorts730 White Star Line Restaurants748 British Land Company PLC779 London Business School780 Selfridges & Co.785 Delancey Group plc794 Six Continents Retail795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)803 Standard Life Assurance Company491 Mercers Company


(a) (i) Policy STRA11 taken as a whole appears to read as if there should be noaddition to the stock of hotel bedrooms in the City of Westminster. It is clear thatthere should be an increase in hotel bedrooms, particularly in the CentralActivities Zone and this should be made clear in the Policy.

(ii) Concern that the concept of saturation in respect of entertainment uses has ledto a policy approach that seeks to suppress economic activity associated with theentertainment industry. This is not a sustainable long-term policy. What isrequired is comprehensive integrated enforcement control and management ofboth premises and the public realm. Whilst there are benefits in the concept ofdispersal, this should not serve as a justification for preventing appropriate landuse and other change within the entertainment sector, particularly where thiswould discourage the upgrading and improvement of premises.

(iii) Paragraph 1.51 does not make clear the extent to which the City Council isencouraging the provision of additional hotel bedrooms and what the futureobjective of policy is. Indeed, Paragraph 1.53 suggests that there is a policypresumption against new hotels throughout the City. If it is intended that thispresumption apply only in predominantly residential areas, then this should bemade clear. [729] [1]



(b) (i) Insufficient regard is given to the position of London theatres and the importancethat these facilities have to the local and national economies as an internationalcentre of excellence.

(ii) With regard to entertainment uses, paragraph 1.49 refers to some streets ashaving become "saturated" with entertainment uses. There is no explanation ofthe concept of "saturation", nor any reasoned justification for the apparentassumption that localised concentrations of such uses, particularly in areaswhere residential accommodation is a minority land use, are harmful to thecharacter and function of Central London, particularly when taken as a whole inthe regional or national context.

(iii) The policy needs to be more explicit and positive in its approach to tourismculture and entertainment activities, it being naïve to hope that these supportinguses such as restaurants, bars and entertainment use functions will locate in lesssustainable fringe locations in adjoining boroughs. The CAZ will always be thefocus of local and nationally significant entertainment functions.

(iv) There is no substantive evidence to suggest that the concentration ofentertainment functions is any more of an issue now than it ever has been in thepast. The concentration of activities and uses provides the area with its dynamiccharacter and environment, qualities that are recognised throughout the worldand which provide the catalyst for substantial tourist industry of nationalimportance.

(v) The strategy should be to positively promote and support the development oftourism and its associated activities within the CAZ, as the focus of the 24 hour,World City. [108]

(c) (i) This policy does not recognise the importance of late night entertainment use tothe continued vitality of the city. Object to the dispersal of bars, restaurants andentertainment uses to areas outside Westminster. Clusters and concentration ofsuch uses in areas such as Covent Gardens and Soho are a fundamental part ofthe City’s overall character.[785]

(d) (i) Support amendment to Policy STRA 11, which removes the restriction on addingto hotel stock in undertaking improvements to these facilities. [779]

(e) (i) The policy should be reworded as follows:

(B) To seek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster and add to the stockof hotel rooms only where this does not cause harm to residential amenity. [90]

(f) (i) The strategic role fails to recognise the important role of A3 and D2 uses inproviding for leisure and entertainment for tourists and others working, living inand visiting London.[794]

(g) (i) Do not accept that streets in Soho, Covent Garden, Bayswater and Queensway-Westbourne Grove are saturated with A3 uses. Earlier draft proposals of theUDP Review anticipated policies which enabled further A3 proposals to beconsidered on their merits in the busier streets. It is important that the strategicrole recognises the importance of A3 and D2 uses, as part of the need toaccommodate the evolving demands of London’s metropolitan and World Cityrole. [794]



(h) (i) Unclear whether in practice this will facilitate the development of appropriatehotels. Hotels could in fact be advantageously developed outside the centralarea. [403]

(i) (i) This policy contains conflicting objectives within it and also conflicts with policyTACE2. Para (A) of STRA 11 seeks to maintain and improve the range of hotelsin Westminster. This is likely to mean that permissions will be granted forproposals involving new hotels within the City. This is recognised as acceptablewithin the CAZ, on CAZ frontages and in the PSPA in Policy TACE2. Howeverpara (B) is in direct conflict with policy TACE2 and the objective of para (A), byseeking to avoid additional to the stock of hotel rooms. Para 1.52 is consistentwith policy TACE 2, in seeking to confine significant hotel and tourismdevelopment within Westminster to appropriate locations within the CAZ, thedefined CAZ frontages and the Paddington SPA. Support the recognition thatnew hotels are acceptable in these areas.

Suggest that para (B) be deleted.[259]

(j) (i) Support the Mayor's proposal for the establishment of EntertainmentManagement Zones and his support for evening and night-time entertainmentactivities in central London. It is considered that EMZs are positive planning toolsand will encourage responsible development for entertainment uses withincentral London and major town centres. Sufficient justification is not made withinthe pre-Inquiry changes as to why the City Council has rejected the principle ofEMZs.

(ii) Although the City Council welcomes the Mayor's desire to see growth inentertainment uses in locations such as the South Bank, it should be recognizedthat the West End would always be the prime location for such uses, given itstransport facilities and existing infrastructure.[64] [803] [795]

(k) (i) Grateful to see the addition to this policy of ‘to maintain and improve the range ofarts and cultural facilities in Westminster’ in (B). It is vital to recognise thecontribution which the theatre industry makes to the area. [370]

(l) (i) Object to the phraseology that the range of “entertainment uses” must be“maintained’” as the inference is that the numbers, size and density ofentertainment premises must at least be maintained at the present level.

(ii) It must be recognised that in much of the CAZ, as well as in the Stress Areasoutside, the concentration of entertainment premises has already passed thesaturation point, such that the numbers and sizes of premises ought to bereduced rather than “maintained” over the years to provide a better balancebetween the Council’s need to ‘maintain Westminster’s position as aninternationally important entertainment centre’ and the needs of the residentpopulation. We recommend that at the end of 11(A) the words should be added“providing this is consistent with the objectives of Policy 11(C)”. 11(C)recommend that after the words “to restrict further” be added the words “andreduce where necessary”, for the reasons given above. [104] [381]

(m) (i) Objects to the wording in part C of this policy which restricts further hotels andlate night entertainment use in areas that already have an over concentration.This policy is too restrictive in relation to the provision of late night entertainmentuses. The use of "over concentration" is arbitrary and difficult to define.Therefore this policy should be more flexible. [748]



(n) (i) Over-concentration has not been adequately described in the Regional PlanningGuidance, RPG3. Some areas will have more residential uses, some will havemore institutional uses and some will have mainly shopping and servicefunctions, depending on their designations within special policy areas or due totheir historical uses. Mixed uses are part of a sustainable city, which the planaims towards in its policy framework. Therefore, other policies (for instance,those that protect residential amenity due to excessive noise etc.) can be used todecide whether hotels or late-night entertainment uses are acceptable. Whetherthe correct mix has been attained, or is unbalanced, in certain areas should bedefined through the Special Policy Areas, which will define the prominent uses inan area.

(ii) The development plan seems to contradict itself. The plan correctly recognisesRPG3 that states that London should harness the potential of tourismdevelopment as a World City. However, while the plan states, at paragraph 1.50,that the Central Activities Zone (CAZ) defines frontages and areas whereconcentrations of activities should be located, it then suggests that a dispersedapproach to other areas outside Westminster should be adopted.

(iii) This approach does not give a robust base on which potential investors ordevelopers can base decisions regarding the location of new uses withinWestminster, particularly within the CAZ and other special policy areas. Thepolicy should be deleted. [698]

(o) (i) Endorse the fact that STRA 1 recognises the roles of Westminster as a part ofWorld City. They welcome the inclusion of “arts, culture, entertainment andtourism” within the roles to be fostered.

(ii) It is established that restaurants fall within the definition of entertainment uses.The current adopted UDP at para 1.22 and CAZ4 lists “restaurants of nationalimportance” as entertainment uses appropriate within the CAZ.

(iii) The second part of STRA11, para (C) seeks to restrict further late-nightentertainment. It introduces the concept of “over-concentration” of such uses.Para 1.47 states that some streets have become “saturated” and designates“stress areas”, where it claims that these uses are eroding resident amenity.

(iv) Placing these restrictions on entertainment uses, which it is strategic policy tofoster, introduces a major contradiction into the plan. Central London is, onmany criteria, a highly appropriate location for late night entertainment uses. The“stress areas” concept mistakes exuberance and liveliness for conflict and harmto amenity. But it is not inevitable that the latter should follow from the former.Conversely, the features which the Plan notes and believes justify restriction,such as extensive late night activity and street life, should be viewed as positivecharacteristics which add to the draw of custom to Central London. PolicySTRA11 para (C) should be amended by deleting the words “and late nightentertainment”.

(v) Policy STRA11, para (A), should be amended by including “entertainment uses”after “visitor attractions”. [730]

(p) (i) This paragraph states that Westminster contains the largest concentration ofentertainment and late night premises in London and states that some streets in



the CAZ have become "saturated" with entertainment uses and these areas havebeen identified as "Stress Areas".

(ii) The UDP recognises the importance of promoting tourism development andmaintaining London's position as a world city. Part of that process is to promoteentertainment activities as they add to the attractiveness of London. Theintroduction of "Stress Areas" ignores the needs of the vast majority of peoplewho live, work and visit the city. Object to the identification of "Stress Areas"shown on the Proposals Map. Further objections to the policies that apply tothese areas are set out under Policies SS3, SS6, SS13 and TACE8. [748]

(q) (i) The separation of this policy into two policies is welcomed. However, whilst thedeletion of ‘without adding to the stock of hotel rooms’ is welcomed, the policydoes not insert the word ‘significant’ as suggested at First Deposit stage. Theoriginal objection to Policy STRA11 is therefore maintained. The policy covers awide range of land uses, including A3 (food and drink), D2 (leisure) and C1(hotel) activities. Given the diversity of uses, and the fact that national planningpolicy makes a distinction between tourism (PPG21) and leisure andentertainment (PPG6) uses, consideration should be given to whether thisstrategic policy could be disaggregated.

(ii) In relation to entertainment uses, no reference is made in the supporting text tothe policy to the advice in paragraph 2.19 of PPG6: Town Centres and RetailDevelopments, which states that: "local planning authorities should, inconjunction with the leisure industry, develop a clear strategy and policies foruses that support the evening economy of their town centres."

(iii) Indeed, a quite contrary approach is taken through the designation of "StressAreas", and the imposition of very restrictive policies on new entertainment uses.Whilst PPG6, paragraph 2.21 acknowledges that leisure uses may disturbnearby residents, it does not seek to impose widespread, geographically basedrestrictions on leisure activities. Instead, it advises local authorities, beforegranting planning permission, to ensure that the design of the development andthe conditions attached mean that the amenities of nearby residents are fullyconsidered. The implication of this advice is that every proposal for leisure andentertainment uses should be considered on its merits, having regard to thenature of surrounding uses and, where appropriate, the implications forresidential amenity. The "Stress Area" approach and its associated policies, inparticular part (C) of Policy STRA 11, are in conflict with this advice in PPG6.Part (B) of Policy STRA 11 is unjustified. It expects that investment will be madein the hotel industry, but at the same time seeks to limit the total stock of hotelrooms. There is nothing in PPG21's support for investment in tourism includinghotels, to suggest that there should be a restriction on the number of hotelrooms, and RPG3 specifically precludes any general restriction on hoteldevelopment within a Borough. Part (B) of the policy is also inconsistent with theintentions of Policy TCE 2, which sets out the circumstances in which new hotelsand extensions will be permitted. The mere existence of Policy TCE 2 is anacknowledgement that there will be through the planning process, an increase inhotel rooms. In part (B) of the policy delete the words "without adding to the stockof hotel rooms and ", and insert the word "significant" before the word "detriment"in the last line. In part (C) of the policy, delete the words "and late nightentertainment uses". Consider whether the policy should be disaggregated torefer separately to tourism facilities including hotels, and entertainment activities.Consequential amendments will be required to supporting text to the policy. Inparticular, the concept of "Stress Areas" should be deleted in paragraph 1.49,



and there should be amendments to paragraph 1.51 to make clear the additionalhotel rooms will be permitted in Westminster. [780]

(r) (i) It is unrealistic to expect to increase the range of tourist facilities, includinghotels, whilst operating a strategy that seeks to prevent additions to the stock ofhotel rooms. As such, the policy is contrary to strategic guidance as set out inRPG 3 and undermines the importance of the tourist economy to the functioningof the Central London.

(ii) With regard to entertainment uses, paragraph 1.49 refers to some streets ashaving become "saturated" with entertainment uses. There is no explanation ofthe concept of "saturation", nor any reasoned justification for the apparentassumption that localised concentrations of such uses, particularly in areaswhere residential accommodation is a minority land use, are harmful to thecharacter and function of Central London, particularly when taken as a whole inthe regional or national context. The policy needs to be more explicit and positivein its approach to tourism culture and entertainment activities, it being naïve tohope that these supporting uses such as restaurants, bars and entertainmentuse functions will locate in less sustainable fringe locations in adjoiningboroughs. The CAZ will always be the focus of local and nationally significantentertainment functions.

(iii) There is no substantive evidence to suggest that the concentration ofentertainment functions is any more of an issue now than it ever has been in thepast. The concentration of activities and uses provides the area with its dynamiccharacter and environment, qualities that are recognised throughout the worldand which provide the catalyst for a substantial tourist industry of nationalimportance. The strategy should be to positively promote and support thedevelopment of tourism and its associated activities within the CAZ, as the focusof the 24 hour, World City, [141]

(s) (i) Support paragraphs 1.49-50 with reservations. Add to end of para 1.50, "Thepolicy presumption is that, in these areas, permission for new hotels will not begranted and that extensions of existing hotels must be of small scale and mustresult in the upgrading of the hotel. ”[381]

(t) (i) Suggest last line "the policy presumption etc…" should be retained associatedactivities within the CAZ, as the focus of the 24 hour World City. [10]

(u) (i) London needs to increase its stock of hotel rooms in all areas, includingWestminster, in order to remain attractive to tourists and business travellers. In1997 London First and the London Tourist Board estimated that London neededan additional 20,000 hotel rooms over 10 years. Much of this has beendeveloped across London but the need remains imperative in all areas.

(ii) The issues created by the entertainment industry should be tackled throughactive management, not suppression.[376]

(v) (i) Supported, but should include Edgware Road. We believe that there is alegitimate demand for apartment hotels which is not being met in Westminster.We believe that the City Council should encourage the provision of more suchand consider that office buildings could with advantage be converted to suchvisitor accommodation. [131]



(w) (i) Supported but believe that the provision of tourist facilities, attractions should begeared to a low volume, high value strategy in order not to over-crowd a highlyconcentrated industry to the detriment of the standing of Westminster as a WorldClass city.[131]

(x) (i) The separation of this policy into two policies is welcomed. However, whilst thedeletion of ‘without adding to the stock of hotel rooms’ is also welcomed, theobjection has not been addressed in full. Delete parts (B) and (C) of PolicySTRA 11: consequential amendments will be required to supporting text to thepolicy. The concept of “Stress Areas” should be deleted in paragraph 1.49.[491]

(y) (i) Objection met, as inconsistency between Part 1 and 2 has been amended andthe opportunities for hotel development in CAZ, CAZ frontages, the PaddingtonSPA and possibly the North West Westminster Special Policy Area areemphasised in the reasoned justification. [2]

(z) (i) Object to the last sentence of paragraph 1.53 and recommend its deletion. Weconsider that there should be no policy presumption against the extension,redevelopment or intensification of existing hotel uses. Such an approach willinhibit the scope for upgrading such facilities. Applications are to be judgedagainst the requirements of Policy TCE2, to which we have objected. This doesnot represent a policy presumption against the grant of planning permission.[706]

(aa) (i) Pleased to note that suggestions over the wording of this policy have beenincluded and we support both STRA11 (hotels) and new policy STRA 11A onarts and entertainment. We welcome the deletion of the last sentence ofparagraph 1.53, now paragraph 1.50. [28]

(ab) (i) The strategic role fails to recognise the important role of A3 and D2 uses inproviding for leisure and entertainment for tourists and others working, living inand visiting London.[692]

(ac) (i) Support, especially STRA11, part(C). Support Stress Areas. [381]

(ad) (i) Support. In addition in the Stress Areas the City Council has an obligation underArticle 8 of the ECHR to take positive steps to secure the convention rights ofindividuals. That means taking steps to restrict further development and takingsteps to encourage entertainment premises and late night uses to relocate wherepossible.

(ii) There needs to be a new paragraph added to the policy which reads "(D) Wheresuitable opportunities arise, to encourage late night and entertainment usesoperating within the Stress Areas in locations near residents homes to findalternative locations for their activities in other areas of Westminster and London.In exceptional circumstances the City Council may itself take steps to modify orrevoke existing planning permissions especially where they have become lawfulas a result of the tenure of the use rather than pursuant to a formal planningconsent given by a planning authority". [555]

(ae) (i) Support the Council’s proposed amendments to STRA11, parts (B) and (C),because the First Deposit STRA11 was inconsistent with other policies in thePlan, which seek to concentrate new hotel development in the CAZ and CAZFrontages.[259]



(af) (i) Object to the identification of “Stress Areas” as shown on the Proposals Map tothe UDP. The UDP recognises the importance of promoting tourism developmentand maintaining London’s position as a world class city. The promotion ofentertainment activities adds to the attractiveness of London in this role. Theintroduction of Stress Areas only serves to protect the limited residential interestsin Soho and Covent Garden and ignores the needs of the vast majority of peoplewho live, work and visit the city. [785]

(ag) (i) No reference is made in the supporting text to the policy to the advice inparagraph 2.19 of PPG6: Town Centres and Retail Developments, which statesthat: “local planning authorities should, in conjunction with the leisure industry,develop a clear strategy and policies for uses that support the evening economyof their town centres ” Indeed, a quite contrary approach is taken through thedesignation of “Stress Areas”, and the imposition of very restrictive policies onnew entertainment uses. Whilst PPG6, paragraph 2.21 acknowledges thatleisure uses may disturb nearby residents, it does not seek to imposewidespread, geographically based restrictions on leisure activities. Instead, itadvises local authorities before granting planning permission to ensure that thedesign of the development and the conditions attached mean that the amenitiesof nearby residents are fully considered. The implication of this advice is thatevery proposal for leisure and entertainment uses should be considered on itsmerits, having regard to the nature of surrounding uses and, where appropriate,the implications for residential amenity. The “Stress Area” approach and itsassociated policies, in particular part (C) of Policy STRA 11A, are in conflict withthis advice in PG6. Delete Part (C) of Policy STRA 11A: consequentialamendments will be required to supporting text to the policy. In particular, theconcept of “Stress Areas” should be deleted in paragraph 1.53. [780] [491]

(ah) (i) The restriction on late night entertainment uses is opposed. The concept forsaturation in respect of entertainment uses has led to a policy approach thatseeks to suppress economic activity associated with the entertainment industry.What is required is comprehensive integrated, enforcement, control andmanagement of both premises and the public realm, together with an appropriateuse of planning conditions and licensing controls. The policy and reasonedjustification should be amended. [1]

(ai) (i) The restriction on late night entertainment uses is opposed. The concept ofsaturation in respect of entertainment uses has led to a policy approach thatseeks to suppress economic activity associated with the entertainment industry.What is required is comprehensive integrated, enforcement, control andmanagement of both premises and the public realm, together with an appropriateuse of planning conditions and licensing controls. The policy and reasonedjustification should be amended. [724]


(a) (i) Policy STRA 11 has been split into two policies. Policy STRA 11 has beenamended to refer to tourism, hotels and visitor attractions only and new policySTRA11A introduced to refer to arts, culture and entertainment uses. PolicySTRA 11(B) has been amended to delete the reference to " without adding to thestock of hotel rooms", as it is recognised this was inconsistent with the policyapproach to hotels in Part 2 of the Plan. Policy STRA 11(B) has been amendedto read "to seek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster without detrimentto residential amenity".



(ii) It is considered that there is a need to restrict further hotel growth in areas wherethere is an over-concentration, as referred to in para 1.50 and detailed in Part 2of the Plan, Policy TACE 1. The last sentence of para 1.53 in the First DepositUDP, now para 1.50, has been deleted to ensure greater consistency with thedetailed policies on hotel development in Part 2 of the Plan. [729] [1]

(b) (i) Disagree. The importance of London’s theatres is made clear enough. StressAreas’ are areas which have been designated within Westminster where it isconsidered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptablyconcentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded bythese entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resultingin stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function ofthe areas. The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the recentlypublished West End Entertainment Impact Study which identifies the growth ofthe entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three stress areas.Conflict and harm is occurring in these areas. The Stress Areas have beendefined and modified and are justified under new policies TACE 8-10 in Chapter8. Saturation has been used to indicate that Council has made a judgement thatthere are an over concentration of these uses in some areas which are havingand impact on the residential amenity, local character and environment.

(ii) Greater reference has been included in Part 1, STRA 11A of the Plan to highlightthe importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contributionto London's World City status. This is also contained in policy Chapter 8, TACE8.

(iii) Policy STRA 11 has been split into two policies. Policy STRA 11 has beenamended to refer to tourism, hotels and visitor attractions only and new policySTRA11A introduced to refer to arts, culture and entertainment uses. PolicySTRA 11A (A) now states 'To maintain and improve the range of arts, culture andentertainment uses in Westminster.' This includes theatres.

(iv) Policy STRA 11(B) has been amended to delete the reference to " without addingto the stock of hotel rooms", as it is recognised this was inconsistent with thepolicy approach to hotels in Part 2 of the Plan. Policy STRA 11(B) has beenamended to read "to seek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster withoutdetriment to residential amenity".

(v) Part 2 of the Plan explains the Stress Area concept in more detail and containsfurther reasoned justification for the concept and para 1.53 includes a cross-reference to Chapter 8. Para 1.53 (formerly para 1.49) has been amended todelete the reference to 'some streets'. [108]

(c) (i) Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan in this chapter of thePlan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster andits contribution to London's World City status. Refer to STRA 11A. The newpolicy, TACE 8 in Chapter 8, is more positively worded and recognises theimportance of the entertainment industry to Westminster and Central London.The issue of dispersal is one that is being considered by the Mayor of London.This is considered a sustainable approach to ensure that Westminster canoperate as a sustainable city where a mixture of uses can co-exist withoutunacceptable pressures being placed on residential amenity and the localenvironment. There is an existing clustering in these areas, which can continue



as long as they are lawful uses. Controls affect the introduction of new premisesand extensions to existing premises. [785]

(d) (i) Withdrawal of objection welcomed. [779]

(e) (i) Policy STRA 11(B) has been amended to delete the reference to "without addingto the stock of hotel rooms" as it is recognised this was inconsistent with thepolicy approach to hotels in Part 2 of the Plan. Policy STRA 11(B) has beenamended to read "to seek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster withoutdetriment to residential amenity". [90]

(f) (i) Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan to highlight theimportance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contribution toLondon's World City status. Refer to STRA 11A. The new policy TACE 8, inChapter 8 is more positively worded and recognises the importance of theentertainment industry to Westminster and central London. [794]

(g) (i) Greater reference has been included in Part 1, STRA 11A and in Chapter 8,TACE 8 to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminsterand its contribution to London's World City status. The Stress Area boundarieshave been reassessed and modified having regard to representations, furthermapping and inspections. The Stress Areas are not considered necessarily bystreet. Entire areas are considered in terms of their overall content ofentertainment uses. Those areas, which may adjoin areas, which have aconcentration of entertainment uses may also have been included as they arebeing affected by anti-social behaviour, crime, noise and general loss ofresidential amenity, etc. [794]

(h) (i) Whether hotels will be built in NW Westminster will be dependent on marketfactors but the policy framework in the UDP is now positive and encourages this.[403]

(i) (i) Policy STRA 11 has been split into two policies. Policy STRA 11 has beenamended to refer to tourism, hotels and visitor attractions only and new policySTRA11A introduced to refer to arts, culture and entertainment uses. PolicySTRA 11(B) has been amended to delete the reference to " without adding to thestock of hotel rooms" as it is recognised this was inconsistent with the policyapproach to hotels in Part 2 of the Plan. Policy STRA 11(B) has been amendedto read "to seek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster without detrimentto residential amenity". The last sentence of para 1.53 in the first deposit UDP(now para 1.50) has been deleted to ensure greater consistency with the detailedpolicies on hotel development in Part 2 of the Plan. Withdrawal of objection nowwelcomed. [259]

(j) (i) Stress Areas’ are areas which have been designated within Westminster where itis considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptablyconcentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded bythese entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resultingin stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function ofthe areas. The creation of the stress areas has been supported by the recentlypublished West End Entertainment Impact Study, which identifies the growth ofthe entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three Stress Areas.Conflict and harm is occurring in these areas. The Stress Areas have beendefined and modified and are justified under new policies TACE 8-10 in Chapter



8. Saturation has been used to indicate that Council has made a judgement thatthere are an over concentration of these uses in some areas which are havingand impact on the residential amenity and local character and environment.

(ii) Greater reference has been included in Part 1, STRA 11A of the Plan to highlightthe importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contributionto London's World City status. This is also contained in Chapter 8, Policy TACE8. Policy STRA 11 has been split into two policies - Policy STRA 11 has beenamended to refer to tourism, hotels and visitor attractions only and new policySTRA11A introduced to refer to arts, culture and entertainment uses.

(iii) Policy STRA 11(B) has been amended to delete the reference to "without addingto the stock of hotel rooms", as it is recognised this was inconsistent with thepolicy approach to hotels in Part 2 of the Plan. Policy STRA 11(B) has beenamended to read "to seek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster withoutdetriment to residential amenity".

(iv) It is considered that there is a need to restrict further hotel growth in areas wherethere is an over-concentration as referred to in para 1.50 and detailed in Part 2 ofthe Plan, policy TACE 1.

(v) Part 2 of the Plan explains the Stress Area concept in more detail and containsfurther reasoned justification for the concept and para 1.53 includes across-reference to Chapter 8. Para 1.53 (formerly para 1.49) has been amendedto delete the reference to' some streets'. [64] [803] [795]

(k) (i) Withdrawal of objection welcomed. [370]

(l) (i) It is not the City Council’s intention to attempt to reduce the numbers and sizes ofentertainment premises, as this would be an unreasonable land use planningapproach to take. It is recognised that there is a saturation or over-concentrationof entertainment uses in some areas. However, the aim is to manage futuregrowth of entertainment uses and use other street management measures totackle the issues of anti-social behaviour and crime etc. Amendments notagreed. [104] [381]

(m) (i) This wording is now found in STRA 11A which focuses on arts, culture andentertainments. A recent study undertaken, the West End Entertainment ImpactStudy, identifies the past trends and associated impacts of the entertainmentindustry on the three stress areas within the city. It supports Councils concernthat these areas have an over concentration of entertainment uses and as aresult the residential amenity and local environment are under stress andconflicts are occurring. It is the City Council’s aim to achieve a balanced andsustainable city where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercialactivities can co-exist in a suitable environment. If the balance is not achievedthe city will not thrive as a ‘world class’ city. Justification for this approach iscontained in Chapter 8, Policies TACE 8-10. [748]

(n) (i) Policy STRA 11 has been amended to refer to tourism, hotels and visitorattractions and new policy STRA11A introduced to refer to arts, culture andentertainment uses. However both policies still maintain the approach of the FirstDeposit UDP to restrict further hotels and late night entertainment uses in areasthat already have an over-concentration and this is considered appropriate forthe reasons set out in the Plan. Policies STRA 11 and STRA11A are bothstrategic planning policies and the detailed polices in Part 2 of the Plan identify



these areas in greater detail, as referred to in paras 1.50 and 1.53. It isrecognised that the character and function varies within particular parts ofWestminster and this is acknowledged in the UDP. However it is considered thatthe Plan as a whole does not present a contradictory approach. [698]

(o) (i) Policy STRA 11 has been split into two policies - Policy STRA 11 has beenamended to refer to tourism, hotels and visitor attractions only and new policySTRA11A introduced to refer to arts, culture and entertainment uses. Notagreed that (C) should be amended. It can now be found in STRA 11A. StressAreas’ are areas which have been designated within Westminster where it isconsidered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptablyconcentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded bythese entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resultingin stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function ofthe areas. The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the recentlypublished West End Entertainment Impact Study, which identifies the growth ofthe entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three Stress Areas.Conflict and harm is occurring in these areas. The Stress Areas have beendefined and modified and are justified under new policies TACE 8-10 in Chapter8. [730]

(p) (i) Stress Areas’ are areas which have been designated within Westminster where itis considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptablyconcentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded bythese entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resultingin stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function ofthe areas. The creation of the Stress Areas has been supported by the recentlypublished West End Entertainment Impact Study, which identifies the growth ofthe entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three stress areas.Conflict and harm is occurring in these areas. The Stress Areas have beendefined and modified and are justified under new policies TACE 8-10 in Chapter8. Saturation has been used to indicate that Council has made a judgement thatthere are an over concentration of these uses in some areas which are havingand impact on the residential amenity and local character and environment. TheCouncil does not agree that the stress areas should be deleted. [748]

(q) (i) Support for rearranged policies welcomed. A very vital and viable entertainmentindustry exists in Westminster. The plan supports the evening economy whichexists. However, there is concern that a balance of uses is achieved in the Cityand that not one type of use dominates. It is Council's aim to achieve sustainablecity where a suitable mix of residential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitable environment. It is not considered that the Policies are contraryto PPG 6. ‘Stress Areas’ are areas which have been designated withinWestminster where it is considered that the amount of entertainment uses hasreached a level of ‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment usesare unacceptably concentrated to the extent that the character of these areas isbeing eroded by these entertainment uses. This level of saturation andconcentration is resulting in stress on the local environment, residential amenity,character and function of the areas. The creation of the Stress Areas has beensupported by the recently published West End Entertainment Impact Study,which identifies the growth of the entertainment industry and the associatedimpacts in the three Stress Areas. Stress Areas have been defined and modifiedand are justified under new policies TACE 8-10 in Chapter 8. Policy STRA 11(B)



has been amended to delete the reference to " without adding to the stock ofhotel rooms", as it is recognised this was inconsistent with the policy approach tohotels in Part 2 of the Plan. Policy STRA 11(B) has been amended to read "toseek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster without detriment toresidential amenity". This is justified. It is considered that there is a need torestrict further hotel growth in areas where there is an over-concentration asreferred to in para 1.50 and detailed in Part 2 of the Plan, Policy TACE 1. Thelast sentence of para 1.53 in the first deposit UDP (now para 1.50) has beendeleted to ensure greater consistency with the detailed policies on hoteldevelopment in Part 2 of the Plan. [780]

(r) (i) ‘Stress Areas’ are areas which have been designated within Westminster whereit is considered that the amount of entertainment uses has reached a level of‘saturation’ and where it is considered the entertainment uses are unacceptablyconcentrated to the extent that the character of these areas is being eroded bythese entertainment uses. This level of saturation and concentration is resultingin stress on the local environment, residential amenity, character and function ofthe areas. The creation of the stress areas has been supported by the recentlypublished West End Entertainment Impact Study, which identifies the growth ofthe entertainment industry and the associated impacts in the three Stress Areas.Conflict and harm is occurring in these areas. The Stress Areas have beendefined and modified and are justified under new policies TACE 8-10 in Chapter8. Saturation has been used to indicate that Council has made a judgement thatthere are an over concentration of these uses in some areas which are havingand impact on the residential amenity and local character and environment.Greater reference has been included in Part 1, STRA 11A of the Plan to highlightthe importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster and its contributionto London's World City status. This is also contained in Policy Chapter 8, TACE8. Policy STRA 11 has been split into two policies. Policy STRA 11 has beenamended to refer to tourism, hotels and visitor attractions only and new policySTRA11A introduced to refer to arts, culture and entertainment uses. PolicySTRA 11(B) has been amended to delete the reference to " without adding to thestock of hotel rooms", as it is recognised this was inconsistent with the policyapproach to hotels in Part 2 of the Plan. Policy STRA 11(B) has been amendedto read "to seek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster without detrimentto residential amenity".

(ii) It is considered that there is a need to restrict further hotel growth in areas wherethere is an over-concentration, as referred to in para 1.50 and detailed in Part 2of the Plan, Policy TACE 1. Part 2 of the Plan explains the Stress Area conceptin more detail and contains further reasoned justification for the concept and para1.53 includes a cross-reference to Chapter 8. Para 1.53, formerly para 1.49, hasbeen amended to delete the reference to 'some streets'. [141]

(w) (i) It is not considered necessary to further elaborate the cross reference to thepolicies in Chapter 8 of the Plan at the end of this paragraph. However toreinforce that policy STRA 11 (C) is to be applied to areas outside the CAZ, anadditional sentence has been added to the end of para 1.50 which states“Within these areas outside the CAZ where existing hotels are causing adverseeffects on residential amenity their conversion to housing will be encouraged."[381]

(t) (i) See responses. [10]



(u) (i) It is considered that there is a need to restrict further hotel growth in areas wherethere is an over-concentration, as referred to in para 1.50 and detailed in Part 2of the Plan, Policy TACE 1. Paras 1.48 and 1.48a have been updated usinginformation from the London Tourist Board's hotel development log. The lastsentence of para 1.53 in the first deposit UDP, now para 1.50, has been deletedto ensure greater consistency with the detailed policies on hotel development inPart 2 of the Plan. Issues relating to the entertainment industry need to beresolved in a number of ways including planning control and active management.[376]

(v) (i) Support welcomed. Edgware Road has been added to para 1.53,formerly para1.49. Apartment hotels would be considered under Policy TACE 2 of the Planand the City Council recognises the role of such accommodation, includingconversion from other commercial uses, in meeting visitor needs in appropriatelocations. [131]

(w) (i) Support welcomed and comments noted. Para 1.49 recognises that the UDPseeks to preserve and enhance the conditions that help to maintainWestminster's strategic tourism role, without detriment to local residents andsupports dispersal of tourism outside Westminster to help relieve pressures onWestminster. [131]

(x) (i) Policy STRA 11(B) has been amended to delete the reference to "without addingto the stock of hotel rooms" as it is recognised this was inconsistent with thepolicy approach to hotels in Part 2 of the Plan. Policy STRA 11(B) has beenamended to read "to seek improvement to hotels throughout Westminster withoutdetriment to residential amenity". It is considered that there is a need to restrictfurther hotel growth in areas where there is an over-concentration as referred toin para 1.50 and detailed in Part 2 of the Plan, policy TACE 1. The last sentenceof para 1.53 in the first deposit UDP, now para 1.50, has been deleted to ensuregreater consistency with the detailed policies on hotel development in Part 2 ofthe Plan. [491]

(y) (i) Withdrawal of objection welcomed. [2]

(z) (i) The last sentence of para 1.53 in the first deposit UDP, now para 1.50, has beendeleted to ensure greater consistency with the detailed policies on hoteldevelopment in Part 2 of the Plan. [706]

(aa) (i) Withdrawal of objection welcomed. [28]

(ab) (i) Greater reference has been included in Part 1 of the Plan in this chapter of thePlan to highlight the importance of the entertainment industry in Westminster andits contribution to London's World City status. Refer to STRA 11A. The newPolicy TACE 8 in Chapter 8 is more positively worded and recognises theimportance of the entertainment industry to Westminster and Central London.[692]

(ac) (i) Support welcomed. [381]

(ad) (i) Support welcomed. It is considered that it is not City Council’s role to findalternative locations for existing venues which have current lawful planningconsent or rights. The City Council would not normally consider the issue ofrevoking or modifying an existing permission. Future steps have been taken



instead to control the introduction of new entertainment uses, or extensions toexisting entertainment uses. [555]

(ae) (i) Support welcomed. [259]

(af) (i) Balancing a mix of uses and creating a sustainable urban environment. It is CityCouncil's aim to achieve a balanced and sustainable city where a suitable mix ofresidential and leisure, commercial activities can co-exist in a suitableenvironment. That environment is considered to be currently under stress. Seeearlier response (p) on Stress Areas. [785] [748]

(ag) (i) There is nothing specific in current Government Guidance which leads the CityCouncil to believe that the planning policy approach taken in the entertainmentpolicies is contrary or in conflict with this guidance. In particular the policies areconsistent with PPG 6, PPG 12 and the draft London Plan.

(ii) There is nothing in Government Guidance which does not allow the designationof Stress Areas. PPG 6 does recognise that leisure uses can disturb residents. Inthe Stress Areas allowing additional entertainment uses which add to the currentlevel of stress on the residential amenity and local environment cannot becontrolled through the use of conditions on approvals in all instances. The policyallows for exceptional circumstances in the stress areas.

(iii) The entertainment policies fulfil the requirements of PPG12 by providing clearpolicies on Leisure uses, employment and wealth generating development.Chapter 4, on Sustainable Development indicates in paragraph 4.1 that thePlanning system, development plans in particular, can make a major contributionto the achievement of the Government’s objectives for sustainable development.

(iv) The draft London Plan (2002) recognises that while London’s vibrant night-timeeconomy is a major contributor to its world city status and that there is increasingdemand for services to be provided later in the evening, the demands of the nighttime economy are concentrated in relatively small areas, in key parts of CentralLondon, especially the West End and in some town centres. Paragraph 3D.27continues, “Longer opening hours contribute to the vibrancy and vitality of areasbut can bring about their own problems, especially for the residents. Currentlythere are particular pressures on the West End.” Paragraph 3D.28 of the draftLondon Plan (2002) supports the City Council’s integrated response to tacklingthe wide range of issues associated with the night-time economy. Paragraph3D.28 states that boroughs should ensure that planning, licensing, policing,transport and street management issues are managed through designatedEntertainment Management Zones (EMZs). Although an EMZ has not beendesignated in the UDP the approach taken by the City Council in establishing aforum of agencies to co-ordinate issues affecting entertainment areas mirrorsthat envisaged in the draft London Plan. Amendments to the Policy are notagreed. [780] [491]

(ah) (i) There is currently a ‘saturation’ of entertainment uses in the Stress Areas whichis causing conflict with residents, visitors and workers. Saturation is consideredto be where there is an over concentration of entertainment uses in an areawhich then results in environmental stress being present. It relates to the issue ofbalance where the vitality and viability of an area must be maintained. It is asituation where land use imbalance exists. It is where activity outgrows thecapacity for public transport, policing and public services to cope with demand.



(ii) The three designated Stress Areas are considered by the City Council to havereached this point of saturation or over concentration where growth needs to bemanaged to ensure impacts are kept to a minimum.

(iii) The City Council has introduced a number of initiatives to tackle the problemsarisen particularly in the Stress Areas, such as anti-social behaviour, noise,degradation of the street environment. The City Council recognises that it is acombination of planning and licensing policy and management of the streetenvironment which is required. Planning is the land use tool which allows for themanagement of current and future land uses. This is a crucial tool for ensuring abalance of mixed uses is provided for residents, visitors and workers. This policyapproach works alongside various other Council initiatives, e.g. provision ofadequate servicing, provision of mobile street urinals, a warden scheme, andenforcement. As it is the entertainment uses which contribute substantially to thelate night economy and play a major role in attracting visitors and customers tothe West End, there is clearly a link between land use and the impact of uses onresidential amenity and character and function of areas. This is clearly a planningmatter which should be addressed in part through planning policy. The Mayor ofLondon recognises in the draft London Plan that ‘boroughs should ensure thatplanning, licensing, policing, transport and street management issues aremanaged….’ [1] [724]

(ai) (i) See response (ah) [724]


1.11.1 Policy STRA 11 has been usefully split into component Policies STRA 11 andSTRA 11A. This reflects the divergent strategies which apply to tourism and hotels on theone hand and entertainment facilities, on the other. This policy distinctions appears to enjoygeneral support although there are numerous objections to the Policies themselves andindeed to their Part II counterparts. It is instructive to note that the emergent London Planlooks for an expansion of hotel bedspace provision throughout Greater London. This isrecognised by the UDP Policies TACE 1-3, which I generally endorse later in the Report.There does not seem to me to be any undue or contrary restrictive tone in Policy STRA 11.The need largely to confine hotel development to the CAZ and to the PSPA strikes me asbeing perfectly consistent with RPG 3 and London Plan spatial planning advice. Certain ofthe UDP Part II Policies indeed seek to restrict hotel development outside the CAZ, for soundreasons of protecting residential amenity and sustainability, as I later conclude (see TA02).

1.11.2 As for Policy STRA 11A, I find that there is substance in many of the objections, notso much for inconsistency with strategic guidance (which is somewhat equivocal especiallywhere the London Plan is concerned). Objection is rather based on a frequent critique of thePart II Policies’ lack of clear justification and detailed expression. This is very much theconclusion I reach later (see TA08-10) and I indeed understand the present objections toSTRA 11A, not so much for its inadequacies of formulation as for the subsequent detailedPolicies that derive from it. The UDP perfectly reasonably avoids the invitation to adopt theconcept of EMZs as this is within the LPA’s discretion, according to the advice of the LondonPlan. It has rather developed the concept of Stress Areas.

1.11.3 I later endorse this concept as sound in principle but advise the LPA to review therelevant Policies (a) more convincingly to justify their extent and planning problems and (b) toenable prospective developers to reach sound decisions on planning proposals based onexplicit development control criteria. I fully accept that certain forms of entertainment aregiving rise to noise, disturbance and street crime. So far from enhancing the image ofWestminster as a World Class City destination, I conclude that such uncontrolled tendencies



may well serve to gravely undermine other forms of tourist attractions, not least theconcentration of West End theatre destinations (see TA06 and TA08).

Recommendations


� R1.11.2 Modify Policy STRA 11A and its Reasoned Justification in accordancewith the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST12: Protecting and Providing Housing


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association2 Greater London Authority64 Shaftesbury PLC73 London Underground Limited82 Consignia plc129 Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association131 Marylebone Association138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association139 Westminster Society141 Burford Group plc269 St James Homes376 London First381 South East Bayswater Residents Association435 Councillor Alan Lazarus473 Councillor Simon Stockill476 Councillor Katy Thorne485 House Builders Federation698 Abou Zaki Holding Company724 Grosvenor Limited730 White Star Line Restaurants752 David Boothroyd759 The Thorney Island Society772 Land Securities Properties Limited784 Councillor Andrew Whitley790 The Berkeley Group795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)803 Standard Life Assurance Company808 T J Nolan812 Tony Rea852 George Wimpey


(a) (i) Welcomes the statement that housing is to be given the highest priority in thePlan (para 1.56). The Society proposes the addition of a clear statement ofsupport for the principle of providing affordable housing, together with a cross-reference to Policy H4. [759]

(b) (i) Welcome the adoption of the GLA capacity assessment and that the aims nowcontain specific reference to affordable housing. The increased commitment to



"brownfield" development and more flexibility in residential densities is alsowelcomed.

(ii) However, limiting affordable housing "quotas" to 30% does not go far enough intackling the needs identified in the City Council's Housing Need Survey. Nordoes it adequately encourage the "balance" in communities that is required byPPG3.

(iii) Developers need a clear message from the Council: that flagship developmentsin Westminster are welcomed but only where they integrate affordable housingon site and move towards meeting all housing need in Westminster. For thisreason, I remain committed to the need for 50% affordable housing on site. Thiswill then act as the overarching strategic commitment by the Council to houseresidents from all sectors of our communities.

(iv) This is ever more acute with the final realisation that middle income householdsare now no longer able to live in Westminster. "Ghettos" of polarised rich andpoor will become even more pronounced in Westminster unless future planningguidance tackles this sizeable group of residents too. Key workers might well bea constituent element of this "newly excluded" community, but the problemextends beyond merely public service workers in Westminster. [784] [752] [473]

(c) (i) The housing target appears to form the basis for the Council's stated intention ofaccording the provision of new housing the highest priority of any policy in theUDP. This leads to an unbalanced approach to planning for the needs of aWorld and Capital City.

(ii) Pursuit of additional housing to meet ambitious housing targets should not beundertaken at the expense of making provision for other vitally important CentralLondon activities, particularly within the CAZ. The emphasis should be uponmaking provision for new residential accommodation within the predominantlyresidential areas of Westminster, whilst securing new residential accommodationwithin the CAZ only where it is appropriate to do so and its implementation ispractically achievable.

(iii) Before adopting such a target, a more rigorous approach to assessing thepotential and the means for achieving this is an increase in housing, particularly ifenvironmental and land use conflicts are to be avoided. [795] [1] [64] [772] [2][141]

(d) (i) There is insufficient emphasis placed upon the provision of affordable housing aspart of that overall increase in residential accommodation. Policy STRA12 must,therefore, be amended so that of the 15,000 and 6,000 new homes targeted forprovision, a proportion of affordable housing is specifically included. Without thisthere is no over-arching strategic commitment by the council to providing homesfor the full spectrum of its residents and the larger community. [808] [435] [476][812]

(e) (i) The figures for housing provision are not accepted, as they have not been fullytested by an up to date capacity study undertaken in accordance with PPG3.The level of provision should be increased in absolute terms and the annual rateof provision should not diminish during the plan period. The housing figuresstated in this paragraph should be tested at a Housing round table session,based upon latest available monitoring information, household projection and anup to date urban capacity study. The Unitary Development Plan should be



amended to insert a statement at paragraph 1.56 the statement that “the Councilwill review the plan provision for housing at least every 5 years in accordancewith PPG3 . [790] [269]

(f) (i) The HBF welcomes the City Council’s clear planning for housing in the periodbeyond 2006 and the priority given to housing throughout the plan. But the levelof housing set out in STRA 12 does fall some way short of the level of capacityidentified in the Mayor’s Housing Capacity Study. The HBF would like to see ahigher provision in the later period so that the annual rate achieved will match thecapacity identified by the Mayor. [485]

(g) (i) This should be qualified to show that an overall loss would be prevented. Inother words, if replacement houses are provided in another, more acceptablelocation, the loss of houses will be acceptable as long as there is no overall totalloss, or indeed, a loss of housing may be exceptionally acceptable. This alsoapplies to policy H1. [698]

(h) (i) STRA 12 (B) seeks the maximum amount of new housing. This should apply onlyoutside the CAZ, see Policy H3. Priorities in the CAZ should favour commercialdevelopment [730]

(i) (i) The contents of these policies are recognised and sustainable residentialcommunities must be served by good public transport. However, the provision ofmore housing must be balanced with other community needs such as publictransport improvement. [73]

(j) (i) This policy has been amended to include a precise percentage of affordablehousing within the policy. As housing need is likely to change over time, it ismore appropriate to include the proposed percentage within the supporting text,rather than within the policy, which will have longevity over local housing need.Policy STRA 12 should be amended to delete reference to a precise percentage,and include it within the supporting reasons. [269] [790] [852] [724]

(k) (i) Concern is raised that the increased proportion of affordable housing from 25%to 30%, sought by the City Council as part of proposed residential developmentswhich the modification of policy STR12 and reasoned justification contained atparagraphs 1.56c, 3.30 and 3.35a, will act as a significant discouragement topotential developers from lodging applications for residential development onsites within the City of Westminster.

(ii) The requirement to provide affordable and low cost housing will act to decreasethe value of potential sites within Westminster. Increasing the proportion ofaffordable housing required will serve to exacerbate the reduction in the value ofland for residential purposes and therefore restrict the total supply of housingbuilt, reducing the Council’s ability to meet its housing targets. Consignia plc.therefore concurs with the City Council’s statement at paragraph 3.30 thatincreasing the proportion of affordable housing required will provide “the greaterincentive to the owner to seek to develop the site for commercial rather thanhousing purposes. This would result in fewer housing developments andtherefore less affordable housing”.

(iii) The City Council is requested not to modify the proportion of affordable housingsought as part of residential development in the City of Westminster asestablished in policy STR12 or reasoned justification at paragraphs 1.56c, 3.30



and 3.35a. The proportion of affordable housing required should remain at amaximum of 25% of the total number of dwellings. [82]

(l) (i) Policies STRA12 to STRA 16 set an outline brief for "building sustainablecommunities", but pay limited regard for the wider issues of sustainability whichgoes beyond bricks and mortar and the local environment. Limited employmentopportunities and high densities of either affordable or high market value homesfundamentally affect communities in a way that balance and stability might beimpossible to achieve without allowing greater planning flexibility for certain partsof the city. Mixed commercial and residential developments and adherence to50% affordable housing quotas are, in some instances, exactly what is needed toensure that sustainable communities can be delivered. [784]

(m) (i) Conditional withdrawal in respect of revised housing figure of 7,500. Objectionsustained to 30% affordable housing target. Further written representations havebeen submitted in respect of this objection.

(n) (i) London First wholly endorses an increase in residential development as a meansof addressing the lack of [affordable] housing in London. However, this policyneeds to be implemented in balance with the other demands in light of the widerimportance of Westminster. [376]

(o) (i) We wish to support this policy. [790] [139] [269] [138]

(p) (i) The Society endorses STRA 12 on housing as being particularly welcome [139]

(q) (i) We believe that a higher proportion of those who work in London should be in aposition to live there. [131]

(r) (i) We support the highest priority given to the provision of housing throughout theplan. [129]

(s) (i) The continued commitment to tackling the problem of empty housing and thenew commitment to decent standards for new housing are both welcomed [784]

(t) (i) The HBF objects to the Council’s increase of affordable housing sought from25% to 30% but the new reasoning at paragraph 3.30 is welcomed [485]

(u) (i) STRA 12 supported. [381]


(a) (i) A new paragraph (C) has been added to the policy to include an affordablehousing target to meet this objection and a new paragraph added (1.56c) to referto the new Housing Needs Survey (2001) and the need for affordable housing.[759] [784] [808] [752] [435] [476] [812] [473]

(b) (i) Policy H4 in the Housing chapter explains why the City Council considers that a30% proportion for affordable housing offers the best means of maximising bothmarket and affordable housing. See also response to objector in relation to hisobjection to H4. The policy does require affordable housing to be provided onsite and allows for some of this to be for key workers.

(ii) Disagree on 50% affordable housing ‘quotas’, as such a high proportion ofaffordable housing would be likely to make housing development unviable and



mean that the City Council would not meet its housing targets. This is because asubstantial amount of housing comes from sites in commercial use and therequirement for 50% affordable housing would mean that some of these siteswould not be developed for housing, including affordable housing. [784] [752][473]

(c) (i) The housing targets have been arrived at using a rigorous approach using amethodology established by LPAC and published in the GLA report 'London'sHousing Capacity' in September 2000. The justification has been changed toexplain this. They are not considered to be unreasonable. Progress madetowards the targets will be monitored on an annual basis in the same way that anannual report is published on the progress made towards the adopted UDPtarget. Sufficient provision has been made for other important Central Londonactivities and policies CENT 3 and COM 2 make clear that housing will only besought in mixed use development where it is appropriate and practical to do so.[795] [1] [64] [772] [803] [2] [724] [141]

(d) (i) The GLA's Housing Capacity Study was made up of detailed capacity studiescarried out by each of the 33 London Boroughs. Details of the components ofeach borough’s capacity can be found in the GLA publication London's HousingCapacity, of September 2000. It was therefore carried out at a detailed ratherthan strategic level and GoL were represented on the steering group for thestudy.

(ii) The Housing Capacity Study indicated that fewer houses would be built in 2007-2016 and this is partly because only a small number of sites were identifiedwhere housing development would occur during this period, as it is difficult toidentify sites this far is advance. It is possible that this has underestimated theamount of housing development that will take place in this period. But the Planwill be reviewed and a new capacity study undertaken around 2006, if notsooner, and this will set a new target for the period 2007 to 2016.

(iii) Policy STRA 36 states that the City Council will monitor progress towards thehousing target annually and the Council will continue to produce an annual reporton this matter. The policy also states that the City Council will monitor changeand review the need to monitor the plan at least every five years. Therefore nochanges are required to meet the objection. [790] [198] [269]

(e) (i) Agree that there is no ceiling on the number of houses to be provided but thepolicy already states that the City Council will "seek the maximum amount ofhousing by seeking a minimum net addition of new housing". No change isrequired to meet the objection. [790] [269]

(f) (i) Agree that the housing target for 1992 to 2016 should be increased by 1,000dwellings to reflect the capacity in the Mayor's Housing Capacity Study. [485]

(g) (i) RPG3 states that boroughs can include within their UDPs a general presumptionagainst the loss of housing and STRA 12 follows this advice. Policy H1 statesthere may be exceptional circumstances where a loss of housing may bepermitted and this refers to the potential for the relocation of housing from onesite to another. [698]

(h) (i) Housing is important throughout the City, not just outside the CAZ. Policy H3recognises that inside the CAZ the City Council cannot insist that all sites beused for housing. [730]



(i) (i) Agree that provision of public transport facilities is very important, butWestminster is already well served by public transport and more people living inthe City centre will reduce the need for commuting. [73]

(j) (i) Agree that housing need will change over time but it is likely to increase ratherthan decrease. Subsequent revisions of the plan can address future changes inhousing need. This is a strategic policy so it is considered right for it to contain aset figure to reflect the Council's aspiration. [269] [790] [852]

(k) (i) Agree with the objector's point that the requirement to provide affordable housingcan decrease the value of potential sites in Westminster. But, the increase from25% to 30% is relatively small and so the impact of this increase is limited. Otherplanning policies seek to require that land can only be developed for housing totry to ensure that where the value of sites are reduced by the affordable housingpolicy, then sites cannot be developed for other uses. This is to reduce theimpact of the policy in reducing the total amount of housing development inWestminster. The Council has to take a balanced view on this and wishes tomaximise both market and affordable housing and considers that the 30%affordable housing requirement achieves this aim. [82] [485]

(l) (i) Agree with reference to mixed use developments. See policy CENT 3 and COM2 and the new North West Westminster Special Policy Area, which allows forsome commercial development in this part of the City even though it is outsidethe CAZ. [784]

(m) (i) The objector considers that as the GLA study estimated 7,349 new homes for theperiod 2007 to 2016, this should be rounded up to 7,500 with a correspondingreduction in the target 1992 to 2006 of 500 giving a revised total of 14,500 forthis earlier period. The City Council agrees to this change. The objection to the30% target for affordable housing is dealt with in the response to the objectionmade to policy H4. [2]

(n) (i) The City Council has had regard to the balance of other demands for land andbuildings within Westminster and considers that the UDP sets out the appropriatebalance. [376]

(o) (i) Support welcomed. [790] [139] [131] [129] [784] [269] [138]

(p) (i) The GLA capacity study is for the period 1997-2016. The Council's targets arefrom 1992-2016. In 1992-1996 the amount of new housing completed inWestminster was very low and below the annual figure forecast for 1997-2016 inthe GLA's study. This has to be reflected in the City Council's target for 1992-2006. It is not considered that this is contrary to the GLA's study and it would bewrong to adopt the higher level suggested by the objector. [485]

(q) (i) STRA 13 supported. [381]


1.12.1. The Policy is a key one, setting out the aim to protect existing housing and to makeadditions during the Plan period. A number of changes have been made to the Policy as thePlan has progressed, adjusting the targets for new housing and adding a target for theproportion of new housing that should be affordable. These changes, already made or



proposed, wholly or substantially meet many of the Objections and are accordingly endorsed.

1.12.2. The Plan seeks to provide the maximum amount of housing; the relevant targetsbeing minima. There were doubts as to the accuracy of the methodology that had gone intoarriving at the targets, but they were based on the best available information at the time andwill be subject to annual monitoring and review. The figure for the later part of the Planperiod was criticised as being too low. This was based on the GLA’s Housing CapacityStudy, as was the figure for the earlier period, and it was accepted by the City Council thatthis was the result of the identification of only a relatively small number of sites likely tobecome available after 2006 at this time. The expectation was that more sites would comeforward and that this figure could be revised through the review process.

1.12.3. That the provision of housing should also be the priority in the CAZ was seen to be inconflict with the objectives of encouraging commercial development to maintain the WorldCity status. It was suggested that the emphasis on housing gain should be in the residentialareas of the City. This important objective is, however, amply met through other aims of thePlan by which the commercial activities of the CAZ (and beyond it in North-WestWestminster) are permitted to grow and change to meet the needs of the economy. Theprovision of housing is a priority of the Plan for the whole of the City and the residentialcommunities of the CAZ are properly recognised as a part of its mix of uses.

1.12.4. The percentage of the new dwellings which will be sought as affordable at 30%was thought by many to be too low and criticised as below the target of the draft LondonPlan. The reasons for this are gone into at other places in the Report. The City Council’sview that in the circumstances of the City this figure represents a practical balance betweenrequirements and the most that is likely to be achieved is accepted as the best judgementthat can be made. There would be little point in raising the target percentage if its resultwere to deter sites coming forward for development and a lower overall total as well asaffordable housing gain. The Panel Report following the EIP appears to lend support to theviews of the City Council and it may be that the Plan should be revised to take account of thelikely changes to the London Plan.

1.12.5. It is not considered that further modification to the Policy, beyond that alreadyproposed, should now be made.

Recommendation

� R1.12.1 Modify Policy STRA 12 (A-D) and its Reasoned Justification inaccordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST13: A Variety of Housing Types


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association64 Shaftesbury PLC73 London Underground Limited131 Marylebone Association139 Westminster Society141 Burford Group plc269 St James Homes321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association)381 South East Bayswater Residents Association724 Grosvenor Limited



790 The Berkeley Group795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)802 Royal Bank of Scotland Group803 Standard Life Assurance Company


(a) (i) The City Council should set a target proportion of new residential developmentallocated to affordable housing. LPAC has proposed a figure of 43%. The draftRegional Planning Guidance for South East (RPG 9 ) sets the target of 40-42%.At a minimum the City Council should update their new build affordable housingtarget to be, at least, in line with the strategic advice. We believe the City Councilshould go further and set a specific target of 35% of new residential capacitydelivered as socially rented housing, to meet the needs of Westminster residentson low income, and that at least a further 15% of new capacity should bedelivered as a mix of housing type tenures targeted at people on moderateincomes.

(ii) We are confident the more stringent obligation proposed would not prove a futuredisincentive to developing sites for housing purposes. [321]

(b) (i) Paragraph 1.59 indicates that much of the projected increase in households willcome from single people. This suggests that the greatest demand will be for oneand two-bedroom dwellings. The wording of the policy however is inconsistentwith this, in indicating that future demand will include a variety of sizes. Thereshould be less emphasis on the provision of larger scale, family sized, residentialaccommodation. It would be more logical to reword the policy to state that theCity Council will "require a variety of housing types (including a variety of sizesand tenures) as appropriate to meet current and future demand for housing" [64][795] [1] [803] [802] [141] [724]

(c) (i) While the principle of policy STRA13 is supported, the supporting text requiresfurther clarification to state that the policy will not be applied to promote a precisemix of housing types. [790] [269]

(d) (i) The contents of these policies are recognised and sustainable residentialcommunities must be served by good public transport. However, the provision ofmore housing must be balanced with other community needs such as publictransport improvement. [73]

(e) (i) We endorse policy STRA 13 on housing as being particularly welcome. [139][131] [790] [269]



(a) (i) A new paragraph (C) has been added to the policy to include an affordablehousing target to help meet this objection. The indicator of 18,000-19,000affordable homes a year in RPG 9 is for the whole of the South-East. In someplaces this target will be exceeded; in others it will not be met, according to thecharacteristics of each place. The City Council considers that both the 40% and50% targets for affordable housing are too high as they would be likely to makehousing development unviable in favour of commercial uses. This would meanthat the City Council would not meet its housing targets, as less housing



development would take place. If less private housing is provided, this willcontribute to a overall rise in housing prices as the supply of new housing falls,making it even less affordable. The justification to Policy H4 on AffordableHousing explains why the City Council considers that 30% is the appropriateproportion of affordable housing to require. [321]

(b) (i) The policy does not state that the City Council will require a particular type ofhousing, only that it will seek a mix. This mix is detailed in the Housing chapterin Part 2 of the UDP. It is likely that there will continue to be demand for a widevariety of housing in Westminster, from bedsits to family houses. The objector'sproposed wording is not significantly different from the current wording. [64]

(c) (i) Westminster is well served by public transport. Providing more housing withinWestminster will help reduce commuting that will relieve some of the pressure onthe public transport system. [73]

(d) (i) Support welcomed. [139] [131] [790] [269] [381]


1.13.1. The Aim is directed to both dwelling size and type and also tenure. Both aredeveloped in the policies of Chapter 3, Housing. As to type of dwellings, policies protect arange of types, including single dwelling houses in defined parts of the City, hostels andhouses in multiple occupation. Policy H5 seeks one third of units in housing developments tobe family sized, 5% of it to be of five or more habitable rooms.

1.13.2. The objections to this aspect of the policy are considered in Part II, but the point wasmade that as growth is likely to continue to be mainly in single person households, the Planshould accord the provision of smaller units priority. The housing stock is, however, skewedin that direction and if population growth is to continue, and it is anticipated that the increasewill be in all age groups and with only a small reduction in average household size. If the aimfor balanced and sustainable communities is to be realised there is a need to ensurecontinuing provision for the larger household, in so far as this might not be provided by themarket. There was a suggestion that the Policy should be worded to make it clear that theaim was to secure a housing mix appropriate to meet current and future demands forhousing. That being the obvious intention of the Policy I saw little to be gained by changes tothe wording.

1.13.3. Tenure raised two points. The first related to affordable housing and the targetsproposed in the Plan. These were briefly considered in relation to the previous Policy andare considered again in Part II. There are good reasons for their not being lower than isproposed. There are also convincing reasons for their not being higher. The requirement foraffordable housing as a part of the larger housing developments will have an effect on thevalue of land and in turn act on land coming forward for development. The question is one ofbalancing the effect on land values with maximisation of development to ensure the bestresult in terms of affordable housing actually provided. The City Council had determinedthat the higher requirement of the draft London Plan, and that suggested by many Objectors,variously 40 or 50%, if applied to the Plan would in all probability be counter productive, whilethe increase over the adopted plan was likely to be too small to have a seriously detrimentaleffect. This is a matter of judgement and it is considered that the City Council from itsexperience is the more likely to be right.

1.13.4. The second point related to the provision of housing for the large part of thepopulation with incomes too high to normally qualify for affordable housing but who wouldhave difficulty obtaining suitable housing in the market. The Plan has difficulty confronting



this problem and the effect of what can be achieved through the planning system incircumstances such as those of the City are limited. A part of this need will no doubt ofnecessity continue to be met beyond the City’s boundaries. However, the intention tomaximise the provision of housing is a move in the direction of restraining the price ofdwellings. There is also the intention to provide a part of the housing achieved through theaffordable housing policies for key workers, many of whom would fall in the intermediateincome category.

1.13.5. The Policy was supported by many respondents and apart from the changessuggested by the City Council I do not see need for further modification.

Recommendation


ST14: The Residential Environment


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association)64 Shaftesbury PLC73 London Underground Limited104 Consort House Residents Assn.131 Marylebone Association141 Burford Group plc381 South East Bayswater Residents Association730 White Star Line Restaurants759 The Thorney Island Society777 J D Wetherspoon Plc795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)


(a) (i) We object to the use of the phrase ’24-hour city’ which, if repeated often enough,can lead to the gradual acceptance not only of the words but also of the intent oreven actuality. The use is even more regrettable because the Councilrecognises the dangers for residents in the ’24-hour city’ and is doing all it can tosuppress the drift towards as well as the scale of all night activities. If the phrasehas to be used in the absence of a suitable alternative, it should be qualified bysome words to show that the Council is against the move towards all nightentertainment.

(ii) We recommend that you strike out the words “in a trend towards the “24-hourcity” which itself adds nothing to the sense or intention of the paragraph, butwhich if left in would undermine the efforts the Council is making to move awayfrom later and later hours. [381] [131] [104]

(b) (i) Under reasons, para 1.62, last line, delete "and areas": insert "areas and thehealth of their local communities"… [must be safeguarded] [10]

(c) (i) The reasoned justification for this policy suggests that the growth of the eveningeconomy leads to conflict with residential land uses, leading in turn to anunsatisfactory residential environment. This suggestion disregards the fact that



much of the demand for residential accommodation in areas like Soho andCovent Garden is from people for whom the vibrant 24-hour city lifestyle is one ofthe major attractions for moving to these areas. The expectations of suchresidents of "residential amenity" are inevitably different from those of peoplechoosing to live in more predominantly residential parts of Central London. Thisfactor should be acknowledged in relation to residential amenity in the CAZ. [64][795] [141]

(d) (i) The reasoned justification should make clear that areas such as Soho haveevolved as prime residential areas, notwithstanding the evening economy. Aproper balance needs to be struck and it should not be assumed that thepotential for conflict is as widespread as the text suggests. [1]

(e) (i) The contents of these policies are recognised and sustainable residentialcommunities must be served by good public transport. However, the provision ofmore housing must be balanced with other community needs such as publictransport improvement. [73]

(f) (i) Para 1.62 identifies the “24 hour city” and late night entertainment as bringing theincreased number of residents in the City and the CAZ into conflict withentertainment uses. But the presence of these uses in the CAZ is itself anattraction to residents, and due weight should be given to this. [730]

(g) (i) The Thorney Island Society welcomes the statement that the amenity ofresidents must be safeguarded (para 1.62). [759]


(a) (i) The reference to 24 hour City has been deleted.[381]

(b) (i) Extensive references to health have been added to Part 1 and the Social andCommunity Facilities Chapter. [10]

(c) (i) It is not considered that paragraph 1.62 is either misleading or dangerous. It is astatement of fact that recognises that care must be given to maintaining asustainable residential population. [131] [381] [104]

(d) (i) While areas such as Soho have evolved as 'prime residential areas', many areasin the CAZ and West End have long established residential populations that arenot able to move. It is also true that entertainment uses have long beencharacteristic of these areas: what has changed is the number, concentrationand late night opening of such uses. This is reflected in the area descriptions inChapter 1, in the SPG note on CAZ sub-areas, and in the new Tourism, Arts,Culture and Entertainment Chapter. Paragraph 1.62 states that "The increase inthe numbers of residents living in the City, and in the CAZ in particular, hasadded to the potential for conflict. While the City Council acknowledges the needfor a range of entertainment facilities, the amenity of residents and areas must besafeguarded." [64] [795] [1]

(e) (i) The Council has long supported improvements to the public transport system inthe City. Policies in the Transport Chapter support, for example, CrossRail, theChelsea-Hackney line and bus and Underground improvements. [73]

(f) (i) It is not considered that the detailed elements in Part 2 of the UDP underminethe aims in Part 1. The Plan seeks a balanced approach to development in



Westminster and, through the changes made post-First Deposit, results in a UDPthat provides a vision for Westminster as the centre of a capital city of worldimportance and as a place where people live. The table after paragraph 1.11asets out how Westminster contributes to London as a 'world city'. It is based onthe Mayor's definition of a world city contained in “Towards the London Plan”, theinitial proposals for the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy. Although it isrecognised that differing levels of amenity will exist between, for example, Sohoand St. John's Wood, this does not mean to say that an acceptable level ofamenity is appropriate throughout the City.

(ii) It is not accepted that there is a lack of consistency between the draft policieswithin the Plan and it is considered that the Plan offers a flexible approach to“Central London Activities”. Policies STRA 1-3 deal with Westminster's role as aworld and capital city. Chapter 1 of Part 2 deals with Westminster's Central Area,and contains policies for it.

(iii) The draft Policies are contrary to Government guidance, particularly containedwithin PPG6, and do not represent a balanced approach to commercial andresidential activities within the CAZ. [777]

(g) (i) The presence of entertainment uses in the CAZ is recognised and theircontribution to Westminster and London's role as a World City is acknowledgedin paragraph 1.11a. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 in Chapter 1: Westminster's Central Areaidentify entertainment uses as being appropriate non-residential activities for theCAZ. [730]

(h) (i) Support welcomed. [759]


1.14.1. The aim to protect and improve the residential environment and to make the best useof the housing stock is coupled with the priority given to increasing the residential populationof the City and expressed in a variety of ways in the policies of Part II of the Plan. There wasno significant dissent among respondents from the aim. There was criticism that the aim didnot take account of those who find the levels of activity in parts of Central London anattraction in a place to live. Nevertheless, the City Council reasonably points out that thecommunities of areas such as Soho and Covent Garden are often long established, aremixed in their age groups and household make up and even those who may enjoy theactivities of the areas may not wish to live with them all day and night. There is recognitionthat the amenity levels of the centre may not always match those of the more spaciousresidential districts of the City, but an intention to at least maintain an acceptable minimumstandard. This seems essential for the support of sustainable, permanent communities.

1.14.2. There was further criticism that the policies of Part II did not always properly supportthe aim, or were inconsistent with the National planning guidance. These points are returnedto in the later Chapters. The Plan has necessarily to seek a balance between the differentobjectives relating to maintaining the International, National and regional roles of centralWestminster while seeking to increase the numbers who live in the City. As populationincreases there may be greater difficulties in striking an appropriate balance. However, asfar as this aim is concerned there is no reason to make further changes.



Recommendation


ST15: Noise


2 Greater London Authority10 Pimlico FREDA (Residents' Association)73 London Underground Limited91 Tesco Stores104 Consort House Residents Assn.129 Fitzrovia Neighbourhood Association131 Marylebone Association381 South East Bayswater Residents Association698 Abou Zaki Holding Company719 Charlotte Street Association730 White Star Line Restaurants777 J D Wetherspoon Plc


(a) (i) Welcome the Council's revised approach of seeking to introduce city-wideobjective targets for noise reduction, together with objective standards in policiesto contain and control noise increase. However, question whether the aim inSTRA 15 as now recast is realistic. A drastic reduction in noise from all suchsources would be needed to bring noise levels in Westminster below themaximum levels set out in the WHO guidelines. Such a reduction is unlikely to beachievable solely through the powers exercised by the City Council as localplanning authority, or in practice even with central government assistance.

(ii) The City Council has very limited powers to achieve the specified target.

(iii) Suggest that the maximum benefit for all those who live and work inWestminster could best be sought by integrating all emerging strategies, withthe objective of arriving at realistic, attainable, targets for noise reduction inWestminster. In the meantime the Council might abandon the present STRA15aim ("to reduce noise levels … below WHO maximum levels … ") and insteadaim on the lines of: "Mindful of the maximum noise levels set out in the WorldHealth Organisation's " Guidelines for Community noise".

(iv) If the approach above is not acceptable, suggest amendment to the text of theaim: in line 2, delete "below" and insert "having particular regard to". The aimwould then read: "to reduce noise levels in Westminster, having particularregard to maximum noise levels set out in the World Health Organisation's"Guidelines for Community Noise." [10]

(b) (i) One of the greatest contributions to ambient noise is the noise generated by theenormous volumes of people who throng the streets of Westminster until theearly morning hours, particularly in the CAZ and in other localities, where thereare large concentrations of entertainment premises. It is very important that thissignificant source of noise, which can create more distress for the residentialpopulation than background noise from traffic, for example, is not neglected in



any noise strategy, and means must be devised for tackling it. Add at end of firstsentence “as well as by concentrations of people in the street”. [381] [104] [719][129]

(c) (i) Simply 'to reduce' is too broad. Maintain distinction between 'action....for thepurpose of promoting measures to reduce ambient noise levels' (as in the GLAAct 1999) and 'minimising ambient noise' (the ethos of PPG 24). To requireevery proposal to reduce noise is onerous, and likely to conflict with otherdesirable objectives. Reword policy: ”To minimise the adverse impact of noise inWestminster, especially late at night and early in the morning.’ Paragraph 1.63should also be amended accordingly. [2]

(d) (i) Policy still too prescriptive without allowing for the assessment of the individualmerits of each case. [91] [73]

(e) (i) It is wholly unrealistic in major cities such as London to achieve this aim unless itis at the expense of development and transportation. Noise levels throughoutmost of London already significantly exceed the WHO limits. The strategicobjective to achieve WHO limits in Westminster contradicts the more balancedapproach of PPG24. [777]

(f) (i) This policy should be qualified. Noise levels should not have to be reducedwhere they are not causing material harm to any interest of acknowledgedimportance. Rewrite to read “ To reduce noise levels in Westminster, wherenoise levels have been shown to harm any interest of acknowledgedimportance.” [698]

(g) (i) Sources of noise which cause demonstrable harm to amenity should be reducedwhere possible. Indiscriminate reduction of “ambient noise” is not appropriate.[730]

(h) (i) The need to renew and maintain public transport infrastructure can largely onlybe carried out when trains are not in service and this may inconvenience amenityfrom time to time. It must also be recognised that it is often the users of publictransport outside stations, that are a major noise source. Recognise that therewill be exceptions in the aims of this policy. [73]

(i) (i) We believe that no premises should be allowed to emit noise. We also believethere should be policies to counter the already too great ambient noise which isto be found in the Stress areas. [131] [129]


(a) (i) Support welcomed. Accept that it will take some years to reduce noise levels towithin WHO guidelines but believe that it is right to have this aspiration. Do notaccept change of wording suggested. [10]

(b) (i) The City Council recognises the problem of noise in the street, but planninglegislation provides limited means to control this. The Council has thereforeapplied for bye-law powers to control noise in the street. However, the UDPnoise policies at ENV 6 have been extensively revised and strengthened.Paragraph 1.63 now states: "While Noise is an aspect of amenity that particularlyaffects everyone. It also affects residents, workers and visitors. While much ofthe high level of noise in Westminster is generated by transport, including roadand rail traffic, aircraft and water transport, there is an increasing tendency for



noise and vibration music and other noise to be emitted from clubs, restaurants,pubs and bars. This causes problems particularly late at night and in the earlyhours of the morning when residents and visitors are trying to sleep." No furtherchange considered necessary. [381] [104] [719] [129]

(c) (i) Wording of policy has been changed. Wording suggested not accepted. [2]

(d) (i) Disagree. The noise policy at ENV 6 has been extensively re-written and takesaccount of unavoidable circumstances in which some activities have to takeplace at night. [91] [73]

(e) (i) See response (a). Disagree. The aims of the policy reflect GovernmentGuidance and the emerging policies of the Mayor of London. They take accountof the noise climate in Westminster and apply international guidelines. Thepolicies take account of noise problems that are particular to mixed use areasand aim to protect residents and workers from intrusive noise. The requirementsare reasonable, achievable and necessary. [777]

(f) (i) Disagree. The City Council aims to reduce noise across Westminster over time.Each case will, of course be assessed on its individual merits. Revised policiesapply appropriate limits on noise to protect a range of types of noise sensitiveproperties. They take account of noise that is particular to mixed use areas andalso accept that certain facilities have to operate twenty-four hours a day. Thenoise policies make practical provision for the assessment of noise and vibrationeffects of proposed development, so that developers can plan and designdevelopments that are capable of operating within defines and reasonable noiselimits. The policies are considered to be fair, reasonable and achievable. [698]

(g) (i) Disagree. It is considered important to reduce ambient noise over time. Seeresponse (f). [730]

(h) (i) The policy enables hours of working to be agreed with the City Council and willtake account of unavoidable circumstances in which work has to be carried outwhen trains are not working. However, the City Council will ensure that noise atthese times is kept to a minimum. The policy takes into account thesecircumstances. [73]

(i) (i) The noise policies at STRA 15 and ENV 6 have been extensively re-written toensure that noise from developments is minimised and contained, particularly inStress Areas [131] [129]


1.15.1. This Policy and the two policies that flow from it in the Environment Chapter, PoliciesENV6a and ENV6b, have been substantially revised as the Plan has progressed. Thesehave made the policy as a whole more clear and exact in its requirements and has met manyof the objections. The policy now relies on the World Health Organisation “Guidelines forCommunity Noise” and in the Part II policies, in addition, on the advice of PPG24.

1.15.2. It is accepted that the aim of this Policy will not be achieved immediately. This wouldtake time as the various relevant policies are applied. It is said that the Policy does notnecessarily require individual development to achieve noise levels below WHO Guidelines.The purpose is to set a maximum noise level to be complied with in each developmentrelative to existing background noise levels. There would thus be no noticeable increase innoise and noise-sensitive occupiers would be protected. The WHO Guidelines establish the



level of noise in an area so that it can be seen whether development should seek to reduceor, where levels are below the Guidelines, maintain the present situation.

1.15.3. There is in the application of the policy a fair degree of flexibility and cases will remainto be considered on their merits. The policies nevertheless provide guidance to developersas to what will be expected and can accordingly be taken into account in the design. It isaccepted that street noise, traffic and the activities of people are not easily controlled throughplanning powers. In a major urban area there will be localities where this presents particularproblems. In so far as it is the result of activities in those areas, the Plan tackles theproblems through the control of uses or their times of operation, for example by theintroduction of “Stress Areas”. The Plan is not seeking to handicap the necessary works ofrepair and maintenance of highways and railways.

1.15.4. In the revised form proposed at the Inquiry the strategic Policy appears acceptable.

Recommendations


ST16: Crime and Security


2 Greater London Authority73 London Underground Limited131 Marylebone Association159 Queen's Park Estate Society381 South East Bayswater Residents Association


(a) (i) The contents of these policies are recognised and sustainable residentialcommunities must be served by good public transport. However, the provision ofmore housing must be balanced with other community needs such as publictransport improvement. [73]

(b) (i) Add the following paragraph after 1.65:"Because of the number of bogus callers to vulnerable residents, where possiblein new housing applications, electric, gas and water meters to be situated outsidehouses or flats, and for the community safety committee to discuss and decideplans, with the 3 suppliers to eradicating the bogus callers." [159]

(c) (i) We have not yet seen the result of the Council’s research on the subject but areconcerned that there are areas of Marylebone, like the Edgware Road, where thefear of crime results in local people being afraid to use the street and its buses atnight [131]

(d) (i) This policy is supported from a health perspective, because reductions in the fearof crime, actual crime and nuisance, can have positive mental health benefits. [2]

(e) (i) London Underground recognise this as a serious matter so far as travellers on itsservices are concerned and welcomes recognition of this in the UDP. [73]





(a) (i) The Council has long supported improvements to the public transport system inthe City. Policies in the Transport Chapter support, for example, CrossRail, theChelsea-Hackney line and bus and Underground improvements. [73]

(b) (i) The objection raises issues that cannot be dealt with in a land use plan and arenot appropriate to include in the UDP. [159]

(c) (i) Paragraph 1.65 now states "... Following consultation and crime auditing during2001-2002 a new three-year Plan will be published in April 2002. LocalCommunity Safety plans, based mainly on police sector boundaries withinWestminster, have also been developed to support the City-wide plan.Westminster’s Community Safety Plans (1999-2002) and (2002-2005) and theLocal Community Safety plans will be material considerations in thedetermination of planning applications." [131]

(d) (i) Support welcomed. [2] [73] [381]


1.16.1. The City Council’s aim was widely supported and it is difficult to see that at this level itshould be criticised. There was comment that sustainable residential communities as well assecurity require good public transport and that attempts to increase the resident populationneed to be balanced by transport improvements. That was accepted, as was the need forgreater security for users of public transport. While the Plan should make what provision itcan for improving public safety and reducing crime, in accordance with the advice ofGovernment, planning powers have their limitations in this respect. The deterrence of boguscallers seen as a possible topic to include in the policy was a case in point. The City Councilhas made or has proposed to make several additions to the Reasons to augment theinformation contained as to other initiatives that have the same objective as this Policy.

Recommendations


ST17: Local and Community Services


2 Greater London Authority131 Marylebone Association162 NHS Executive London381 South East Bayswater Residents Association711 HCA International (formerly known as PPP Columbia Healthcare Ltd)756 Lloyds TSB Bank Plc765 Mapeley Ltd, Mapeley Columbus Ltd, Mapeley Columbus III Ltd778 Church Commissioners for England




(a) (i) Policy STRA17 deals with Local Community Services and the pre-Inquiry changeat paragraph 1.68a sets out a justification supported by the draft London Plan(2002).

(ii) However, the draft London Plan deals with Community Services under theumbrella of social infrastructure. The precise wording of the draft London Plan issignificant when compared with paragraph 1.67 of the Replacement UDP.

(iii) The draft London Plan states at Policy 3A.16: 'Boroughs in reviewing their UDP'sshould include policies to resist the net loss and enhance the provision of socialinfrastructure including libraries, community halls and cemeteries'. The draftReplacement UDP at paragraph 1.67 quotes car repair workshops as a ‘localcommunity service.’ It is difficult to see how the inclusion of this type of use issupported by the Mayor's draft London Plan. Such a use is not part of the socialinfrastructure of a community. The replacement UDP should follow the Mayor'sdefinition and be amended accordingly. [778]

(b) (i) The strategic policy needs to do more than “protect and sustain” appropriate andaccessible community uses. The policy should positively encourage the provisionand expansion of these services where they provide both a local function and, inthe case of the main Central London private hospitals, provide a significantcontribution to the character and economic functioning of Central London. [711]

(c) (i) The objectors consider that this policy should recognise that constantly changingdemand for local community facilities and shops. Such facilities should notcontinue be protected where there is lack of demand and where retail use cannotbe carried on viably. [765] [756]

(d) (i) Support, so that Westminster can be sustainable as a residential community.[131]

(e) (i) We support the reasons, especially paras 1.67 and 1.73. It should be noted(para 1.67) that local community services may also include certain light industrialactivities (e.g. car repair workshops). [381]

(f) (i) We fully support this draft Policy as it reflects one of the aims of the NHS, namelyto protect and sustain an appropriate and accessible range of communityfacilities to meet the needs of residents, workers and visitors. [162]


(a) (i) Paragraph 1.68a refers to the draft London Plan and quotes Policy 3A.16regarding community services in full. However, Policy STRA 17 applies to awider range of uses, to shops and community facilities. Examples of such usesare set out in paragraph 1.67 of the RUDP as "shops, schools, religiousbuildings, sport, play, recreation, open space, community facilities, healthservices and services like car repair workshops." The City Council considers thatservice uses such as car repair workshops can provide a valuable service to thelocal residential community. The draft London Plan also recognises theimportance of shops and services at Policy 3D.3. [778]



(b) (i) The policy wording now reads “protect and encourage" instead of "protect andsustain". [711]

(c) (i) This policy sets out the strategic approach to local community facilities. Policiesin Part 2, in Chapter 6: Social and Community Facilities and Chapter 7: Shoppingand Services set out in more detail how these policies will be applied whenconsidering planning applications. For example, the reasoned justification topolicy SS1, which resists the loss of A1 uses, takes into account length ofvacancy (paragraph 7.10). [765, 756]

(d) (i) Support welcomed. [131]

(e) (i) Support welcomed. Paragraph 1.67 does state, "In order to build sustainablecommunities it is essential that an appropriate and accessible range of localcommunity services and facilities are provided. These include shops, schools,religious buildings, sport, play, recreation, open space, community facilities,health services and services like car repair workshops…." [381]

(f) (i) Support welcomed. [162]


1.17.1. The Aim is to protect and encourage the range of facilities and services that arenecessary to support the residential communities and the workers and visitors that alsofrequent the City. The Policy takes a broad view of what these services are, including shopsand as well as open space, schools, health services and the facilities often provided at publicexpense often seen as “community facilities”. Mention is made, as an example, of car repairworkshops as of value in this context, and this brought objection that the policy was going toofar, beyond the view of community services taken by the draft London Plan of what is thesocial infrastructure of a community.

1.17.2. The sorts of activities concerned in this Policy are deliberately widely drawn, and indetail are dealt with by a number of policies in Part II. What might be termed the socialinfrastructure is the concern of Chapter 6. Shops and other “commercial” facilities arecovered in other Chapters, the protection and provision where required of local shops inChapter 6. In so far as car repair workshops and similar uses are concerned, the CityCouncil recognises the limitations of it planning powers in relation to the protection of theseuses in Chapter 3, but as with other services of value to residents, etc., states its intention toat least resist losses where the use has a local significance and there are powers available.

1.17.3. Having regard to the Part II policies, it was not my view that there was an intention toresist the changes that are constantly taking place in the demand and provision for the widerange of services this Policy covers. There is recognition that particular services, such asshops, may become outdated or be replaced by others in different locations and if it isreasonably certain that they are no longer required there is facility for different services oruses to take their place. “Protect” is probably the proper word when the aim is to maintain orimprove a level of services as much as individual services that exist.

1.17.4. There was considerable support for the Policy and the City Council made changes tomeet some of the objections. Apart from those alterations suggested by the City Council, Ido not recommend further modification.



Recommendation


ST18: Improving Access to Facilities and Buildings


2 Greater London Authority73 London Underground Limited381 South East Bayswater Residents Association698 Abou Zaki Holding Company807 London School of Economics and Political Science


(a) (i) Object to the deletion of this policy.[807]

(b) (i) This policy is extremely onerous. In some circumstances, it may be so costly tomake access arrangements for people with disabilities that the whole project isjeopardised. The policy should be re-written so that it is more in line with theDisability Discrimination Act, as quoted in paragraph 1.74 of the UDP, that from2004 service providers will have a duty to make reasonable adjustments inrelation to the physical features of their premises to overcome barriers to accessby disabled people. A sentence could be added stating that Westminster CityCouncil will encourage the provision of access for all, particularly for people withdisabilities. [698]

(c) (i) LUL has a policy of providing access to its network for all impaired people, notjust disabled and this policy should extend all such persons. LUL has anongoing programme to provide, where it is able, access to all. Wording shouldreflect access for all, not just disabled.[73]

(d) (i) This policy is supported. Improved access for people with impaired mobilityreduces social isolation and exclusion and benefits health. [2]

(e) (i) STRA 18 supported. [381]


(a) (i) Policy STRA 18 has not been deleted but moved to Policy STRA 25a, under theheading “Ensuring a High Quality Environment”, where it is felt to be moreappropriate as access to buildings and facilities is predominantly a design issue.[807]

(b) (i) This policy sets out the strategic approach to access. Policies in Part 2, inparticular in Chapter 10: Urban Design and Conservation, set out in more detailhow these policies will be applied when considering planning applications. Forexample, the reasoned justification to Policy DES 1, which considers theprinciples of urban design, takes into account the practicality of making buildingsaccessible (paragraph 10.8). [698]



(c) (i) The policy already takes account of access for all: "To ensure that all users andvisitors have access to individual buildings and developments. Particular regardwill be paid to the needs of people with disabilities." [73]

(d) (i) Support welcomed. [2] [381]


1.18.1 Previous Policy STRA 18 has not been deleted but merely moved elsewhere in Part Iand now constitutes Policy STRA 25A. The Policy seems to me to be unexceptionable andis intended to make all form of development accessible to everyone, including the blind, deafor those with other physical disabilities, such as lack of mobility. LUL [73] can scarcelyobject to this Policy since they have most commendably been in the forefront of moves tomake public transport easily accessible to everyone. The only significant planning difficultieswhich are likely to be met in implementing this worthy aim are in the context of listedbuildings. Here the need to safeguard the setting of such buildings is likely to pose physicalproblems of accessibility; these matters are later considered in this report (see TR27).

Recommendations

� R1.18.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 18 (now STRA 25A) and its ReasonedJustification in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST19: Integrating Land Use and Transport


2 Greater London Authority73 London Underground Limited131 Marylebone Association143 Environment Agency162 NHS Executive London381 South East Bayswater Residents Association403 Councillor Barbara Grahame


(a) (i) Whilst this policy is welcome, the policies in Part 2 undermine this policy. Seethe chapter on Transport for specific examples, such as policies which promoteminimum car parking standards, and new car parks. Revisit Part 2 transportpolicies and ensure that all reflect this policy.

(ii) Maximum car parking standards have been introduced at Second Deposit butpolicies relating to more sustainable uses of urban land, reference to car freehousing etc., have not been promoted. [2]

(b) (i) We would want to see further work on transport strategies so as to deliver asustainable integrated transport strategy, successfully linked to London-widestrategies, including the Mayor's strategies. [403]

(c) (i) The principle of integrating land use and transport polices has long beensupported by LUL who have argued for major land uses to be located in closeproximity to points of good public transport accessibility. The plan shouldendorse the location of major developments at such interchanges that would



reduce the need to travel. It would also reduce pressure on other areas so thatother strategic policies would prosper, for example STRA 12-16.

(ii) Text should be amended to indicate a policy that recognises the need to locatemajor land uses at public transport nodes. [73]

(d) (i) We believe that much of London’s problems arise from too few people living nearto where they work. [131]

(e) (i) We would like to be clear about what is meant by a Transport Development Areaat paragraph 1.80. If it means that in certain areas there is the prospect of moreintensive development close to transport hubs, OK. But the other side of the coinis the risk, particularly in the case of the PSPA, that the development, coupledwith new transport service such as the Heathrow Express, will overload theonward transport facilities, especially on London Underground development, wehope, applies (in the ordinary sense of the word) to the transport facilitiesthemselves, as well as to intensive construction in the surrounding area.

(ii) Paragraph 1.82: it is curious that there is no mention of TfL in the first sentenceof the paragraph. [381]

(f) (i) The Agency welcomes any measures to use the planning system to integrateland use and transport to reduce the need to travel and encourages the use offorms of transport other than the private car as this will contribute to achievingsustainable development. [143]

(g) (i) The NHS Executive supports Policy STRA 19 in Part 1 of the draft UDP as itseeks to reduce the need to travel, whilst improving access to facilities andservices, by integrating land use and transport policies in co-operation with otherbodies across London. [162]


(a) (i) This does not appear to be an objection to STRA 19 per se, but is worded as ifthe objector feels that all the transport policies in Part 2 need to be rewritten.Whilst there are one or two specific examples where the City Council disagreeswith the Mayor, for example on congestion charging and minimum residentialparking standards, officers do not believe that, when read in totality, the CityCouncil's policies are contrary to the Mayor's or that they undermine STRA 19 orindeed the Mayor's Transport Strategy.

(ii) Whilst car free developments are not specifically mentioned para. 4.146, in theTransport Chapter refers to "measures to mitigate the adverse effects of creatingadditional demand for on-street parking". One of such measures might bemaking a development car free.

(iii) The objector's specific comments on individual TRANS policies are dealt withseparately under those policies in the Transport Chapter. [2]

(b) (i) The City Council already has its own Integrated Transport Strategy, which isexpected to be reviewed in the autumn, and the Planning and TransportationCommittee agreed the City Council's interim Local Implementation Plan on 19June 2001, for submission to the Mayor at the end of July. The LocalImplementation Plan itself, the first of which will be produced in 2002, is



inextricably linked to the Mayor's Transport Strategy by statute. Paragraphs 1.80and1.81 explain the relationship of these strategies to the UDP. [403]

(c) (i) This is part of what is meant by "integrating land use and transport policies".However, it is accepted that further clarification would be useful. Paragraph 1.80has been amended after "transport" to include the wording "Examples of betterintegration of land use and transport might include major developments beingsited at or close to major public transport interchanges, or the preservation oflocal services such as surgeries, schools and shops in local centres so thatresidents do not have to travel long distances or use cars to reach such services.It might also include the concept of Transport Development Areas (TDAs) where,for example, a more dense development, possibly with less parking than usual,close to transport hubs would be allowed. The City Council has long allowedhigher density developments within the Central Activities Zone (CAZ). The wholeof the CAZ is highly accessible by public transport and the City Council appliesmaximum commercial parking standards. The whole of the CAZ and highlyaccessible areas outside it like the Paddington SPA could, therefore, be said tobe the equivalent of TDAs in Westminster." [73]

(d) (i) Support welcomed and agreed. The UDP seeks to encourage housing andservice uses and facilities throughout the City, including the CAZ, so thatpotential employees can be near to their work and have access to shops,facilities and the extensive public transport network in the City. This is afundamental aim of sustainable development and is carried through all chaptersin Part 2. [131]

(e) (i) Welcome maintained support. With regard to para 1.80, the concept of a TDA isthat more intensive development might be allowed close to transport hubs. Withregard to para 1.82, TfL would be included as one of the "other transportauthorities". [381]

(f) (i) Support welcomed. [143] [162]


1.19.1 Policy STRA 19 of the UDP is admirably succinct and I accept the LPA’s view that thestrategic aim is to improve access by a variety of travel modes whilst restraining the need fortravel and movement. This is elaborated in a number of Chapter 4 Policies, some of which Ihave recommended for detailed modification. Subject only to such modification, my readingof the relevant guidance and strategic policy statements in key documents such as the DETRWhite Paper on Transport (CD 11/8) A Transport Strategy for London (CD 11/16) and,particularly, the 2001 Mayor’s Transport Strategy (CD 5/7) suggests that the UDP is invirtually complete accord with published guidance and the emergent spatial plan for GreaterLondon. It is particularly gratifying that the UDP has been altered to delete critical referencesto Congestion Charging and indeed that the latter appears to have secured some of thetraffic reduction and modal shifts which the UDP itself rightly advocates.

1.19.2 I also note and approve the text changes which the UDP Pre-Inquiry Version nowcontains in order to make more explicit the key interaction between land us and transportplanning and between new development and infrastructure investment. In my professionalexperience, the nexus between these complementary activities has been underplayed in thepast, despite official utterances in its favour. I have little doubt that the UDP will provide astrong vehicle for such integration and my various site inspections throughout the City duringmy preparation of this report indicate to me that much has been achieved in Westminsterover the past few months thanks to the joint and sustained efforts of the City Council, the



GLA and TfL. The sentiments of the Marylebone Association [131] are very much echoed inthe findings of the recent EiP Panel Report in which the principle of greater metropolitanpolycentricity (ie the dispersed joint grouping of places of residence and work) is endorsed.

1.19.3 The need closely to co-ordinate transport and physical development is urged bycertain objectors such as SEBRA [381]. They are particularly concerned that public transportfacilities in, around and onwards from Paddington are suitably enhanced. I find theseconcerns echoed and indeed supported in both Chapters 4 and 5 of the UDP. It was obviousin both my accompanied and several unaccompanied visits to the PSPA that greatimprovements have and probably will continue to be made as between pedestrian and publictransport modes and interchange in order to accommodate what will be significant pressurefrom the locally much increased working and resident population. I venture to suggest thatthis may serve to reassure such amenity societies that development planning can be the keyto urban improvement and regeneration rather than its being viewed in a purely negative lightas it so often is. Their point about onward movement is perfectly valid; the key to this is ofcourse Crossrail 1 which, at the time of writing, seems encouragingly to be slightly moreassured of eventual funding and completion.

Recommendation

� R1.19.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 19 and its Reasoned Justification inaccordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

ST20: Walking, Cycling and Public Transport


2 Greater London Authority 73 London Underground Limited131 Marylebone Association143 Environment Agency161 London Transport Users' Committee381 South East Bayswater Residents Association807 London School of Economics and Political Science


(a) (i) The Committee supports enhancements in public transport provision andacknowledges the substantial benefits that CrossRail and other major schemescould bring to many parts of the area it covers. But it also has some potentialdisbenefits, for example they may encourage long distance commuting and, iffunded from the public purse, take resources from other smaller projects whichmay offer better value for money or have more priority for the Committee. Forthis reason the Committee has, in the past, only offered cautious support forthese projects preferring to judge the project in the light of a coherent strategy forthe whole of the London area. The Committee will soon be taking a view on theemerging Mayor's Strategy.

(ii) Taken together, the policy and reasons imply that these major schemes are selfevidently good value for money and have no downside in terms of opportunitycost. However, it could well be that many smaller transport schemes offer bettervalue for money. We would, therefore, wish to add to para (B) the words in‘where they form part of a coherent transport strategy for London and offer goodvalue for money when assessed against other calls on the public purse by othertransport projects.’ and to add to para. 1.83 ‘the Chelsea - Hackney Line’. [161]



(b) (i) The plan should more positively promote the provision of Crossrail 1 andChelsea-Hackney line.[73]

(c) (i) We believe that this is the only fair way that Greater London’s congestion can becountered. [131] [807] [381] [143]


(a) (i) The paragraph already refers to the need to improve existing services. Withregard to new services, CrossRail and Chelsea-Hackney line are given only asexamples of new lines as is illustrated by the words "such as" which indicate thatthe City Council is not ruling out other links. Nevertheless, the City Council feelsthat these lines, particularly CrossRail, have been the subject of numerousstudies. CrossRail does not need to be justified against other proposals by yetfurther cost-benefit analyses, etc. It needs to be built. [161]

(b) (i) The Plan already promotes them. Paragraph 1.83 specifically states that they are"urgently needed". Paragraphs 4.63-67 and TRANS 5 of the Transport Chapterare also relevant. [73].

(c) (i) Support welcomed. [131] [807] [381] [143]


1.20.1 The LTUC objections [161] are not supported in this instance (but see also TR06)because it is not necessary to promote the interests of specific heavy rail projects such asCrossrail 1 and Crossrail 2. From all the evidence before me, it is obvious that the CityCouncil, like many other Central London authorities are active and enthusiastic proponents ofthese schemes. The purpose of UDP Policy support is primarily to ensure that physicaldevelopment is controlled in such a way as to reflect added levels of accessibility before andafter such infrastructure investment is made. It is right for the LPA to control development insuch a way; it is in my view not right for the UDP to attempt to prioritise one particular line oranother since this is for the GLA and TfL to decide, in the light of probable levels of public orprivate (or combined) investment in all the relevant future circumstances. In the absence ofany objections relating to the supportive travel modes of cycling and walking, it may beassumed that Policy STRA 20 is supported by their respective representative bodies (seealso TR02-03).

Recommendation

� R1.20.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 20(A-B) and its Reasoned Justification inaccordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

ST21: Reducing the Environmental Effects of Transport


91 Tesco Stores131 Marylebone Association138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association295 Port of London Authority381 South East Bayswater Residents Association744 National Car Parks Ltd791 Gerard Livett




(a) (i) Support. [138]

(b) (i) This policy sets out a number of aims, including the reduction in the use of allmotorised vehicles, together with the promotion of the use of engines or fuelswhich cause less pollution and congestion. Tesco Stores Ltd find it necessary toservice their stores from large delivery lorries, which are the only vehiclescapable of replenishing the quantities of goods sold on a daily basis and at thesame time minimising the number of vehicle trips undertaken. When looked attogether, the use of these vehicles is the most likely to achieve the objectives ofthis policy. The policy as phrased does not appear to take these factors intoaccount and accordingly it is requested that the policy be revised to give suchassurances to those necessary central London operators dependent upon theuse of large vehicles. [91]

(c) (i) I welcome a policy that will reduce the environmental effect of transport. Asmotorcycles and scooters are generally more fuel efficient and cause lesscongestion than other forms of motorised transport, we hold that where privatetransportation is to be used, any such policy should favour the use ofmotorcycles and scooters over the motor car. [791]

(d) (i) Objection withdrawn subject to Inspector agreeing to change. We believe theword "promoting" in the third line of this policy is inappropriate as the Council isnot in a position to put forward modes of transport. We suggest the word"encouraging" would be more appropriate. [744]

(e) (i) Policy supported. [131, 295, 381]


(a) (i) Support welcomed. [138]

(b) (i) Do not feel that STRA 21 needs to be amended as this point is alreadyadequately covered in STRA 23, which makes it clear that the City Councilrecognises the need for goods to be delivered and collected. [91]

(c) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been thesubject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges formotorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the highlevel of objections to the Transport Chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. Giventhis motorcycle policies have been written into the Second Deposit version of theUDP. These policies recognise that motorcycles take up less roadspace thancars, but also recognise the environmental implications of motorcycle use, thesafety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting,couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy also covers charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided but will be, at most,proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitationson the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off-street where possible.[791]

(d) (i) Welcome withdrawal of objection. Policy STRA 21 now states "To protect andimprove environmental quality, by reducing the use of all motorised vehicles and



encouraging modes of transport and types of engine or fuel which cause lesspollution and congestion." [744]

(e) (i) Support welcomed. [131] [295] [381]


1.21.1 The first thing to note about Policy STRA 21 is that it is linked with both STRA 22 and23. That is to say that the LPA’s essential aims are to reduce the environmental impact of(vehicular) traffic by influencing, to the extent that land use planning controls can do so, theuse of motor vehicles and their propulsion by non-polluting power sources. The former maybe affected by the location and mix of land uses, the latter is primarily to be controlled byroad traffic regulatory powers, eg by the exclusion or differential congestion charging ofindividual types of vehicle or prime mover. This underlying aim is linked with STRA 22(Traffic Congestion and Road Safety) and STRA 23 (Servicing and Delivery). The latter aimseems to me to be more closely associated with detailed planning control (see TR20) thanthe former (see TR02).

1.21.2 What may well underlie the concern of Tesco Stores [91] is their quite understandableand indeed commendable wish to keep down costs (and also global vehicle movements inCentral London) by the use of large delivery vehicles. Overall, this may well contribute tolowering traffic congestion but the terms of STRA 23 may require the imposition of speed,weight, width, overall length or wheelbase restrictions on vehicles in the interests of effectiveenvironmental management. Such possible inherent conflicts will be taken into account inassessing development proposals and by evaluating traffic management schemes; it wouldnot be right to fetter the LPA’s freedom of action by amending Policies STRA 21-23 or any ofthe relevant Part II Policies (see TR15 or TR20) at this stage.

1.21.3 The objection by Gerard Livett [791] generally reflects those of the Motorcycle ActionGroup (qv) and calls for priority policy protection for the use of motor cycles. The LPA hasgone as far as is reasonable in accommodating this interest group by the suggestedinclusion of Policy TRANS 11A (which I elsewhere support). However, the LPA is not whollysatisfied that the modal shift occasioned by wider use of motor cycles might not be at theexpense of greater use of public transport and I take the view that such increase in ridershipmight not necessarily be wholly in accord with either STRA 21 or 22. I say this because thistendency might increase noise, as distinct from atmospheric, pollution and because theimpact of increased motor cycling on road safety may not be entirely favourable.

Recommendations

� R1.21.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 21 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry versionof the Review UDP

ST22: Reducing Traffic Congestion and Improving Safety


131 Marylebone Association138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association161 London Transport Users' Committee321 SWETA (South Westminster Triangle Association)381 South East Bayswater Residents Association719 Charlotte Street Association724 Grosvenor Limited791 Gerard Livett




(a) (i) The policy should include a specific commitment to the reduction of the volumeof through traffic, including initiatives with adjoining boroughs to achieve thisobjective.

(ii) Modification made at Second Deposit welcome. [719]

(b) (i) Motorcycles cause less congestion than motor cars, yet their presence is hardlyacknowledged anywhere in the draft Replacement UDP. One aim of this policy isto improve safety. Many individuals who need to travel at unsociable hours,especially lone females, perceive themselves as being at less risk of attack whileusing a motorcycle rather than a motor car or public transport. [791]

(c) (i) In the interests of integrated transport there is benefit of a single hub at Victoria.To change this would be a backward step. Delete para 1.87 [161]

(d) (i) The Committee supports policies to reduce absolute levels of traffic and notsimply traffic congestion. Change sub-section STRA 22(A) to read ‘To reducetraffic levels in absolute terms consistent with the LPAC traffic reduction targetsby managing demand and improving public transport, cycling and walking.’ [161]

(e) (i) We accept the City Council’s assessment that there does not exist a suitable sitein Central London for a new single hub coach terminal to serve all London’scoach passengers needs. However the SWETA does not view this as negatingthe value of single hub station for ease of interchange. For this reason wepropose an amendment to para. 1.87:

‘The City Council support the retention of a central hub coach station but to lobbyfor it to work alongside a set of new ‘London Gateway’ coach terminalspositioned near motorway interchanges on the edge of London and immediatelyalongside existing bus, rail and underground stations.’ [321]

(f) (i) The objection to the reasoned justification, especially at Paragraph 1.85, is forthe reasons set out in respect of Paragraphs 1.77-1.81, namely the failure toapply a restraint parking policy to residents and residential development. Wenote the adverse impact of the use of the car for short journeys, such asshopping and school journeys referred to in the reasoned justification.

The Mayor’s draft Transport Strategy states that Victoria Coach Station will bereviewed. The strategy, therefore, puts forward Proposal 4F.17.

“Transport for London will establish a partnership by the end of 2001 to reviewarrangements for coach parking, facilities and terminals. This will build on thework of existing organisations and involve relevant interested parties, includingthe coach industry, boroughs and the police.”

Grosvenor considers that the reasoned justification should not prejudge theoutcome of this review process. [724]

(g) (i) We are concerned that the Mayor’s introduction of congestion charging willheavily increase pollution in the peripheral areas outside the charging zone.These are the residential parts and residents’ quality of life will be compromised.[138]



(h) (i) Marylebone is dependent on St. Mary’s Hospital and the long-ladders from eitherEuston or Paddington’s Fire Brigade. We are concerned that they have to travelon the highly congested Euston or Marylebone Roads (which are likely to getworse if the Mayor’s …… [131]

(i) (i) The objector supported the policy at First Deposit. At Second Deposit theycomment that the last sentence of 1.85 has an air of desperation about it. Theypropose the following changes to this text : after “can do little”, add “on its own”Replace full stop by semi-colon. Add “ the primary responsibility for thesematters rests with central government, the Mayor and the GLA.” [381]


(a) (i) Agree that through traffic needs to be reduced. However, it is difficult for the CityCouncil specifically to reduce through traffic without either causing problems toother traffic that has a genuine need to be in the area, or without simply divertingthat traffic to other areas. The City Council feels that the LPAC figure of 30%-35% is unrealistically high, and it is noticeable that Central Government has notcommitted themselves to a percentage traffic reduction. Nevertheless the CityCouncil welcomes the inclusion in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy of morerealistic targets. [719]

(b) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been thesubject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges formotorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the highlevel of objections to the Transport Chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. Giventhis, motorcycle policies have been written into the Second Deposit version of theUDP. These policies recognise that motorcycles take up less roadspace thancars, but also recognise the environmental implications of motorcycle use, thesafety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting,couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy also covers charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided but will be, at most,proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitationson the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off-street where possible.[791]

(c) (i) The City Council has considered the issues surrounding the hub versusdispersed coach terminal strategy in some detail in studies of its own and inconjunction with London Transport. Its view is clear, that there is no suitable sitein London for a single hub terminal. [161]

(d) (i) Agree that traffic needs to be reduced, and the Transport Chapter refers to this.The City Council feels that the LPAC figure of 30%-35% is unrealistically high,and it is noticeable that central Government has not committed themselves to apercentage traffic reduction. Nevertheless the City Council welcomes theinclusion in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy of more realistic targets. STRA 22(A)has been amended to state: “To reduce traffic levels through comprehensivetraffic and environmental management schemes.” [161]

(e) (i) The City Council has considered the issues surrounding the hub versusdispersed coach terminal strategy in some detail in studies of its own and inconjunction with London Transport. Its view is clear, that there is no suitable sitein London for a single hub terminal. [321]



(f) (i) The revised Second Deposit UDP proposes maximum residential parkingstandards in line with national and regional guidance and advice and the Mayor’sdraft London Plan.

The City Council has considered the issue of residential parking standards onseveral recent occasions, the most recent being on 26 June 2001 when ameeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee reiterated previous decisions.The City Council continues to operate minimum parking standards for newresidential developments. The Council feels that residents will continue to want toown cars and that to provide housing with little or no parking would simply meanthat those cars would have to be parked on-street. On-street residents’ parkingfacilities are already oversubscribed. The City Council has considered the issuessurrounding the hub versus dispersed coach terminal strategy in some detail instudies of its own and in conjunction with London Transport. Its view is clear, thatthere is no suitable site in London for a single hub terminal. [724]

(g) (i) Paragraph 1.81 states “The City Council is opposed to the introduction ofcongestion charging in Central London. It has serious reservations about itsintroduction. The City Council believes that there are other ways of reducingtraffic congestion, which would address those concerns. The policies on trafficreduction are, therefore, closely related to those on public transport, traffic andenvironmental management.” [138]

(h) (i) Not entirely sure what the Association is getting at. Presume this is a message ofsupport for the City Council’s view that traffic congestion needs to be reducedand will get worse if the Mayor’s Congestion Charging proposals areimplemented. [131]

(i) (i) Not considered a duly made objection, as this sentence has not changed sinceFirst Deposit. Support for policy welcomed at First Deposit response. [381]


1.22.1 The objection by Gerard Livett [791] as well as those by the Motorcycle Action Grouphave partly been met by the addition of Policy TRANS 11A, elsewhere endorsed by me (seeTR00). However, the objector implied that certain travellers at “unsocial” hours may prefer touse motor cycles rather than scheduled public transport. This comment rather adds force tothe LPA’s contention and my conclusion that modal switch from cars to motorcycles or frompublic transport to motor cycles may tend to act against the general sustainability aims of theUDP. The safety of public transport users at “unsocial” hours is a key concern of the GLAand TfL, as evidenced by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (CD 5/7). It is the latter’s intentionto develop and maintain a 24-hour bus network (Policies 4F.35 and 4F.15 (ibid)) and itslevels of service and ridership can do a lot to secure public safety. In this context, I cannotsee that Part I Policy STRA 21 need be modified in any way to underline the alleged safetybenefits or other issues that are raised by increased motor cycle use. The question of trafficrestraint by residential parking reduction is not directly germane to traffic safety andcongestion and is considered at greater length later (see TR21-24).

1.22.2 Policy STRA 22(A) would now seem to address the concerns of LTUC [161], which Ishare, that levels of vehicular traffic flow (as well its speed) can and should be restrained bya variety of measures. These include environmental management schemes (eg trafficcalming and the creation of environmental areas and pedestrianisation). STRA (B) wouldappear to support the LTUC contention that movement by public transport, cycling andwalking should be facilitated by similar measures although the added priority to be given tomotorcyclists might not figure in the list of preferred modes implicit in LTUC’s objection.



Since it is reflected in Part II Policy TRANS 11A, I am content to let the proposed alterationstand in the interests of internal consistency in the UDP. Presumably one of the prioritymeasures that might be adopted is the toleration of motorcyclists’ using bus lanes; this wasraised at the Inquiry but I feel unable to endorse it since it is not a land use planning matter.

1.22.3 The question of improved or concentrated coach terminal facilities in Central Londonis one which concerns two objectors to STRA 22 [321, 724]. The specific reference toVictoria Coach Station is dealt with at somewhat greater length elsewhere (see TR06). Myconclusions on that issue are (a) that I accept the LPA’s view that there should not be asingle hub coach station and (b) that there may be better solutions to coach-bus-railinterchange at Victoria than by redeveloping the somewhat awkwardly-sited present coachstation in its particular location. I note that the LPA’s views on coach terminal dispersedsiting and greatly improved interchange gain support from Policies 4F.20-21 (ibid) and I donot believe that any modification of paragraph 1.87 is needed. However, in view of thegrowing importance of scheduled coach travel as a commuter mode, it might be as well toadd “and commuter coach services” to the preferred categories in Policy STRA 22(B).

1.22.4 The subject of the recently introduced Central London Congestion Charging Schemeby TfL and its effects is touched on by several objectors [138,161,381,719]. This measure,which was initially opposed by the City Council (CD 11/3), was introduced in March 2003 andhas evidently been an operational success and to have achieved the broad traffic reductionfigures which it was intended to secure. Such are its operational and environmentalsuccesses, if not its apparent revenue-earning potential, that it looks like being emulated inother cities within Great Britain (eg Edinburgh and Bristol) and possibly extended in itsoperation within Greater London. However, the many references to its operation and effectshave now been deleted from the UDP. In any case, its demarcation and its possible overspilltraffic effects, mentioned by two objectors [131, 138], are matters to be resolved by the GLAand TfL under the current legislation. It accordingly seems both unavailing and unnecessaryto modify Part I of the UDP in response to these objections.

Recommendations

� R1.22.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 22(A-B) and its Reasoned Justification inaccordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP

� R1.22.2 Modify Policy STRA 22(B) by the insertion of the words “and commutercoach services”.

ST23: Servicing, Delivery and Collection


131 Marylebone Association


(a) (i) Care needs to be taken to ensure that collection can be carried out at afrequency which meets the volume of need. [131]


(a) (i) Support welcomed. However, the frequency of collections and the volume ofneed are not land use planning matters suitable for inclusion in the UDP but aremore operational matters for the waste contract. [131]




1.23.1 The nature of the above objection [131] is essentially supportive of the UDP’s aims ofcontrolling the impact of servicing and servicing vehicles, consistent with maintaining theessential functioning of Central London. I accept the LPA’s view that the actual functioningof refuse collection (as distinct from its physical accommodation (see EN10)) is not a landuse planning matter requiring an explicit Part I Policy Aim.

Recommendation

� R1.23.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 23 and its Reasoned Justification inaccordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST24: Parking Control


64 Shaftesbury PLC131 Marylebone Association138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association141 Burford Group plc381 South East Bayswater Residents Association744 National Car Parks Ltd791 Gerard Livett795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)807 London School of Economics and Political Science


(a) (i) The general policy of restraint on traffic in Central London by means of parkingcontrols is consistent with Central and strategic planning policy. No reasonedjustification is given however for not seeking to apply parking restraint toresidential development. This issue is addressed in more detail in objections tothe City Council’s proposed parking standards as set out in Chapter 4. [64] [795][141]

(b) (i) The issue of motorcycle parking is not addressed. Where parking control is to beimplemented, it must be remembered that motorcycles, when parked, require farless space than even small cars. In terms of vehicle use (number of users pervehicle as against space required for parking) motorcycles are generally fivetimes more efficient than motor cars. By promoting the use of motorcycles andscooters and making adequate provision for parking thereof, the City Councilwould be taking positive steps to reduce the weight of traffic using the City'sroads. Public transport, of itself, cannot cope with the level of demand shouldprivate transport not be an option. Motorcycles and scooters provide an efficientsolution given their mobility, efficiency and relatively small size when parked.[791]

(c) (i) This policy is generally supported but there is an objection. Greater emphasisshould be placed on the provision of on street parking places for people withdisabilities.[807]

(d) (i) Objection withdrawn subject to Inspector agreeing to change



It is suggested that the first line of this paragraph should be redrafted to makeclear whether the intention is to reduce the overall level of on or off street publicparking, or both. [744]

(e) (i) Review parking in new developments so as to reduce congestion or pollution.Existing calculations too generous. [138]

(f) (i) Policy supported. [381] [131]


(a) (i) The revised Second Deposit UDP proposed maximum residential parkingstandards in line with national and regional guidance and advice and the Mayor'sdraft London Plan.

(ii) The City Council has considered the issue of residential parking standards onseveral recent occasions, the most recent being on 26 June 2001 when ameeting of the Planning and Licensing Committee reiterated previous decisions.The City Council continues to operate minimum parking standards for newresidential developments. The Council feels that residents will continue to wantto own cars and that to provide housing with little or no parking would simplymean that those cars would have to be parked on-street. On-street residentsparking facilities are already oversubscribed. [64] [795] [141]

(b) (i) The issue of motorcycle (including all powered two-wheelers) policy has been thesubject of much recent discussion, with the on-going trials of charges formotorcycle parking, including the provision of security measures, and the highlevel of objections to the Transport Chapter of the UDP from motorcyclists. Giventhis motorcycle policies have been written into the Second Deposit version of theUDP. These policies recognise that motorcycles take up less roadspace thancars, but also recognise the environmental implications of motorcycle use, thesafety problems they cause and various uses they are put to e.g. commuting,couriers, business use, residents, etc. The policy also covers charging for on-street parking, at a level which has yet to be decided but will be, at most,proportionately less than the charges for car parking, with or without limitationson the length of stay to encourage commuters to park off-street where possible.[791]

(c) (i) The policy already states, "…. Preference will be given to the specialrequirements of residents, people with disabilities and those essential CentralLondon Activities for which the use of private vehicles is necessary." [807]

(d) (i) Welcome withdrawal of objection

Policy STRA 24 on parking control has been amended to read: "To control onand off street parking within the requirements of the traffic reduction policy…."[744]

(e) (i) The revised Second Deposit UDP adopted maximum residential parkingstandards in line with national and regional guidance and advice and the Mayor'sdraft London Plan. [138]

(f) (i) Support welcomed. [381] [131]




1.24.1 The various Policies in Part II that deal with and address the restraint issues of onand off-street parking have been significantly altered in the Pre-Inquiry Version of the UDP.These are mainly endorsed by me but with several further modifications (see TR21-25). I amsatisfied that these modified Chapter 4 Policies, taken together, accord with the emergentLondon Plan and with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. In particular, I recommend thatspecific policy provision be made for so-called “car-free” residential development but thisseems perfectly consistent with the overall aim of STRA 24 and not to require itsmodification. Similarly, I recommend that some flexibility of provision should be made for theconversion of authorised off-street parking from car to motorcycle use, again consistentlywith the overall strategic aim of reducing the impact of vehicular traffic. I accordingly endorsethe inclusion of both off-street and on-street parking provision within the wording of thePolicy. However, in relation to the objection [744] it should be obvious that the essentialstrategic aim is fairly clearly, in the longer term at least, to effect an overall if gradualreduction of off-street provision. This seems to me to accord with GLA policy and is the onlyform of parking provision directly under the influence of land use planning control.

Recommendation

� R1.24.1 Modify Policy STRA 24 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of theReview UDP.

ST25: Standards of Design


2 Greater London Authority104 Consort House Residents Association131 Marylebone Association138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association381 South East Bayswater Residents Association800 Councillor Murad Qureshi


(a) (i) It is acknowledged that Westminster is a densely built up part of London. It isalso recognised that tall buildings are not always the best way of optimising landand transport resources, especially with regard to residential development.However the role of sensitive, high quality tall buildings in optimising density athighly accessible locations should not be dismissed. Some flexibility has beenintroduced into the Part 2 tall buildings policy, but further reference should beadded to the EDAW study and its sieve analysis to justify Westminster’s policy.

(ii) Whilst this policy is welcome, the policies in the Plan which relate to HighBuildings undermine this policy due to their restrictive stance towards them. Thisdoes not result in the sustainable use of urban land, and does not conform withLPAC guidance on Sustainable Residential Quality. Revisit Part 2 policies to fullyrealise this policy.

(iii) Conditional withdrawal: additional text in para 10.23 satisfies previous objection.

(iv) Please note that additional text was added to point 4 of policy DES3 at SecondDeposit. Although this improved the clarity of the policy, it is suggested that itwould be more appropriate to read "is significantly higher than its surroundings



and would seriously conflict with the prevailing character of the area" rather than"is significantly higher than its surroundings and where it would seriously conflictwith the prevailing character of the area". [2]

(b) (i) In attaining the highest standards of design, we should incorporate makingfacilities and space available for recycling in both residential and officeaccommodation. [800]

(c) (i) Supported. [131] [381] [138]

(d) (i) The visual environment sets the framework in which we live. Too oftendevelopers pay insufficient attention to the value of a visually attractive setting inour urban landscapes or streetscapes. At the level of detail we are concernedthat shopfronts and fascias if poorly designed can badly effect the appearance ofwhole streetscapes and a well constructed policy which minimises the risk ofvisual intrusions is to be welcomed. [104]


(a) (i) Further justification and reference to EDAW study and its sieve analysis hasbeen inserted in Part 2.

(ii) Support for policy STRA 25 is welcomed. It is not considered that the policy inPart 2 of the UDP which relates to high buildings undermines this policy. There isno evidence that high buildings contribute more to sustainable developmentprinciples than buildings generally in keeping with existing heights. The UDP hasthe highest density ranges in London and frequently allows development inexcess of these ranges. [2]

(b) (i) Policies on waste at ENV 10 have been extensively revised and now set specificrequirements for storage space for recycling in residential and commercialdevelopments. [800]

(c) (i) Support welcomed. [131] [381] [138]



1.25.1 Policy STRA 25 deals with the UDP’s very general approach to urban design andarchitectural quality. As such, it can scarcely be faulted and I note with approval that most ofthe GLA’s objections [2] have been accommodated by changes to Part II Policies and theirsupporting text. To the extent that they have not, they have nevertheless been consideredby me and are the subject of numerous recommended modifications (see esp UD03). As theGLA correctly points out, additional references ought to have been made to the EDAW Studyand to the preceding LPAC Advice. This has now been done and indeed is included in myown recommendations for the modification of Policy DES 3(A-C). The subject of urbandesign most certainly includes the quality of townscape and this is covered by Policy DES 7,upon which I have made many detailed recommendations as to its modification (see UD07).

Recommendation

� R1.25.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 25 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry versionof the Review UDP.



ST26: Conservation Areas and The World Heritage Site


1 Westminster Property Owners' Association131 Marylebone Association724 Grosvenor Limited744 National Car Parks Ltd795 ISIS (formerly known as Friends Ivory Sime Property Asset Management Limited)


(a) (i) For Westminster to maintain and enhance its vitally important World capital cityrole, it is essential that a proper balance is found between the need to conservethe built heritage of the City, and the need to encourage new, high-qualitydevelopment. For an appropriate balance to be found, taking into account thehigh proportion of central Westminster that is covered by Conservation Areadesignations, the emphasis should be more on conservation than preservation.[795]

(b) (i) The policy should give explicit recognition to the process of change, which isnecessary, especially within Conservation Areas given the extensive proportionof Westminster which is situated within designated Conservation Areas. [1]

(c) (i) Objection withdrawn subject to Inspector agreeing to change

In the first line, the word "and" should be deleted and replaced by the word "or",to reflect the correct statutory obligation under section 69 of the LBCA 1990.[744]

(d) (i) The policy should give explicit recognition to the process of change, which isnecessary, especially within Conservation Areas given the extensive proportionof Westminster which is situated within designated Conservation Areas. [724]

(e) (i) Supported. [131]


(a) (i) The policy seeks to conserve what is important but recognises that changes isnecessary. Paragraph 1.93 reflects this. [795] [1]

(b) (i) The statutory duty with respect to Conservation Areas is that the City Councilshould seek preservation or enhancement of their character and appearance.However, this policy is more embracing, dealing with 'the built and landscapedenvironment of Westminster'. There is nothing wrong in the City Council seekingto preserve and enhance its environment. [744]

(c) (i) The policy seeks to conserve what is important but recognises that changes isnecessary. Paragraph 1.93 reflects this. [724]





1.26.1 Policy STRA 26 does not appear to differentiate between “conservation” and“preservation” as far as development control is concerned. Accordingly, the relevantobjection [795] seems misplaced. The actual words of the most relevant and applicablestatute (s68(1)(a) of LBCA 1990) are: “to preserve [the existing character] or enhance [thefuture appearance]…”. The words in parenthesis are those which may reasonably beinserted in order to apply the statutory test in appropriate cases. “Conservation” is commonlytaken to imply a combination of preservation and enhancement. In ideal situations, bothaims may be secured.

1.26.2 However, in many cases, a hard choice has often to be made; for example where theenhancement of the state or condition of a listed building can only be brought about by thechange of its use. Such enhancement, by way of so-called enabling development (qv CD17/11) may be at the expense of the preservation of the existing character of the building orof the area in which it is located. Accordingly, there is no need to modify the wording ofPolicy STRA 26 in response to any of the relevant objections [1, 724, 795]. However, it isright to replace the word “and” with “or” in the Policy formulation precisely because of thedistinct likelihood of having to make a choice between preservation or enhancement inindividual cases or in the implementation of Chapter 10 Policies.

Recommendations

� R1.26.1 Modify Part I Policy STRA 26 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry versionof the Review UDP.

� R1.26.2 Modify Policy STRA 26 by the replacement of the phrase “preserve andenhance” by the phrase “preserve or enhance”.

ST27: Listed Buildings, Historic Parks and Gardens and Archaeology


131 Marylebone Association759 The Thorney Island Society


(a) (i) Supported. [131]

(b) (i) The Thorney Island Society welcomes the recognition that the need to upgrade,update and restore the City's built environment must not be allowed to destroythe City's historic or environmentally valuable townscape or landscape, and thatthese factors make the City such an attractive location for residents, businessesand visitors. It is vital that this policy is fully implemented and enforced,regardless of whether the affected property is listed or within a ConservationArea. [759]


(a) (i) Support welcomed. [131] [759]




1.27.1 The nature of the single effective objection [759] suggests that there may besituations where the processes of redevelopment or regeneration may be at the expense ofvaluable and possibly historic open space. In view of the existence of many restrictive Part IIPolicies (eg DES 9-12) I find this difficult to envisage. However, in view of the slightly oddand possibly ambiguous wording of Policy STRA 27 and in response to this objection, I shallrecommend an alternative wording by way of modification.

Recommendation

� R1.27.1 Modify the supporting text to Policy STRA 25 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

� R1.27.2 Modify Policy STRA 27(A) to read as follows:

(A) To preserve or enhance listed buildings and their settings, historic parks andgardens and their surroundings and other features of special or local architectural,historic or ecological interest.

ST28: Views and High Buildings


73 London Underground Limited104 Consort House Residents Assn.131 Marylebone Association139 Westminster Society381 South East Bayswater Residents Association403 Councillor Barbara Grahame


(a) (i) We do not agree with a blanket rejection of high buildings

(ii) It should be emphasised that high buildings can bring enormous advantages,especially in terms of regeneration, to some parts of Westminster, can be asustainable use of urban land, can ameliorate transport problems if located attransport interchanges and, if well designed, can add to townscape and notnecessarily be an eyesore if viewed from the Royal Parks. [403]

(b) (i) High buildings can enhance areas and provide a landmark setting appropriate toa World City. Major transport modes provide an appropriate location for highbuildings and which also conforms to LUL’s views on land use and transport asreducing the need to travel and relieving pressure on more sensitive areas. Seealso DES3. Should be amended to recognise positive aspects of high buildings.[73]

(c) (i) Supported. [139, 131]

(d) (i) We agree with para 1.97, insofar as it mentions other views as well as strategicviews. Other views which do not cross the City boundary are also worthy ofprotection: in particular those views from within the Royal Parks which are limitedto trees at their boundary should be protected, e.g. from obtrusive high buildings.[381]



(e) (i) Views from the Royal Parks should also be protected because visual intrusionfrom high buildings would detract from the pleasure everyone derives from beingin a relaxing setting whilst still in the middle of a busy city. Kensington Gardensfor example is a green oasis adjacent to the urban setting of Bayswater andbuildings along Bayswater Road and nearby do not have to be very tall to be anobtrusive distraction. [104]


(a) (i) The policies do not represent a blanket rejection of all tall buildings. There arevery limited opportunities for new high buildings. However, the City Council hasalso demonstrated that it does not intend or desire to impose a ‘blanket ban’ onhigh buildings by its decision to grant consent, in principle, to a building up to100m in the Paddington Basin Area.

(ii) The case for the advantages of high buildings listed is not proven. High buildingsare alien to the prevailing character of most of the City. Views from the RoyalParks need to be safeguarded against obtrusive development. [403]

(b) (i) The case for the advantages of high buildings listed is not proven. High buildingsare alien to the prevailing character of most of the City. [73]

(c) (i) Support welcomed. [139] [131] [381] [104]


1.28.1 Both Policy STRA 28 and the more detailed Part II Policy DES 3 in no sense imply orimpose a blanket prohibition on high buildings. To the extent that there was any divergencebetween emergent London Plan and UDP Policies, this has been largely resolved in the Pre-Inquiry Version of the latter and would be further narrowed by the acceptance of the laterrecommendations I make as to Policy DES 3 modification (see UD03). In recognition of thevarious objections to this strategic Policy, I am inclined to suggest that the word “or” besubstituted for “and” in the first line of the Policy. The reason for this is that there may besituations where the demolition of existing high buildings, in the course of redevelopment,may secure the enhancement as distinct from the protection of the established vistas, thesubject of Policies DES 3 or DES 9. The nature of (modified) Policy DES 3 logically requiresthat either “inappropriately designed” or “intrusively located” high buildings may need to beresisted as a strategic (ie metropolitan) urban design aim. In my view, there is no compellingneed actively to encourage the erection of high buildings since the tenor of the emergentLondon Plan is on their selective siting.

Recommendations

� R1.28.1 Modify the supporting text to Policy STRA 28 in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

� R1.28.2 Modify Policy STRA 28 to read as follows:



POLICY STRA 28: VIEWS AND HIGH BUILDINGS

It is the City Council’s aim:

To protect or enhance important and acknowledged views across or withinWestminster and to resist inappropriately designed or intrusively located highbuildings and other structures

ST29: The River Thames and Canals


113 Ramblers Association139 Westminster Society143 Environment Agency295 Port of London Authority


(a) (i) Objection withdrawn on condition that amended text is submitted to theEnvironment Agency.

(ii) The Agency is pleased that the UDP includes a policy which recognises thestrategic importance of the River Thames and the canals which fall within theauthority’s boundaries. However, the policy should be altered to read:

(A) enhance the character, biodiversity, appearance and environmental…..(B) along the River Thames where appropriate and, in particular…..

(iii) Inclusion of the word 'biodiversity' within the policy will reflect the importance ofthe Thames as a habitat within London. It has often been likened to a wildlifesuper highway and currently supports 116 species of fish and over 350 speciesof invertebrates and forms a vital migratory pathway for these creatures as theymove through their life cycles. The importance the Thames plays in supportingbiodiversity in Westminster and London as a whole and the need to protect andenhance this role should be raised within this strategic policy. Although theAgency encourages public access to the River Thames, certain areas are moresensitive to disturbance than other locations which should be considered as partof any development. The policy should also consider including a statement aboutappropriate and sympathetic lighting that does not overspill on to the foreshoreas this can impact on wildlife. [143]

(b) (i) Policy supported. [113][139] [295]


(a) (i) The suggested text for STRA 29(A) has been added. This policy sets out thestrategic approach for the River Thames, and it would not be appropriate toinclude this level of detail. Policies in Part 2, Chapter 11: River Thames set outmore detailed policies that take account of access and wildlife habitats. Anadditional reference to the impacts of lighting on the Thames has been added tothe reasoned justification in Part 2 for policy RIV 3. [143]





1.29.1 In view of the recent alterations made to the UDP in response to the sole objection ofthe Environment Agency, which I endorse, there is consequently no need or occasion furtherto modify Policy STRA 29.

Recommendation


ST30: The Sustainable Development of Westminster


2 Greater London Authority131 Marylebone Association162 NHS Executive London800 Councillor Murad Qureshi


(a) (i) Whilst this policy is welcome, there are policies in the UDP which relate to highbuildings, housing and transport which appear to undermine this policy. Thisdoes not result in the sustainable use of urban land, and does not conform withLPAC advice on Sustainable Residential Quality. Revisit Part 2 policies to fullyrealise this policy.

(ii) Conditional withdrawal. Part 1 and Part 2 policies have been sufficiently revised.[2]

(b) (i) No clear definitions of what the Council means by sustainable development isgiven. For example whether it will work towards the DETR (now ODPM) workingdefinition or the constant environmental capital rule across air, water and landand further the weight to be given to social equity in environmental sustainability.[800]

(c) (i) Supported. [131]

(d) (i) The NHS Executive supports Policy STRA 30 in Part 1 of the draft UDP as itseeks to achieve sustainable development. One way in which sustainabledevelopment can be achieved is by redeveloping surplus institutional brownfieldsites. [162]


(a) (i) Support for policy STRA 30 is welcomed. It is not considered that the policies inPart 2 of the UDP which relate to high buildings, housing and transportundermine this policy. The policies in Part 2 of the Plan aim to achievesustainable development while meeting the economic, social and environmentalneeds of the City in an integrated and balanced way. There is no evidence thathigh buildings contribute more to sustainable development principles thanbuildings generally in keeping with existing heights. 100% of residentialdevelopment in Westminster is on brownfield land. The UDP has the highest



density ranges in London and frequently allows development in excess of theseranges and accessibility to public transport services in Westminster isexceptionally high. [2]

(b) (i) Paragraph 1.101 states that, "…. The most widely accepted definition ofsustainable development and the one that the City Council will use is ‘ensuringthat the needs of the present are met without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their needs’. (Our Common Future, World Commission ofEnvironment and Development, 1987)." This definition is also given in theGlossary. [800]


(d) (i) Support welcomed. Comments noted. [162]


1.30.1 The single outstanding objection [800] to Policy STRA 30 is in relation to the meaningof the term “sustainable development”. In the light of the LPA’s inclusion of a satisfactorydefinition in the UDP Glossary, I recommend the adoption of Policy STRA 30 and reasonedjustification in their latest revised form.

Recommendation


ST31: Sustainable Design, Construction and Management of Buildings


32 Thames Water Property Limited131 Marylebone Association143 Environment Agency295 Port of London Authority800 Councillor Murad Qureshi


(a) (i) No educational programmes or users' guide of the principles of energy and waterconsumption after the development of environmentally efficient buildings. [800]

(b) (i) Supported. Objectors 295 and 143 particularly welcome water conservation andenergy efficiency measures. [131] [295] [143]

(c) (i) Thames Water support Policy STRA31 and the promotion of water conservationmeasures. However, it is considered that this should be expanded to refer topromoting the use of water efficient appliances as the policy does in relation toenergy consumption. This would accord with Policy INF2 of the draft revisedRegional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9), December 2000 whichstates that "Techniques which improve water efficiency" should be encouraged.[32]




(a) (i) A draft Supplementary Planning Guidance note on Sustainable Buildings hasbeen published and subject to public consultation. A final version will bepublished in March. This provides further information on the principles andpractices of environmentally efficient buildings and includes issues such asenergy and water. [800]


(c) (i) Support welcomed. Comment noted but it is not felt that this level of detail isnecessary in Part 1 of the UDP but is covered in the draft SPG on SustainableBuildings. No further changes considered necessary. [32]


1.30.1 Policy STRA 31 aims to promote developmental sustainability within Westminster in avery general way. The Policy appears to be entirely in accord with the emergent LondonPlan (Policy 4B.6) and is accordingly to be welcomed. Environmental sustainability hasmuch wider implications than the mere disposal and recycling of waste. It is amplified incertain Part II Policies (eg ENV 1-2) which seek to achieve sustainability in relation todetailed proposals for the development of land and buildings. To judge by some objections tothese Policies, it is obvious that matters of the energy efficiency, location, siting andorientation of development are still regarded as matters for technical resolution only throughbuilding regulation. Later in this report, I conclude that planning control has indeed a vitalfunction to play in this regard (see EN02). I accordingly support the inclusion of STRA 31 inorder to link the wider strategic imperatives with detailed UDP Policies for developmentcontrol purposes and hence to provide the framework for later SPG.

Recommendation


ST32: Pollution - Air, Water and Land


131 Marylebone Association800 Councillor Murad Qureshi


(a) (i) No mention of the reduction of CO² and other global warming gases. [800]

(b) (i) Supported. [131]


(a) (i) These issues are covered in the Environment Chapter at ENV 5. [800]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. [131]




1.32.1 There appears to me to be a subtle distinction between pollution of the atmosphereand energy-efficiency. The reduction of carbon dioxide is an important aspect of the latterbut the gas is scarcely a pollutant in the sense that carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxideare. Energy efficiency is covered in the previous Part I Policy STRA 31 and its subordinatePart II Policies. Policy STRA 32 is echoed in Policy ENV 9 which is intended to secure thereduction of air pollution, especially with regard to motor vehicles, by land use Policies anddevelopment control designed to reduce the need for travel and movement. I see no need tomodify either Policies STRA 31 or STRA 32.

Recommendation


ST33: Waste Management and Recycling


104 Consort House Residents Association131 Marylebone Association143 Environment Agency800 Councillor Murad Qureshi


(a) (i) It should be made clear that the Council will not dispose of waste throughincineration for residents.[800]

(b) (i) Supported [131] [143]

(c) (i) Many parts of our city are filthy and uncared for. A policy which endeavours torectify this is essential. [104]

(d) (i) This is a good strategic level statement of aims which have the potential tocontribute to sustainable development and are in line with the Agency’s ownaims. However, the numbering of the paragraph appears to be incorrect as theprevious para is 1.105, making this 1.106. [143]


(a) (i) The Government 'Waste Strategy 2000' makes clear that waste to energyschemes, operated within current stringent standards, are a proper way fordisposal of some municipal waste. This section will be revised to improve clarity.[800]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. [131] [143]

(c) (i) The Waste policy in the Environment Chapter has a section on Clean Streetsand sets requirements for off-street storage of waste, provision of litter bins andbins for smokers' litter. However, street cleaning is a much wider issue than thatof planning policy. The City Council's Civic Renewal programme has cleanstreets as a high priority. The City Council will continue its pursuit for higherstandards. [104]



(d) (i) Support welcomed. Numbering will be amended accordingly. [143]


1.33.1 There appear to be no remaining substantial objections to Policy STRA 33, whichappears to me to be in accord with the directly relevant Policy 4A.1-3 of the emergentLondon Plan. Accordingly, I have no recommendations to make as to further modifications.

Recommendation


ST34: Metropolitan Open Land and Public Open Space


113 Ramblers Association131 Marylebone Association143 Environment Agency800 Councillor Murad Qureshi


(a) (i) This should also cover the squares of Central London and provide access for thesporting community of the City on Metropolitan Open Land. [800]

(b) (i) Supported. [131] [113]

(c) (i) The protection and enhancement of existing open space and the provision ofnew public open space will, even if primarily for public enjoyment have anenvironmental benefit. This is especially true in the case of rivers and theircorridors which are important areas of open space which are often publiclyaccessible and provide an important amenity and ecological resource for theBorough. Support policy. [143]


(a) (i) Policy STRA 34 has been redrafted so as not to distinguish between public andprivate open space. [800]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. [131] [113]



1.34.1 In the course of redrafting the Policy, some oddities and ambiguity have crept in tothe wording. Policy STRA 34 (B) speaks of “(to) enhance….the provision of additional openspace”. This is surely intended to mean “To protect and enhance the existing provision ofopen space and to promote its additional provision”. Accordingly, I shall recommend that thePolicy be modified to ensure clarity of aim and to accord with the corresponding provisions ofPart II Policies (see EN13.0-13.5).



Recommendations

� R1.34.1 Modify Policy STRA 34(A-B) in accordance with the Pre-Inquiry versionof the Review UDP.

� R1.34.2 Modify Policy STRA 34(B) to read as follows:

(B) To protect and enhance the existing provision of open space and to promote itsadditional provision”.

ST35: Nature Conservation and Biodiversity


113 Ramblers Association131 Marylebone Associati143 Environment Agency800 Councillor Murad Qureshi


(a) (i) Support. [800] [131] [113]

(b) (i) The protection of habitats and biodiversity is of vital importance. Also, byreferring to both wildlife habitats and species in general as well as designatedsites reflects the contribution that these areas have to overall environmentalcapacity and biodiversity. However, it would be useful if specific reference towatercourses and their associated habitats could be made either within the policyitself or its supporting text. This would reflect the importance these often linkedareas of habitat have in terms of nature conservation and biodiversity. [143]


(a) (i) Support welcomed. [800] [131] [113]

(b) (i) Paragraph 1.108 now states that "Water is a vital resource, crucial for publichealth, food production and biodiversity. Water consumption is rising by about2% each year in the UK and the City Council will encourage measures toconserve water, prevent water pollution and protect watercourses." [143]


1.35.1. The Policy was supported by most respondents, the objection by theEnvironment Agency [143] seeking greater prominence for the place of watercourses andtheir associated habitats in nature conservation and biodiversity. The City Council addedspecific references to watercourses at two points in the Reasons to correct the omissionwhich is accordingly endorsed by me.

Recommendations




ST36: Monitoring and Reviewing the UDP


381 South East Bayswater Residents Association


(a) (i) In general, support. [381]


(a) (i) Support welcomed. [381]


1.36.1. It is essential that the progress of the UDP, towards the numerical targets it containsand policy goals it establishes, is regularly checked and, when the need arises, the UDP isreviewed and updated. This is a requirement of the advice, and the City Council has chosenthe course of preparing five yearly monitoring reports, augmented by a comprehensive set ofindicators and targets that can show effects at shorter intervals contained in supplementaryplanning guidance. The responses to the Policy were entirely in support of it. Consequently,I have no further modifications to recommend.

Recommendation

� R1.36.1 Modify Policy STRA 36 (A-B) and its Reasoned Justification inaccordance with the Pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

ST37: Taking Enforcement Action


104 Consort House Residents Association113 Ramblers Association131 Marylebone Association138 Westbourne Neighbourhood Association381 South East Bayswater Residents Association719 Charlotte Street Association


(a) (i) Support. [138] [381] [131] [113]

(b) (i) This is welcome, but to be effective it needs to be backed by adequateresources, so as to be able to act swiftly when breaches occur. [719]

(c) (i) This policy is probably one of the most critical and necessary policies in thewhole UDP. The efficacy of any other policy and whether any interested partyabides by the provisions of the UDP depends on the effectiveness ofenforcement procedures and the vigour with which they are pursued at streetlevel. Businesses are driven to exploit the regulatory framework and unless theenforcement team is properly staffed, trained and motivated, the thrust of theUDP will be jeopardised. Enforcement resource levels must be kept up toscratch. [104]




(a) (i) Support welcomed. [138] [381] [131] [113]

(b) (i) Support welcomed. [719]



1.37.1. The Policy has its immediate antecedents in Policy SC16 of the adopted Plan. TheCity Council has discretionary powers to take action where breaches of planning controloccur. It is to be expected that these powers will be used reasonably, but if the objectives ofthe Plan are to be achieved it is necessary to ensure that development takes place inaccordance with its provisions. For this reason I see no objection to stating this among theCity Council’s aims in this Part of the UDP although it must be recognised that powers ofenforcing planning control are very largely discretionary. The Policy is clearly supported byrespondents, who draw attention to the need to devote adequate resources to inspection andenforcement. That is not a matter for the Plan, but with resources limited, drawing attentionto the fact that enforcement action is a high priority in the Plan and that its implementation iswhere the City Council’s resources will be concentrated.

Recommendation

� R1.37.1 Modify Policy STRA 37 and its Reasoned Justification in accordancewith the pre-Inquiry version of the Review UDP.

Documents

greater london authority