The improvements are being made as part of the Department for Transport’s Access for All scheme which aims to improve access to railway stations.

980k will be spent on 2 lifts down to the London Overground railway platforms.

All work at the stations will be completed by March 2014.

PDF of all Funding awards
More details on the scheme

Theres a PDF of the questions they’d like answered, but this is what they ask you to answer:

I like the following things most about Blackhorse Lane:

I think the main problems in Blackhorse Lane are as follows:

I think the following should be considered as “Top 3 Priorities” for the Blackhorse Lane Area Action Plan to address:

I think the following sites should be considered for redevelopment as part of the Blackhorse Lane Area Action Plan:

Please return this form by the 25th March 2011 to Planning Policy, Waltham Forest Council, Fir Tree House, Forest Road, E17 4JF

Alternatively, you can email us your comments: planning.policy@walthamforest.gov.uk
There will be further opportunities for you to get involved in the preparation of the AAP. If you provide your contact details, we will keep you informed. Alternatively, you can visit our webpage and check the WFN for upcoming events and attend Ward Forum Meetings.

The Blackhorse Action Group’s AGM is the place  to get things aired and have your say. What do you want action on?  Litter?  Car tyre slashing in Edward Rd? The library?

All these questions and more will be addressed at the Blackhorse Action Group (BAG) Residents Association AGM.
Tuesday 1st December 2009 at 7.30pm
Douglas Eyre Playing Fields Pavilion Centre (MAP)

The agenda will include:
The constitution and invitation to stand for election as a member of the BAG Organising Committee.

What have we been doing?
Reports on what BAG has been doing in the past year, including making a start on setting up a community garden.

What next?
Plans for future activities and your chance to say what you would like BAG to do.

Local issues :
We’ve invited speakers to report on, and answer questions about, what is happening including:
Re-location of Willowfield School
The St James Street library campaign. If the building is not to be a drug rehab centre, what should it be? Re-instated as a local library or what?

There’ll also be:
An opportunity for you to ask questions or raise concerns about other matters affecting our community.

And finally …
It’s an opportunity to meet your neighbours to make friends and join together in making our area of Waltham Forest the place we would like it to be.

A residents group is only strong with support and input from the residents themselves, so please come along and take part even if you can’t stay for the full meeting.

Click here to view the draft agenda. We’ll do our best to stick to timings but these things are never exact.

2009 Agenda

Details on the Performing Arts & Film Centre proposals (PDF)

The school plans to open in September 2011 on the old goods yard and industrial area between Blackhorse Road Station, Hawarden Road and the Douglas Eyre Playing Fields.

Although the proposal was recommended for funding, the council panel criticised the plans saying “the original application did not fully address how the wider community, rather than only the school itself, would benefit from this investment. Supplementary information sought by the panel and provided by the sponsoring organisation demonstrated that this issue will be addressed“.

Here’s an excerpt from the funding request:

“A dual use performance and screening space would have extensive use by Willowfield school. It is not expected that community arts use would be high immediately, but it would grow over time with the new facility providing a
stimulus for growth in the performing arts and film making community. At current community arts levels you may be talking about between 10 and 30 productions annually. It is expected that with a venue located near public transport that other schools and colleges would use the venue and for the community arts use to grow, but it is difficult to provide a forecast.

Cultural services also advise that there is a growing creative industry sector developing within the borough especially in the Blackhorse Lane area which would complement a performing arts and film centre at Willowfield School”.

UPDATED (SUN 26th JULY): Back in December Tesco withdrew their plans to replace the Essex Arms pub with a Express Store and flats. A few weeks ago the fences were taken down, and residents have complained that the building has been occupied by squatters.

Many people have questioned why Tesco allowed the site to become so run-down and such a haven for crime, rats, and now squatters.

We spoke to Tesco who promised to take action to remove the squatters. However they noted that once someone is in the property you have to serve notice of eviction, so it may take a while to get them out.

Tesco’s Louise Ford (Internal Town Planner) informed us that the Express store application has now been resubmitted (see below).
At first glance the difference from the withdrawn application appears to be 5 more 2 bedroom flats, as well an increase in height to four storeys. It also refers to a Flat conversion/New Build as opposed to the original plan which stated simply New Build.

Planning application registered: 16-07-2009 (View application)
Flat Conversion, New Build
A mixed use re-development. Construction of part four storey, part three storey building to provide a retail store (approx area 436 sq.m). use class A1 at ground floor and 19 residential units (17 x 2 bed & 2 x 3 bed) on upper floors. Provision of cycle & car parking.

Planning application withdrawn: 27-11-2008 (View application)
New Build
Redevelopment of site to provide (1) A1 foodstore (2) 14 residential units (12 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) (3) 13 residential car parking spaces to rear (4) 10 shoppers car parking spaces to front.

UPDATE: Tesco phoned us back to talk through the delays and their plans for the site.
Regarding the withdrawal of the original plan they said new rules specifying a minimum percentage of social housing meant the scheme became uneconomical in the current climate.  As a result they increased the number of flats but made the majority of them “affordable” or shared ownership.

According to Tesco’s the squatters got in the building when they allowed the council to remove the fences to enable the renovation of the flats behind the Essex Arms.  They say the contractors evicted the squatters from the flats but they simply moved into the empty pub building. Tesco say efforts are underway to remove them from the site.

Timescales are vague at the moment but they hope to have approval within 3 months.

BAG asked if we could publish the plans on this site, to which Tesco initially asked if we were pro or anti the store but added they didnt think it would be a problem. We are yet to receive the plans.  Tesco say that other than the number of flats and the height there are no significant changes to the application (although as the  plans are  not available on the council website BAG cant confirm that).

For those that don’t know the location it’s about a 2 or 3 minute walk up Forest Road from Blackhorse Road tube (or about 0.1 miles). See the Google Street view below (strangely part of Forest Road has been removed from Street View)

View Larger Map

We learned various details about bats and heard their noises on a “Bat detector” which was tuned into the appropriate bat frequency. We couldn’t see any bats as it was dark but the walk over Walthamstow Marshes with an orange moon hanging low over the land was very enjoyable indeed.  We were back outside the pub again at around 10.15 pm.

People must have enjoyed it as Jeanette, our bat walk guide counted the donations of everyone. The grand total came to £37.70.  Thank you everyone for your generosity.

In the future we will strive to organise more public events for residents to participate.

Without any further ado here’s the rest of the news:

LATEST ON THE BLACKHORSE ROAD TOWER BLOCKS

On the back of the comments you made individually and the ones we have passed on, we have had an opportunity to meet members of the council about the proposed 23 storey tower blocks to the back of Blackhorse Road. This shows that we are being listened to!

On the 27th August we met Bob Belam (Lib Dem), (Portfolio Holder for Environment and Regeneration) and John Macklin (Lib Dem), (Portfolio Holder for Service Modernisation and Deputy Leader of the Council) who both seemed eager to hear our views and were sympathetic. On the 3rd September we also managed to meet Terry Wheeler (Lab), (Portfolio Holder for Enterprise and Investment). He stated that the original plan to build vast tower blocks has been shelved.

So if that’s true congratulations must go to everyone who gave their views to us and the council! It doesn’t end there though, a new architect is taking over and new proposals are being developed on which we have no details or assurances over quality, height or ways in which the whole project can benefit the community as a whole.

We have renewed our argument that any development on BHL2 should have mixed facilities for the local community, but we got the strong impression that the Council thinks that very unlikely. So, maybe one battle won but a huge fight still looming.

In addition, we will see new plans to be brought forward to meet the strategy to increase the amount of accommodation available in the Borough. We will keep fighting to be a part of the planning and thinking about them and will keep you posted.

Future meetings are in the pipeline with councillors as well as the developers including English Partnerships and Circle Anglia.

We will continue to put forward residents views at meetings with key players and will provide feedback – and ensure that you remain a part of the action.

NORTH LONDON WASTE PLAN

A new residents group has been set up to stop Waltham Forest becoming North London’s dumping ground. Six new ‘industrial’ sites are proposed, four of these are planned to be in the Lea Valley, and one is earmarked for Blackhorse Road.

There’s a demonstration against the plans on Tuesday the 30th September at 6pm on the Town Hall steps.

Visit Residents Against Pollution for more info and to download some of their very stylish posters.
*The Residents Against Pollution group is supported by the Socialist Party, although RAP have contacted BAG to point out that they are a residents group and not officially linked or funded by the Socialist Party (not that BAG has anything either pro or anti to say about the Socilaist Party!!)

TESCO EXPRESS

Opinion seems divided on plans for a Tesco Express store on the former site of the Essex Arms on Forest Road (2-3 minutes walk from Blackhorse Road tube).

The proposed store would have 9 car parking spaces, secure bays for 14 bikes and would be open between 7am and 11pm.

Debate has raged over whether this will decimate local business’s and destroy diversity or whether it’s actually a good use of a derelict site.

Visit here for more information and to give us your views.

LONG LIVE THE STANDARD

The Standard Music Venue has been given a temporary reprieve from the bulldozer. Developers have reportedly shelved the scheme, due to the slowdown in the housing market. There is however an agreement to buy in place that gives them the right to return to the deal whenever the housing market recovers.

Read more here.

SAVE OUR STOW

BAG found some old Walthamstow Dogs footage from 1937, 1968 and 1986 down the back of the sofa so we’ve put together a 30 minute video tribute to “The Stow” through the ages.

Watch “The Soul of Walthamstow: 75 years of ‘The Stow’” here.

The latest news is that representatives of Save Our Stow have met with housing developers L&Q.

L&Q issued the following press release:

L&Q acting on behalf of the above consortium met with the SOS consortium on the 17th September.

This was not, as has been reported, a meeting to negotiate the sale of the land. No deal has been agreed between us and the SOS consortium. Instead this meeting was an opportunity for the SOS consortium to actually introduce themselves, for them to present a more detailed business proposal and to provide evidence that funds are available for any proposed purchase. The proposal received on the 23rd July was far too brief to be considered.

Following this meeting we are now able to look at their proposal and give it our full consideration. Once a decision has been made we will contact the SOS consortium directly. As this is a private business matter until a decision has been reached we have no further comment with regards to the proposal.

VICTORIA STILL EARLY TO BED

BBC London has revealed that early closures on the Victoria Line are likely to continue throughout 2009 after a brief pause for Christmas and New year.

Watch the BBC London report including a look at the new trains.

The council wants your views on the Blackhorse Lane re-development, and more importantly who pays for and is obliged to provide what. Here’s what the council says:

“The draft Planning Obligations Strategy for Waltham Forest has now been published for consultation. As part of this there is a specific area based strategy for Blackhorse Lane which sets out how developers will be expected to contribute to the cost of schools, parks, public transport and street improvements through ‘Section 106’ payments“.

Fully understood..? Don’t worry its much less clear than it at first appears!

Essentially building lots of housing is guaranteed (it’s where the money is (or at least was). Everything else like access to green space, improving the night time economy (the council had promised to reprovide The Standard Music Venue), community spaces, etc etc is up for argument over who provides what and who pays.

The Council will charge a set Section 106 contribution for each new residential unit and per new square metre of commercial floor space. BAG questions whether the payment of a tariff will effectively mean that developers will not have to provide ANY infrastructure provision, including community facilities, themselves?

Visit the council site here to submit your views

BAG is also concerned that the first phase of development is for large-scale, high density and exclusively residential proposals. Occupation of this development by up to 1000 new residents will place an unsustainable and damaging impact upon existing infrastructure provision in the area.

The later phases in which community facilities, access and the like are promised currently have no detailed content or proposed timescales. Moreover, the delivery of these other phases could be seriously in doubt in the light of the current economic climate.

With this uncertainty BAG urges the Council to review its brief for the first phase of intensive residential development to ensure it makes a direct contribution to the community by, for example, incorporating a mix of uses and community facilities at street level to meet the needs of both existing and new residents. This is the only way the council can meet its own statement here:

“Effective methods of funding these physical and social infrastructure requirements are needed particularly to make sure that they are in place at the very early stages of the development so that new residents can benefit from them and existing residents not be disadvantaged“.

Some facilities which would provide value and services to the community and help to ensure a more sustainable development could be commercial or privately funded (e.g. shops, cafes, nurseries and creches, local small business or workshop opportunities), possibly with publicly-funded subsidies for local users or subsidised rents for marginal start-up businesses. Would the payment of the tariff preclude such provision as all the infrastructure would effectively be Council-owned, supplied and managed?

Does the tariff approach also mean that opportunities to integrate infrastructure (and especially community facilities) into the fabric and construction of a development may be missed, and that monies received will then be expended elsewhere in the area, possibly at a later and indeterminate date, and in ways or at locations that are physically disconnected from development sites, and possibly at greater expense as the economies of scale and integration available during planning and construction will be unavailable?

BAG would also like to see further details on proposals for the assessment of local area infrastructure needs and the likely contribution to these from public funds. In particular the following questions are raised:

What is the brief for this assessment?

What headings / topics will it include?

What methodologies are proposed for the assessment?

Who will carry it out?

What inputs will there be from the local community?

What is the timescale for a) commencement and b) completion of the assessment?

What procedures will be carried out from its initial findings to its formal adoption?

With leaflets winging their way around the area, the first part of BAG’s campaign against the 23 storey (230ft high) tower block at Blackhorse Road is also well under way and we have to say a big thank you to all the appalled and mostly unaware residents who have submitted comments. PLEASE KEEP THEM COMING (see a selection below the form)!

TO STOP A 23 STOREY TOWER BLOCK BEING BUILT AT BLACKHORSE ROAD WE NEED LOCAL PEOPLE TO SUBMIT THEIR VIEWS, ALONG WITH THEIR NAME AND EITHER AN EMAIL OR HOUSE ADDRESS. WE CAN THEN PROVE TO COUNCIL PLANNERS THAT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WANTS MORE THAN JUST HUGE TOWER BLOCKS.
WE WILL NOT CLOG UP YOUR EMAIL OR DOOR MAT WITH JUNK! ALTERNATIVELY BECOME A MEMBER OF BAG HERE.

Here’s a taster of the comments you’ve been sending us (we’ve shortened some to fit. Please let us know if we’ve altered the meaning in any way!):

“I know housing is short,but this is the most stupid thing I have heard for a while…its hideous.”

“I’m especially concerned that there seems to be nothing socially useful to the wider community being planned. we need facilities for the young people, shops, green spaces. somewhere to eat would be nice!”

“It seems to answer a brief that called for the design of a sink estate. It needs to be stopped in its present form and redesigned to reflect the nature of the surrounding houses and neighbourhood.”

“Will be out of keeping with the areas renowned Warner style of two-storey terraced dwellings“

“I will do all that I can to help stop these ludicrous plans.”

“Offers nothing to the existing community. It will put further strain on transport to have thousands more people living in the tower blocks”.

“We simply don’t want to see these monstrosities… huge ugly buildings that will look out of place in this community. We are worried about the additional traffic, both foot and mechanised that will be part of this”

“This is not an acceptable development for the area. Tower blocks are an awful addition… but also have been the cause of much social living discontent, that is why most of them have been knocked down. No logic to this.“

“If this is really what is planned… then this is appalling, and will cause serious problems for the area. How can the plans have gotten this far without addressing the issues of capacity, services etc?”

“I agree with developing the area but only with low rise accommodation (4 stories max)“

“Too many blocks built in a small area and will add to overcrowded transport.”

Please keep them coming! Here’s the Fight the Height Demo on BBC News, for more pics visit our flickr site.

OTHER POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT (CLICK BELOW)
%RELATEDPOSTS%

Do you want the future of Blackhorse Rd to be tonnes of high-rise concrete and more congestion?

The 23-STOREY, 230 FEET HIGH BLOCK is part of a planned ‘super-density’ housing development near the station, with OVER 400 FLATS for up to 1,000 people in 10 TOWER BLOCKS, squeezed into only 1.7 hectares (thats less than two football pitches).

The huge buildings are far higher than any other in the area (mostly two storey Victorian terraces) and will create a precedent for more tower blocks in Walthamstow. It will also add hundreds more people to the rush hour crushes in cars, buses, tubes and trains. There’s also a much larger development planned for the area north of Forest Road, adding even more people and cars to the Blackhorse Rd bottleneck.

TO STOP A 23 STOREY TOWER BLOCK BEING BUILT AT BLACKHORSE ROAD WE NEED LOCAL PEOPLE TO SUBMIT THEIR VIEWS, ALONG WITH THEIR NAME AND EITHER AN EMAIL OR HOUSE ADDRESS. WE CAN THEN PROVE TO COUNCIL PLANNERS THAT THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WANTS MORE THAN JUST HUGE TOWER BLOCKS.
WE WILL NOT CLOG UP YOUR EMAIL OR DOOR MAT WITH JUNK!  ALTERNATIVELY BECOME A MEMBER OF BAG HERE.

BAG WANTS THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE….
…on a smaller scale; less dense; better designed; sustainable; sympathetic to the area; with community spaces, facilities and services; meeting the needs of residents.

WHERE WILL IT BE?

WHY IS IT PLANNED?
The council wants to build 2,000 flats in the Blackhorse Lane area. Over 400 of these are earmarked for the site next to the tube station. Many more flats are planned on the north side of Forest Road.

WHEN IS THE BUILDING DUE?
After an inadequate public ‘consultation’, planning permission may be applied for in summer 08 and building could start as early as autumn 08.

THE OWNER & DEVELOPER
Government agency English Partnerships owns the land. The developer is the Key London Alliance, which is private house-builders Barratt Homes and Inspace, and housing associations Circle Anglia and Notting Hill Housing Group.

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN TO SAY NO TO THE ‘CONCRETE AND CONGESTION’ PLAN AT BLACKHORSE RD

1. TOO HIGH
Developers haven’t learnt from the anti-social, alienating high-rises of the 1960s and 70s. If this 23-storey block gets consent, it creates a precedent for more in the area.
The tower block contradicts what the council has said about taller buildings being: “out of keeping with the character of the area” and “particularly inappropriate”* when they’re close to greenbelt land like the Lea Valley Special Protection Area right next to it!

2. TOO DENSE
Over 2,000 new flats are planned for the Blackhorse Lane area. Over 400 of these are proposed for a small area of 1.7 hectares next to the tube station.  This is much denser than other local housing, and has no significant open spaces.

The proposal is…
3. TOO RESTRICTED
The proposal only includes housing. There are no shops, businesses, communal facilities or usable open spaces for people. This is a recipe for social alienation and anti-social behaviour.
The development will add more traffic to the jams at the Blackhorse Road cross-roads, and swell the crowds on our pressured tube, buses and trains.

4. ADDS TO OVERCROWDED TRANSPORT

The development will add more traffic to the jams at the Blackhorse Road cross-roads, and swell the crowds on our pressured tube, buses and trains.

5. POORLY DESIGNED
The height and bulk of the buildings will tower over the area and local housing. At ground level it will be walled in and used mainly by vehicles rather than as landscaped open space. There are no shop fronts, communal and work spaces, services or other facilities to bring the place alive for local people.

6. SPOILING THE AREA
This is a super-dense bunker. It will dominate the existing two-storey homes nearby and damage the character of the nearby streets.

7. UNSUSTAINABLE
The design is to a minimal level of sustainability for energy efficiency, water/ waste management and countering climate change. This level of sustainability is well below what owner English Partnerships champions on other sites.

*Waltham Forest council’s Unitary Development Plan, March 2006

The Blackhorse Action Group (BAG) is the residents association for the Blackhorse Rd area. We are not a party political group.

OTHER POSTS ON THIS SUBJECT (CLICK BELOW)
%RELATEDPOSTS%

We look forward to hearing their reply to residents concerns. 

Download: Word doc: BAG’s response to developers proposal for BHL2

Feedback from the Blackhorse Action Group

Following your recent second public open evening, I am writing to you on behalf of the Blackhorse Action Group, the Residents’ Association for the area bounded by and including Blackhorse Road, Hawarden Road, Lloyd Road, Cornwallis Road, Courtenay Road, Edward Road, Coppermill Lane, Elmfield Road, Salop Road, Stephenson Road and Leucha Road.

As well as providing feedback on the design, housing mix and traffic plans (as you have requested), we believe that there are two other important issues that need to be addressed: local amenities and community safety and crime prevention. We have covered these as well, insofar as they relate to the proposed development.

We have some major concerns about the proposed development because of the following issues. We do not think that the proposals respond adequately to the vision set in:

• • the Government’s Planning Policy Statements and Guidance;
  • the London Plan; and
  • the London Borough of Waltham Forest’s Interim Planning Policy Framework and UDP.

and because of this do not offer a robust strategy for sustainable development. In addition, we are concerned that little regard seems to have been paid during the open evenings to the views of local residents or to their suggestions and the proposals have been put forward as more or less a done deal.

We sincerely hope that this is not the case and herewith offer our own considerations. We would appreciate it if you could please respond to the questions we have raised.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Chair
Blackhorse Action Group

Read on for full document…

DESIGN

We are starting from the basic tenet of PPG1 which stresses the need for good design to promote sustainable development and the importance of design considerations. It states that the ‘appearance of proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings are material considerations in determining planning applications’ and urges the need for new design to improve the quality of the existing environment. PPG3 sets out the need to ensure that ‘new housing and residential environments are well designed and make a contribution to promoting urban renaissance and improving the quality of life’.

Tower blocks

We are concerned that your plan to build a series of high rise buildings does not offer the level of creativity and sensitivity that is so much evident in the vision put forward in the London Plan and Planning Guidance both at a pan London and local level and does not fully take into account its likely impact on the existing residential area. We would also like to make the point that experience of building high rise developments in previous decades has demonstrated how they can, if the design is not exemplary, and if there is not an adequate infrastructure to support the residents, the centre of anti-social behaviour and become ghettos – no go areas for anyone who does not live in them.

Waltham Forest’s UDP (Chapter notes that environmental conditions in West Walthamstow are ‘less satisfactory’ than some other parts of the Borough and attributes this in part to ‘larger slab and tower block estates’. It recognises in this respect that ‘the environmental problems in this part of the Borough are largely due to traffic, noise, pollution, ‘bad neighbour’ uses and lack of building repair and maintenance.

In contrast to ‘larger slab and tower block estates’, it proposes that the ‘design and layout of all new developments should be of a high standard and be seen as providing a worthwhile contribution to the Borough’s environment. Proposals should pay careful attention to the size, appearance, materials and fine detailing of new buildings and in addition demonstrate an equal consideration to the design and layout of surrounding public and private space’.

As the UDP notes, RPG3 urges London Planning Authorities to give careful consideration to the height, density, scale, massing, bulk landscaping, design and architectural quality of proposed buildings. Paragraphs 8.29 – 8.30 of the UDP (First review 2006) notes that:

‘Waltham Forest is characterised by low rise developments such as two storey terraced houses and shops with two floors above. Most of the taller buildings are blocks of flats and maisonettes built in the 1960s and ‘70s and which are now generally regarded as being out of keeping with the character of the area…..in general the erection of further tall buildings is not appropriate in Waltham Forest.’

The London Borough of Waltham Forest has stated in the UDP that it will not normally allow the erection of buildings or other structures which significantly exceed the height of their surroundings. An exception might be where ‘the development is of high architectural quality and does not have serious disadvantages to its immediate surroundings’. Paragraph 8.31 notes that it is particularly inappropriate to erect tall buildings in or next to Green Belt land or Metropolitan Open Land as this would spoil the open character of these areas. We would add to this that it is inappropriate to erect tall buildings adjacent to the Lee Valley Special Protection Area.

High density at a reduced height

It is our understanding that this site is a Major Opportunity Site as identified by the London Borough of Waltham Forest, but is not in the Opportunity Area (as set out by the Mayor in The Opportunity Area Planning Framework, Strategic Planning Guidance, January 2007). Even if it were, the Mayor has made it clear that high density housing does not necessarily mean high rise blocks. (London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance 2005. Indeed in paragraph 5.4 the guidance notes:

‘Different forms of development can have similar densities. High density does not always mean higher rise development, and there are many studies that explore how high density schemes can provide good quality attractive housing and ensure the most efficient use of land’.

There is an inference in this paragraph that higher rise developments do not mean good quality attractive housing and this is a sentiment we share.

We are keen for your views on how you consider that the proposed development, including now a 23 storey building (higher than at the previous presentation) addresses these issues and how you have responded to the London Borough of Waltham Forest’s policies on high buildings, conservation areas and areas of special character.

High standard of design and architectural quality

In the proposals you have put forward (both on the Green Issues website and in the public displays) you make reference to ‘a high standard of design and architectural quality’. It would be helpful if you could advise in what ways this design and architectural quality is of a high standard.

We would also appreciate it if you could give us details of how you will achieve such high quality standard (including methods and materials. Indeed, in this landmark development we are keen to see that the quality is of the highest standard. In relation to the use of sustainable building practice in the development we are disappointed that developers are only working to achieve Code for Sustainable homes level 3 (on the basis that this is the minimum requirement to attract funding for social housing from the Housing Corporation). For the development to be exemplary, as the LWI suggests it is, we would like to see the development achieving level 5. This has already being achieved in other London Wide Initiative schemes in London.

Physical environment

You state that the development: ‘will make a significant contribution to improving the physical quality of the area, whilst respecting the nature conservation value of its location’  and ‘The form, scale and layout of the development respect the character and amenity interests of the adjoining residential streets whilst making full use of the site’.

Whilst some of the land is not being used, and indeed has been left to deteriorate (pending planning applications as regards the site adjacent to Blackhorse Road tube station), there is an argument that any development will improve the physical quality of the area. However, we strongly dispute the assertion that what is being proposed respects the nature conservation value of its location.

As you know, the adjacent land is a mix of playing fields, green belt land, marshes and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) with a wide variety of breeding species and protected by European Law. We believe that it is fundamental to incorporate this landscape (together with the existing architecture) into any future design plans. We fail to see how buildings that rise to 23 storeys achieve this in a sympathetic way.

Lack of private and defensible space

The ‘Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities’ issued by the Government Office for London in 1996 stressed the need to consider the desirability of private and defensible space. We question the most recent design with what appears to be a brick wall surround, a carpark behind and a concrete podium above. A more attractive frontage of shops and other working and recreational spaces (including shops, cafes and other services) on the ground floor instead of garages would create a safer and more animated environment on the streets. In terms of a layout we believe a better design would be a perimeter block providing a street which would facilitate surveillance with private and defensible space in front of the dwellings.

Economic regeneration

You note that these buildings will: ‘…contribute positively to the area by becoming landmark buildings and by promoting regeneration through improved economic confidence in the area’.

We remain to be convinced of this, and would appreciate further information on how this might be the case. At a time when there is some uncertainty in the housing market, and when little flesh has been added to the bones of the other development plans in the Blackhorse Lane area, we have strong concerns that these buildings will not on their own provide the catalyst for regeneration that Walthamstow so dearly needs.

The London Plan (3.31) notes that large scale residential developments present the potential to provide not only additional housing and related uses, but to create a new sense of place with its own character and identity where people will want to live and work. Overall we very much doubt that the designed concept aims to meet the Mayor of London’s requirement for maximising residential development in sustainable locations.

A ‘sustainable location’ is not simply an area close to a tube station, served by few buses. A sustainable location with a ‘sense of place’ will enable residents to live, work and socialise, there. In order for this to happen, there needs to be a social, economic and service infrastructure in place. Jobs, services, amenities, leisure, culture, work and community spaces are essential to a ‘superdensity’ development such as the one proposed. Your current proposal means that potential residents will have to travel and commute either using private means or public transport to work, shop and go out. A sense of community and neighbourhood will never be achieved in his way. The Mayor, in his Housing Strategy draft announced recently stated:  “We will create communities that are strong, inclusive, safe and sustainable and supported by excellent social, physical and economic infrastructure. We will help to empower residents”

HOUSING MIX

The UDP notes that the current estimated population of 221,000 living in 93,000 households is likely to remain stable and fall slightly over time. However, projections to 2016 suggest that one person households will dominate and this will result in a 22,900 increase in the number of households, giving a predicted total of 115,900.

We understand that the aim is to create 2000 new homes in the area over the next 10 years. The current plans propose:

• 418 units
• 672 HrH
• 46% private
• 18% LWI
• 30% Affordable rented
• 6% Shared Ownership
• 100% lifetime homes.

Proportion of new units in this development

There are a number of issues surrounding the housing mix that cause us concern. We were under the impression that this site was part of a larger development of the Blackhorse Lane area and that as such it would be accommodating some of the 2000 new homes. Given the area concerned, we had not expected that it would be accommodating  over 25% of the new homes. We believe that there is a need to reconsider the extent to which this site CAN accommodate this many homes and be sustainable especially without provision of services, amenities, work and community space.

We would strongly argue for the number to be reduced. In addition, we have serious concerns about the claim made in the IPPF that:

‘the Station Area might qualify for density of up to 450 habitable rooms per hectare and also with reference to  the London Plan that higher densities might be appropriate in urban areas with good access to public transport if low levels of car parking are provided. It also adds that for sites within 10 minutes walk of a Town Centre and with good access to public transport could be suitable for higher densities, of up to 700 habitable rooms per hectare’.

Whilst the proposed development does have access to the tube station and to some local buses, there is a question around the capacity for public transport to accommodate a large increase in the number of residents. We will cover this in the next section.

LWI units

We had understood from earlier discussions that the percentage of housing allotted to the LWI was higher than 18%. We would be pleased to receive any information you have about the projected demands for housing in this area in the coming years as well as any work you have done to identify how you might increase the number of units owned by cooperatives and other types of housing association. In addition, it would be helpful if you could advise which organisations will own the properties that are offered for affordable rent and shared ownership. The previous plans identified more social and less private housing than the current plans. Could you please explain why this has happened?

Number of family homes

The percentage of family homes is only 13% in your plans. Could you please explain the criteria used to decide that that is the proportion of family homes most appropriate for this area? Could you also please provide an explanation of how you arrived at this proportion.?  Additionally it would be helpful if you could confirm that  family homes for this development are at a minimum  3 bed-bedroom flats.

People living alone

The London Plan notes at 3.29 that lifestyles are changing with people working from home and people living alone who no longer require one bedroom flats and bedsits because they need a spare room for visitors, carers and families. It would be helpful if you could please supply the room sizes for  all types of dwellings.

TRAFFIC PLAN AND TRANSPORT ISSUES

Roads

One of the key issues for the surrounding neighbourhood is the impact that this proposed development will have on road, rail and tube facilities in the area.

As far as the roads in the area are concerned, we understand that the plan is to make Hawarden Road one way (with cars not being able to enter the Road from Blackhorse Road). This will mean that cars accessing the BAG area will be forced to use Lloyd Road or one of the other Roads which will increase the level of traffic. Blackhorse Road and Ferry Lane already suffer from severe traffic congestion particularly during the rush hour, but there is a constant flow of traffic throughout the day. We are concerned that this can only increase with the current proposed development and a further 1572 homes planned for the area.

In addition, the plan is to allow 30% parking provision in the proposed development. We are keen to hear how this limit is going to be policed, particularly if a number of the units are going to be privately owned and owners may argue that they need their cars. We are concerned that car owners from the proposed development, unable to find a parking space in the development, will park their cars in the BAG area (on the basis that not all roads in the BAG area are part of the Controlled Parking Zone). This will cause problems for current residents if they are unable to find a space to park their car.

Whilst we welcome the proposal for an on-site car club with membership for all local residents, we would question how this is going to work. It is difficult to be precise, given that we have not been given an indication of what the likely occupancy rate is going to be of the proposed development, but in the event of there being at least 1000 residents and 124 parking spaces, there would appear to be a likely high demand for the car pool. It would be helpful if you could indicate how many people you envisage living in the development and how many cars there will be in the car club.

Two other initiatives you plan to introduce are: ‘Good quality, secure cycle parking for all Scheme residents and visitors’ and ‘Safe, convenient walk links and pedestrian priority in the Scheme’s Home Zone’.

We are keen to see these programmes supported in any development, but have concerns about the security and safety of the area in general (and specifically in relation to theft and personal security) because of the way in which the development has been designed. I will return to this in the Crime section below.

We are also having difficulty in envisaging how these programmes will be inclusive and involve the existing community. We question the extent to which the development will be open to non-residents. The current drawings suggest a quasi-gated community with little access to people outside.

Rail and tube provision

You have noted:

‘With good rail and tube connections to London it is the view of Waltham Forest Council that the Blackhorse Lane is an area with significant untapped potential, adjacent to the wonderful natural resources of the Lee Valley Regional Park’.

The majority of people who use Blackhorse Road station do so for the Victoria Line and not for the overground service. In addition, the overground system does not run into central London. Indeed, many people who do not live in the area change from the overground to the underground at Blackhorse Road. This means that underground is already stretched and with this proposed development (and future plans for more homes) can only become more stretched. As anyone who lives in the area will know, the Victoria Line often suffers from delays and parts of the line being closed (including the section from Seven Sisters to Walthamstow). In addition, last year and this, the line is closing at 10pm each evening for repairs. Any limitations in the service have an enormous impact on the current residents – and this can only get worse when the number of residents in the area increases.

This pressure could lead to a move by an increasing number of residents to either opt for car use or to opt to take a bus. Bus services in the area are already stretched and often held up because of traffic congestion – we would appreciate feedback on how you envisage this working. 

Furthermore, proposals need to take into account further developments in Walthamstow, Tottenham Hale and Seven Sisters. All of these sites are on the Victoria Line which is the only Underground Line. Any discussions about the ability of the Victoria Line to absorb the capacity from this proposed development need to take into account the future demands on the service which will be an inevitable consequence of this proposal and future development.

LOCAL AMENITIES

The UDP notes in Chapter 5, a more equitable, and locally based, provision of services (including education and health) and recreation and leisure facilities should be achieved. Paragraph 5.28 states:

‘There may be opportunities in the development of the Major Opportunity Sites and other major schemes to include community facilities that would otherwise become over-extended or are absent in the surrounding area’.

Impact of proposed development on existing services

We are concerned that the current proposals do not fully address the impact  this development will have on local services (and no attempt has been made within the context of this proposed development to explain how it sits alongside other projects for the other side of Forest Road/Ferry Lane).

We would be grateful if you could provide further information of the projected needs of the proposed residents (including their demography) together with information about what services will be available within easy reach of the development. We would like clarification in relation to:

• Education
• Health
• Leisure
• Community centres
• Religious buildings
• Services for children and young people
• Services for young families
• Services for older people
• Services for people with disabilities

PPG 17 sets out requirements for local sports and recreation facilities and PPS 3 identifies what play looks like within new housing developments.

The Mayor of London’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (November 2005) notes at 5.10 that where a development includes family housing, accessible play spaces designed to meet the needs of younger and older children should be provided, taking account of the projected child population.

We understand from your proposals that you will contribute to improving play facilities and areas that already exist in the locality of the site and are identified for improvement by the LBWF offering improved access to those within walking distance e.g. at Stoneydown Park and Garden or Coppermill Park. We have concerns about the reality of these venues, particularly for young children. A walk from the farthest tower block to these locations may be ill-advised for children who are not accompanied by adults. Without these, however, it is difficult to see where children will play.

COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CRIME PREVENTION

DOE Circular 5/94 ‘Planning out Crime’ states that crime prevention is also capable of being a material consideration when considering planning applications. The need to take into account crime prevention is also part of PPG 3. PPG3 stresses the need to ensure that new housing developments respect and enhance the local character and designs and layouts are safe and take account of public health, crime prevention and community safety considerations.

We are concerned that the current design does not allow people to easily access the development. In addition, the lack of ‘sense of space’ and defensible space will result in residents not feeling a sense of ownership of common areas which will lead to them being neglected and potentially becoming a focal point for anti-social behaviour. There is a risk under the current proposals that there will be a lot of residents who lack the opportunity to access amenities including shops and leisure facilities and could instead become nuisance residents.

Added to this, we are concerned that if many residents are going to be at work there will be potential for criminal activity to take place unnoticed because of the layout of the blocks. 

We understand that there has been recent criminal activity in Stephenson Road where there is a new development. That development is now protected by a security company 24 hours a day. We would be disappointed if this were to be one of the outcomes of the proposed development.

It would be helpful to hear what consideration has been made of crime prevention in this development and whether you have developed a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design strategy. In particular, it would be helpful to know whether (as is recommended in the UDP) you have contacted the Metropolitan Police Service Crime Prevention Design Advisers and what they have contributed.

�