Question 15: Solutions to meeting growth challenges, e.g. tall
buildings, lower rise buildings but compromise on standards, or rely on character to inform height/density.
.
2.32 Tall
buildings – answers focussed on the need to meet targets with potential to
contribute to townscape, those not in favour identified them as eyesores,
changing character and perceptions of safety and unlikely to provide affordable
housing with criticism of Wembley Park design quality.
.
2.33 Lower
buildings/ compromise standards – there was little support for compromising
standards which was considered likely to adversely impact on quality of life/
mental health.
.
2.34 Take
account of existing character – this was supported the most but most people
interpreted this as meaning no tall buildings.
How this is addressed in the Preferred Options
Local Plan
2.35 The Plan principally take account of existing character, but recognises
that in accordance with London Plan that a positive strategy and sites will
have to be identified for taller buildings. The Local Plan focuses on providing
‘clusters’ of tall and increased height, whilst removing opportunity for
isolated tall buildings. Lower scale, but taller buildings than exist are identified
for intensification corridors and town centres.
Question 16: Where do you consider are the most appropriate or
inappropriate areas for tall buildings and why?
2.36 The responses to this part were limited, consistent with the general
antipathy towards these types of buildings.
How this is addressed in the
Preferred Options Local Plan
2.37 The approach taken forward is to cluster tall
buildings in highest Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) areas and
those areas where the Tall Buildings Strategy points to such opportunities as
part of a positive plan-led strategy.
Question 19: Should higher density housing in suburban areas with
greater public transport accessibility be through: conversion/ extensions to
existing buildings; infill in spaces between buildings; comprehensive
redevelopment of sites, or other?
2.42
Limited number of responses – positive about reuse of buildings and
comprehensive redevelopment, but negative about infill.
Question 23: Appropriate affordable housing target.
2.50 From the general public there was more
support for the 50% target, although many questioned the affordability of
affordable homes provided. The professionals considered 50% too high and
pointed to the 35% target set by the Mayor as a recognition of this, as long as
viability could still be assessed where lower proposed.
How this is addressed in the
Preferred Options Local Plan
2.51 The Plan is consistent with the Mayor’s
approach of a strategic 50% target but with a viability threshold of 35%
approach. Tenures will be focussed on rented products that even at their
maximum are accessible to those on benefits.
Question
24: Greater flexibility in relation to
on-site affordable housing provision?
2.52 The general public were against this
flexibility as it was likely to polarise communities, developers sought greater
flexibility.
Question
25: Affordable Housing Tenure Split?
2.54 The majority of respondents considered that
there needed to be a mix, with products genuinely affordable and also those
that catered for those working/ wanting to buy. Developers wanted flexibility/
pragmatism on a site by site basis.
How this is addressed in the
Preferred Options Local Plan
2.55 Taking account of the needs and viability
assessment work a preferred local mix that maximises London affordable/social
rent/affordable rented products is prioritised (70%) as a proportion of the
affordable housing but also seek a minimum 30% intermediate (shared ownership/
London Living Rent).
