Page 1 of 20

LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST

Title: Lea Bridge Station Sites Public Engagement - Summary report of feedback, November 2018

Directorate: Regeneration & Growth

Contact: LeaBridgeandLeytonConsultation@walthamforest.gov.uk

1. Summary 1.1 This report outlines the public engagement undertaken between December 2017 and

June 2018 to inform the development brief for the three Lea Bridge Station Sites. The three Lea Bridge Station Sites are Council-owned land around the junction of Lea Bridge Road, Argall Way, and Orient Way (see fig. 1). This report captures and summarises the feedback received at different events and meetings with residents, businesses and the local community on the initial proposals for these three sites. These include meetings with the People’s Plan for Lea Bridge Station Sites group.

1.2 The feedback noted in section 9 of this report includes the completed survey forms from the initial consultation period from 2 December 2017 to 24 January 2018 (26 people completed the survey), key points from email correspondence, and notes taken from conversations and comments during subsequent meetings and site visit discussions. Key recommendations and the Council’s response, including actions taken, are included within tables in each section of this report.

2 Background 2.1 The Council is seeking to develop the three Council-owned parcels of land to provide

an improved station entrance and public realm, provide 300 new homes (of which a high proportion would be affordable to those on lower incomes), and introduce new cultural and commercial uses. The development of the three Lea Bridge Station Sites forms part of the wider Vision for the regeneration of the Lea Bridge and Leyton area which was consulted on for six weeks in late 2016 to early 2017 and approved by the Council’s Cabinet in June 2017. The presentation boards displaying initial concept ideas for the three sites are available at www.walthamforest.gov.uk/3StationSites.

Fig 1: Boundary (red) of the three Lea Bridge Station Sites. Blue boundary reflects potential further acquisition

2.2 The Council is at the initial stages of development of these sites and will be

commencing tendering for a development partner towards the end of 2018. Prior to

Page 2 of 20

going out to tender the Council has drafted a Development Brief which is to be used to guide potential development partners in the tendering process. The information provided in this report has informed the Development Brief.

2.3 The initial consultation for the Lea Bridge Station Sites ran from 2 December 2017 to

24 January 2018. Following this initial consultation, the Council presented proposals and answered questions from local residents at the Lea Bridge Community Ward Forums. Two meetings and a site visit were also held with the People’s Plan for the Lea Bridge Station Sites (PPLBSS) – a group formed of local residents from the Lea Bridge area in response to the proposed Lea Bridge Station Sites development. In March 2018 a site visit was also undertaken with the Waltham Forest Citizens group. This report summarises the public engagement activity undertaken, the key themes from the feedback provided, and a summary of responses from the feedback survey.

2.4 Consultation and engagement will continue with several additional opportunities for

the local community to engage in the process prior to the formal consultation required after a planning application has been submitted. A request from the PPLBSS group for a Planning For Real exercise during the procurement process has also been received and is being considered.

2.5 The current indicative timetable for the scheme is as set out in the table below:

OJEU Notice for Development Partner issued November 2018

Competitive Dialogue with shortlist of Bidders March – August 2019

Cabinet appoints selected Development Partner October 2019

Pre application public consultation on designs January/ February 2020

Planning application submitted April 2020

Formal consultation on planning application June 2020

Planning Application determined July/August 2020

Phase 1 start on site January 2021

3. Consultation approach

3.1 The initial consultation period ran from 2 December 2017 to 24 January 2018 and

consisted of four key events:

Saturday 2 December 2017: public engagement event in Sybourn Primary School.

Saturday 13 January 2018: organised site visit to the three Lea Bridge Station Sites.

Tuesday 9 January – Wednesday 24 January 2018: consultation boards exhibited in Lea Bridge Library, with Council officers present from 10am until 8pm on Wednesday 10 January, and from 10am until 6pm on Wednesday 17 January.

Wednesday 17 January 2018, 6:30pm until 8:30pm: presentation at Lea Bridge Community Ward Forum.

3.2 The Council has made a commitment to continuing engagement through a regular agenda item on the development proposals at the Lea Bridge Community Ward

Page 3 of 20

Forum (the most recent presentation was on 5 September 2018) and, in addition, held three meetings (including a site visit) with the PPLBSS on 23 March 2018, 18 May 2018 and 23 May 2018. Further correspondence from local residents has also been received during this period and key issues incorporated in this report for completeness. Further details on the format and attendance levels at each event are outlined below in sections 4 – 8 of this report.

4. Public engagement event, Sybourn Primary School – 2 December 2017

Publicity:

4.1 More than 35 people attended the event on Saturday 2 December 2017. This event marked the beginning of the Council’s public engagement process. The event was publicised through the following means:

A publicity leaflet advertising the event was delivered to c. 4,000 residents and businesses (see fig. 2 for distribution area and fig. 3 for image of the leaflet)

Local community groups, including attendees at the Lea Bridge Community Ward Forum, were sent electronic copies of the leaflet to distribute to members and share through social media.

Notifications on the Council’s social media channels

Local Ward Councillors were informed of the meetings.

Publicity leaflets and posters were delivered in person to local businesses, third sector and community organisations at key sites, including: Lea Bridge Library, Golden Gate Business Park, Lammas School, Lea Bridge Road Mosque, Emmanuel Parish Church and Waltham Forest Resource Centre.

4.2 Some residents reported not being able to attend at late notice. This was a result of

delays in the print and distribution of the publicity flyer with some residents unfortunately only receiving notice four days prior to the event. This was in part due to widening the area of distribution to give as many people as possible the opportunity to engage at this early stage. Other issues included delays from the third party distributer and some attendees misreading the venue location.

Fig. 2: Extended leaflet distribution area (black boundary) Fig. 3: Leaflet, front page.

Page 4 of 20

Format 4.3 The venue and ‘cabaret’ style room set-up suited the event format and accommodated

all attendees. However, some residents fed back that the event should have been held closer to the three Lea Bridge Station Sites.

4.4 An initial draft brief for the three sites had been developed and was presented as part of the early engagement. Presentation boards with key information including initial concept ideas were on display. The presentation started with an introduction from Council representatives (Mark Adams, Regeneration Programme Manager), including clarifying negotiable and non-negotiable parts of the proposals, followed by presentations from BPR Architects (Paul Beaty-Pownall, Managing Director) and AR Urbanism (Amanda Reynolds, Director).

4.5 Questions were asked during presentations and there was also time provided after

presentations for further questions. The event had originally included some time for a visit to the site; however, this was postponed to a later date due to the longer walking distance from the venue and interest in continuing discussions. After presentations and collective questions, there was the opportunity for attendees to revisit the presentation boards and talk in smaller groups and individually with Council officers and the architects.

4.6 Feedback from attendees was recorded through notes taken by Council officers

during the presentations and individual discussions as well as through formal feedback forms completed by attendees in their own time. This is consolidated in section 9 of this report.

4.7 The event format was well received and enabled lively discussion, however group

questions overran and some attendees fed back that they felt that they were not able to speak up and that some questioning became negative.

Attendance 4.8 More than 35 local residents attended the event together with one local business

owner. Attendees were a mix of ages, although predominantly over the age of 30. Genders were represented equally and attendees came from a mix of ethnic backgrounds. There was strong representation from residents of Elm Park Road due to the proximity of the proposed development on Site 2 to their homes.

4.9 Due to the interest from residents further opportunity to provide feedback was given, including a site visit, and the consultation period was extended to 24 January 2018.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

1. Leaflets for future events should be prepared and distributed with more notice (minimum two weeks) to allow residents and businesses to make plans to attend.

Communications for future events will be distributed earlier. The initial consultation period was extended to allow further opportunity to provide feedback.

2. Future meetings should be held at Further meetings were held closer to the

Page 5 of 20

venues closer to the three Lea Bridge Station Sites.

development sites, including two site visits and further meetings in Lea Bridge Library.

3. The Council should consider replicating the event format at future consultation events, but be aware of the need to manage audience participation and potentially only take questions after presentations.

The format for future events is being explored.

5. Lea Bridge Library Exhibition: 9 January – 24 January 2018 Publicity 5.1 E-mail notifications were sent regarding the extended consultation period to all

residents that attended the initial consultation event at Sybourn School, those who expressed interest in engaging in future public consultation on these sites following the initial mail-out, and key local businesses and community groups. Messages were published on the Council’s social media channels and in Waltham Forest News and Ward Councillors notified.

Format 5.2 The presentation boards were exhibited on the ground floor of Lea Bridge Library

during opening hours from Tuesday 9 January to Wednesday 24 January 2018. Feedback forms were available to visitors to complete. Officers were also present from 10am until 8pm on Wednesday 10 January, and from 10am until 6pm on Wednesday 17 January to answer questions from visitors. Library staff were briefed to answer questions at other times if needed.

Attendance 5.3 10 residents spoke directly to officers about the proposals during this process with

valuable feedback being provided. 6. Three Lea Bridge Station Sites site visit – 13 January 2018 Publicity

6.1 This site visit was publicised in the same way and at the same time as the Lea Bridge

Library event noted above. Format 6.2 Officers met residents at Lea Bridge Station for a one-hour tour of the three Lea

Bridge Station Sites. Residents were able to ask questions at each site with their feedback noted and included in this report. This site visit was followed by a short trip to Elm Park Road to discuss specific concerns of those residents.

Page 6 of 20

Attendance 6.3 The site visit was well attended with more than 25 residents. The majority of those that

attended had also attended the consultation event in Sybourn Primary School. A full demographic survey was not undertaken.

7. Lea Bridge Community Ward Forum: 17 January 2018 and 21 March Publicity 7.1 This was publicised in the same way and at the same time as the Lea Bridge Library

events noted above. It was also publicised through existing Lea Bridge Community Ward Forum communication streams.

Format 7.2 Presentation boards were exhibited as people arrived. The Cabinet Member for

Economic Growth and High Streets, Cllr Simon Miller, and officers presented the proposals for the sites and answered questions.

Attendance 7.3 More than 40 local residents attended the forum. A demographic survey was not

undertaken. Recommendations:

Council’s response:

4. Further consultation should have longer notice periods and be mailed to a wider area with stronger efforts to engage with local businesses and under-represented groups.

A public engagement plan is being developed to include opportunities to engage under-represented groups as well as continuing engagement with the PPLBSS. Events and meetings will be added to www.walthamforest.gov.uk/3StationSites

8. Meetings with members of the People’s Plan for Lea Bridge Station Sites

(PPLBSS) - 23 March 2018, 18 May 2018 and 23 May 2018 Publicity

8.1 The meetings were instigated by PPLBSS and publicised to other interested members

through the group’s own channels. Format 8.2 On 23 March and 18 May meetings were held at the Town Hall, hosted by the Cabinet

Member for Economic Growth and High Streets, Cllr Simon Miller, and Council officers. The agenda was set by both members of the PPLBSS and Council officers.

Page 7 of 20

The site visit on 23 May took the format of an informal outdoor meeting from 6pm-7:30pm next to Lea Bridge station. Feedback raised is included in this report below.

Attendance 8.3 Six PPLBSS representatives attended each meeting at the Town Hall. Further

members were not able to attend as the meeting was held during work hours. The site visit arranged on 23 May after 6pm attracted approximately 30 people.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

5. Further consultation should take place nearer to the site and outside of normal working hours so those with other commitments are able to attend.

The site visit was held after work hours in response to this feedback and subsequently more people were able to attend. The Council will ensure future meetings and events take place at a mix of times and within the Lea Bridge ward.

9. Summary of feedback: 9.1 Key issues are summarised under eight headline themes below:

Loss of green space

Impact on local air quality

Impact on flood risk

Height and density

Affordable housing

Social infrastructure capacity

Traffic and congestion

Security and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).

Loss of green space 9.2 14 out of 26 survey respondents stated loss of green space was an issue. This was

also a key concern raised during general discussions including the need to build on all three sites. There was concern about the loss of the ‘pocket park’ on Site 2 which was provided as part of the Orient Way relief road project landscaping.

9.3 There was also concern about the potential encroachment of development on the marshes as part of the wider Lea Bridge and Leyton Vision, with concerns that these developments could act as a ‘barrier’ to accessing the marshes and densification of buildings could reduce the ‘openness’ of the area, impact views, and impact recreational benefits from Site 2.

9.4 Many were opposed to the loss of trees on all three sites, and subsequent impacts on wildlife, air quality, flood risk, and ground stability; plus the ability of replanted younger trees to provide equivalent environmental benefits. The loss of permeable landscaping and trees in relation to flood risk was a key concern for local residents.

Page 8 of 20

9.5 One resident noted that soft landscaping in public and private open space is more difficult to maintain and was concerned that in any future scheme it would not be maintained adequately.

9.6 However, some residents felt that the quality of the existing green spaces is poor and underused in its current state, and would welcome improvements to the public realm as part of the development proposals.

9.7 Maintaining greenery on these sites is an essential part of the scheme to support the

Council’s aims of providing an improved ‘gateway’ to the borough. Some suggestions from residents included incorporating greenery into proposals; setting the development back from the road as much as possible and bringing the landscaping forward; using a horseshoe design (with green space in front of the development) or an ‘L’ shaped block design. Some residents were also open to increasing development height and density on Site 2 to reduce the area of land built on.

9.8 CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England) commented on the early stage

proposals and suggested that current designs left ‘dead space’ alongside the road which could be reconfigured to retain green space behind whilst creating an attractive row of shops and a town centre feel, rather than placing one building in the middle of each site.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

6. Green space provision targets should be included in the development brief and the proportion of green amenity space should be made clear in further consultations. Maintenance of green spaces needs to be considered at an early stage

The Development Brief includes a requirement for publically accessible green space on Site 2 and a requirement for maintenance to be considered at an early stage. The minimum proportion of green space to be provided in the scheme is being considered. A Stage 1 Habitat and Invasive Species survey has also been undertaken with development partners required to consider the recommendations in proposals.

7. Loss of mature trees should be kept to a minimum. Where trees are lost to the development, these should be re-planted elsewhere.

An Arboricultural Survey has been undertaken identifying that there are 122 trees on the 3 sites. The majority (112) of the trees are classified as ‘early mature’; 9 are ‘semi- mature’; and 1 is mature. 95 trees are category ‘C’ (trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm), 12 are category ‘U’ (those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years) and 15 are category ‘B’ (trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years). There are no category ‘A’ trees (trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40

Page 9 of 20

years). The Development Brief requires existing trees to be relocated where possible and replaced if lost. The chosen development partner will be required to undertake their own surveys for detailed design proposals.

Impact on local air quality 9.9 Five out of 26 survey respondents were concerned about the potential adverse impact

on air quality from development and discussions highlighted poor air quality as a key concern. Many felt that development would worsen air pollution due to increased traffic, the ‘street canyon’ effects from tall buildings at this busy junction (and the impact on the dispersion of air pollutants), plus loss of green space and trees which mitigate air pollution.

9.10 There were concerns as to whether the current air pollution levels would be acceptable for future new residents, particularly those on Site 3 next to two main roads and a railway line.

9.11 Some concerns were also raised about the potential air quality impacts from the construction phase of the development.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

8. Air quality impacts should be addressed through the design process and included in the development brief (i.e. incorporate adequate green infrastructure, car free development, and promote sustainable forms of transport)

This development is a Major development scheme therefore a detailed Air Quality Impact Assessment (including detailed dispersion modelling and qualitative construction stage assessment) will need to be undertaken as part of the submission for planning approval. The scheme will be required to meet London Plan requirements for air quality, as the site is located in an Air Quality Focus Area. These requirements have been incorporated into the Development Brief, together with requirements for green infrastructure, low NOx heating, and car free development. Air pollution levels for new and existing residents will be modelled as part of the assessment and appropriate mitigation undertaken.

Impact on flood risk 9.12 Six out of 26 survey respondents raised concerns about increased flood risk and

most of the discussions at the consultation events also focussed on the perception of potential increased flood risk, particularly for those on Elm Park Road where residents stated that there had been issues with the drainage system.

Page 10 of 20

9.13 The Environment Agency flood maps show the flood risk designation for each site is:

Site 1 is within Flood Zone 2 (between 1% - 0.1% annual probability of river flooding; or between 0.5%- 0.1% annual probability of sea flooding).

Site 2 is within Flood Zone 1 (less than 0.1% annual probability of river or sea flooding) and Flood Zone 2

Site 3 is within Flood Zone 1.

Some parts of the sites (to the perimeter are also shown to be within Flood Zone 3 (1% or greater annual probability of river flooding or 0.5% or greater annual probability of sea flooding).

9.14 There is concern about three sources of flood risk: surface water (storm/ rainwater);

foul water (sewers); and groundwater.

9.15 The loss of permeable grass land and trees could increase the rate of surface water run-off from the site in the event of a storm unless design solutions are included with sufficient attenuation (water storage) and controlled release to the sewer network. There were concerns about the immediate and downstream impacts of water flows to other sites and impacts on flood risk ratings. Trees support flood management and therefore the loss of existing trees is causing concern. Green infrastructure also provides water filtration benefits, helping to improve water quality, as well as delivering wider eco-system functions.

9.16 There have been some drainage infrastructure issues in the area, including on Lea

Bridge Road and some of the adjoining streets, leading to concerns about new homes on these sites and the impact this could have on the area sewer capacity. Thames Water’s network capacity postcode checker also identifies that the three sites are located in a sensitive sewer capacity area.

9.17 Concerns about the impacts of the development on groundwater flows and potential

displacement impacts from below ground development and necessary piling for tall buildings were also raised.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

9. Flood risk concerns should be addressed through the design process and included in the Development Brief to ensure adequate drainage is provided.

The development partner will be required to submit a Surface Water Drainage Strategy as part of the formal planning application submission together with a Flood Risk Assessment. The Development Brief requires the developer to provide adequate drainage infrastructure prioritising ‘green’ SuDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) such as green roofs and raingardens (which have wider environmental and amenity benefits) over ‘grey’ SuDS, such as attenuation tanks. The use of SuDS will ensure that loss of open grassed land will not impede the drainage

Page 11 of 20

capacity of these sites and so should not increase flows downstream.

10. The Council should further investigate flood risk, drainage constraints and sewer network capacity in the area before procuring a development partner.

The Council has commissioned a preliminary Flood Risk Assessment to better understand flooding and drainage issues. Recommendations in from the report will be provided to development partners.

Height and density 9.18 17 out of 26 survey respondents opposed proposals for tall buildings on sites 1 and

3. Two residents gave support for high quality tall buildings, but most residents wanted the height reduced from 22 storeys. Reasons included:

feeling that tall buildings were imposing, oppressive and unattractive;

potential impacts on air quality and pollution dispersion;

potential impacts on microclimate, including overshadowing and wind tunnelling;

feeling that they caused an area to feel over-developed and cramped;

potential overcrowding and congestion from high density development;

concerns that they would obstruct views of the marshes;

concerns about fire safety implications;

potential impact on structural stability of existing homes due to deep foundations and piling;

concerns about quality of space for new residents and access to adequate amenity space, in particular Site 3 (bounded by major roads and a railway);

feeling that tall buildings would be out of place amongst predominantly low level traditional suburban housing.

9.19 Concerns were raised about the scheme being constructed at neighbouring 97 Lea

Bridge Road, due to the height of that development and objections made during the planning process. As that development was called a ‘landmark tower’ residents do not want the height of that development to be exceeded by the Lea Bridge Station Sites. Residents suggested that lower buildings could maintain a ‘landmark’ feel through innovative design with some suggestions that low-medium rise buildings (e.g. six storeys) would be acceptable and could blend in with surrounding building typologies.

9.20 Some residents agreed that focussing high density development around transport hubs made sense in terms of promoting sustainable modes of transport. However there were also concerns that transport hubs are not able to cope with the increased demand.

9.21 Some Elm Park Road residents did not want three storey town houses backing on to

two storey terraced houses.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

11. Consider alternative lower level The Development Brief no longer includes

Page 12 of 20

design, taking on board housing need, London Plan density requirements, and viability.

references to the number of storeys on sites 1 and 3 or 3D images showing towers. The two sites are shown as being suitable for ‘medium - tall buildings’ which will allow for different heights. A viability assessment of shorter towers (17 storeys or fewer) on sites 1 and 3 is being carried out. This will need to be balanced against the London Plan density requirements and the new and more challenging borough-wide housing targets set out in the Draft London Plan (requiring the Council to deliver almost 1800 homes per year for the next 20 years). The Mayor of London has significant planning powers in relation developments of this size and height, and will play a significant role in whatever scheme is finally approved. The Council will be stressing the requirement for high quality and exemplar design in the Development Brief which fully considers potential microclimate impacts.

12. Reduce the townhouse heights backing on to Elm Park Road.

The height of the town houses backing on to Elm Park Road has been retained at three storeys as it is considered that this would not significantly increase overlooking and would act as a buffer to the rest of the development on site 2. This could also be a potential location for a community led housing scheme.

Affordable housing 9.22 16 out of 26 of survey respondents identified lack of truly affordable housing in the

borough as a key issue, and showed strong support for including genuinely affordable housing in proposals. Where residents stated they did not support proposals for affordable housing this was because they were either against the development proposals as a whole (rather than the concept of affordable housing), or were sceptical about the Council’s commitment to provide affordable housing, or felt that the Council should aim for greater than 50% affordable housing. Only one survey respondent suggested less than 35% affordable housing was appropriate.

9.23 Conversations during the consultation process showed that most residents were concerned about rising house prices in the borough and wanted genuinely affordable housing, including social housing, rather than luxury apartments or affordable housing aimed at middle-to-high income earners. Some residents suggested that the inclusion of a high proportion of genuinely affordable housing could make proposals more acceptable to the local community.

9.24 Some residents were concerned that tall development will impact on viability (due to

increased construction costs and deep piling) and would lead to reduced numbers of

Page 13 of 20

affordable housing provision and increased costs of the units. There was also distrust of developers and fear that they would negotiate down targets on affordable housing and housing mix in a bid to increase returns on profit.

9.25 A need for affordable larger family homes rather than smaller studio and one-bed apartments (which is the predominant unit size on the nearby 97 Lea Bridge Road scheme) was also mentioned in feedback.

9.26 There was a mixed survey response on whether residents would support community led housing. This may have been because some residents were unclear on what community led housing was. However, there was a desire amongst many residents that the community should be involved in the development of these sites as much as possible.

9.27 Concern was raised about the potential conflict from new residential uses close to existing local employment and industrial uses which might result in the closure of local employment uses.

9.28 Some concerns were raised over potential social division from separation of private and affordable housing on the sites and suggested that it is mixed across all sites.

9.29 Some residents also felt that there should be a proportion of supported housing included within the development proposals.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

13. A viability assessment should be undertaken to include a range of affordable housing and unit size mixes. The housing mix should be carefully considered to accommodate the needs of the borough and those in temporary housing. The viability assessment should also assess any increased costs of tall buildings and impact on affordable housing provision.

Waltham Forest has a target to deliver 1800 new homes per year and applies a target for 50% affordable housing borough-wide, as it is not always achievable on every site. The Council is aiming to achieve a policy complaint scheme which would mean 50% of the homes being affordable housing on this scheme, with 60% of these being social/ affordable rented and 40% shared ownership. The Council is also committed to enabling a wider choice of genuinely affordable housing, as reflected in the 2017 Direction of Travel Document and our support for the Mayor’s Housing Strategy Policy 5.3A supporting community led housing schemes. The Council considers that part of site 2 could be considered for such a community led housing scheme and as such there is a requirement that a component of any affordable housing offer from prospective partners, whether rented or intermediate tenure homes, are offered through a community led scheme, for example, a

Page 14 of 20

community land trust. The Development Brief also includes a negotiable requirement for an element of supported housing.

14. The Council should access additional government support for affordable housing provision where possible.

The £26m funding available for social rent accommodation from the Mayor cannot be used on these sites because it is not at the right stage of development to be eligible for funding - schemes must be at the Planning stage. The Council has 11 identified schemes (totalling 525 social rental units) to access this funding and intends to access future pots of funding where available.

15. The Council should provide an explanation of what community led housing is at future consultation events.

An explanation will be provided at future events and also under the Frequently Asked Questions section of the website.

16. The Development Brief should include a requirement to understand the noise impacts from local businesses and design appropriate mitigation to ensure there is no conflict with new residential uses.

The Development Brief includes a requirement to mitigate noise impacts from nearby uses.

Social infrastructure capacity 9.30 Three out of 26 survey respondents stated social infrastructure was an issue and

general discussions included the need for improved social infrastructure provision to support increasing numbers of residents and employees. Some residents were concerned about high density housing near public transport hubs and the ability for transport infrastructure to cope with possible overcrowding.

9.31 Most residents said that they do not want retail chains and instead want amenity

uses for local residents and leisure activities. One resident pointed out that there are many vacant retail units along Lea Bridge Road, so questioned the need for more.

9.32 Residents were disappointed that a health hub was no longer proposed on this site.

This is due to lack of interest from local GPs plus access issues. Other uses suggested include: police station, youth centre, community centre, and an additional library. Residents also want the Council to explore options for a new GP surgery on another site more fully and stressed the importance of doing this before plans go forward as currently many residents feel there are insufficient facilities for the number of residents proposed in the development.

Page 15 of 20

9.33 Some residents were worried about the introduction of night time and Town Centre uses and the potential impact on noise levels and quality of life for adjacent homes.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

17. Council to identify other sites for a new GP surgery and update the Ward Forum

The Council has undertaken initial research into GP provision in the Lea Bridge ward and will continue work to establish the possibility of a new GP surgery within the ward. Updates will be provided at future Ward Forums.

18. Non-residential uses should be considered in the context of current retail and social infrastructure provision and should not impact on existing homes.

The Development Brief will include a requirement for potential development partners to consider what non-residential uses can be brought on to the site, engage with potential providers and occupiers as part of the design process, and come forward with a business plan so that units don’t remain empty on completion. They will be expected to consider: the needs of the local economy and existing provision; the Council’s Economic Development Strategy; Waltham Forest’s role as the first London Borough of Culture; and adjacent residential uses (and any potential noise impacts) in any proposals. Green Growth funding for the expansion of Lea Bridge Library has been secured, with proposals to improve it as a community resource. Therefore this site will not include another library facility.

19. Council to clarify the projected population increase over the next 25 years and social infrastructure needs, including school places, GPs, etc.

This is being considered as part of the Local Plan review and Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Traffic and congestion 9.34 Two out of the 26 survey respondents mentioned traffic and congestion as concern

in their survey feedback, and it was a recurring theme in general discussions at events and meetings. Residents noted that the existing junction suffered from traffic congestion, didn’t provide “a sense of place”, led to rat-running on adjacent residential streets along Lea Bridge Road, and was difficult for pedestrians to cross. Some residents felt this had been worsened by the Enjoy Waltham Forest works and other recent construction works. Some residents were also worried about the impact of increased congestion on local businesses in the nearby industrial estates.

9.35 Due to the re-opening of Lea Bridge Station and residential development at 97 Lea Bridge Road, the Enjoy Waltham Forest works have introduced Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), and will see traffic signals upgraded, roads narrowed and a new 20 mph speed limit set on Lea Bridge Road, to make roads less congested and safer for pedestrians and cyclists. However, some residents raised concerns about the ability of

Page 16 of 20

the proposals to meet these aims and were frustrated about disruption from the construction works.

9.36 Most residents would be keen to see improvement along these roads, and would particularly like to see an active street frontage and reduced traffic. Proposals for a car-free development were welcomed; however, there was concern that new residents would instead park their cars on other streets and the car free restriction would not deter vehicle drop offs for deliveries and visitors. Residents wanted clarity on other traffic impacts as a result of the scheme, including potential for increased car trips to the station (if drop off points were proposed), vehicle generation from servicing and deliveries and people visiting the area for shopping. Whilst some residents welcomed initiatives to reduce car use, some were also concerned about how realistic it was to expect residents to not have a car, and also the impact on their own ability to travel by car.

9.37 Some residents were also concerned that the current public transport infrastructure

would not be able to cope with the numbers of new residents being brought into the area as a result of the development, particularly along bus routes. As well as vehicular traffic, residents were concerned about increased pedestrian traffic and overcrowding around the station due to increased residential density and new commuters.

9.38 Some residents also felt that the access roads to the site would be awkward and that the traffic levels on the roads around Site 3 would create unacceptable living conditions for new residents.

9.39 Residents were also concerned about the impacts on traffic flows and logistical

concerns during the construction phase.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

20. Council to consider how the potential risk of increased congestion on roads and on public transport will be managed

The Development Brief includes not only a requirement for the scheme to be car free (with the exception of a small number of parking bays for people with disabilities), but for the development partner to consider innovative solutions for managing servicing and deliveries to limit impact on surrounding streets. The Council and partners are investing in transport infrastructure across the borough to provide step free access to existing underground stations and progress plans to potentially build a new station at Ruckholt Road. This, alongside increased capacity on the Victoria Line (which now operates 36 trains per hour) should relieve some congestion. Furthermore, the Council’s Cabinet endorsed a Transport Strategy for the borough in March 2018.

Page 17 of 20

Traffic flow impacts will be reviewed as part of the detailed design process and Development Partners will be required to consult Highways on any proposals for drop off locations. Transport for London (TfL) will be a consultee to every application and can request contributions from developers to upgrade TfL services where necessary. To manage construction disruption developers will be required to submit construction logistic plans as part of their planning application submission – Highways will consider these collectively alongside other major developments.

21. Council to pass on concerns about Enjoy Waltham Forest works to Highways department.

Concerns and requests have been shared with Highways. Highways representative was available at the Ward Forum on 5th September 2018 to answer questions from local residents. The consented scheme underwent extensive modelling and consultation (details are available on the Enjoy Waltham Forest website) and achieved approval from TfL and Cabinet. More information on the Enjoy Waltham Forest scheme can be found on this webpage. If there are any issues with the scheme once it is built and in operation, residents are encouraged to contact: enjoy@walthamforest.gov.uk or call 020 8496 3000, Monday to Friday 9am–5pm.

22. PPLBSS asked the Council to consider the possibility of an underpass under Lea Bridge Road as well as potential for re-routing traffic from Hackney away from Lea Bridge Road.

The redesign of the Lea Bridge Road/Orient Way/Argall Avenue junction will provide improved pedestrian and cycle facilities, whilst simplifying the junction layout for road traffic. The construction of an underpass would have required a considerable land take and would not be a cost effective nor desirable solution for pedestrians and cyclists. As part of the Council’s works on Lea Bridge Road, strategic signage will be reviewed and updated to ensure it is appropriate. Signage from Hackney will also be reviewed and any necessary changes and recommendations will be reported to Hackney Council and TfL.

Security and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)

Page 18 of 20

9.40 Three survey respondents noted security and anti-social behaviour as a concern.

During discussions some residents also reported incidences of anti-social behaviour in the local area alongside reduced police presence, and suggested there may be an opportunity to look at how this scheme could help reduce anti-social behaviour in the area.

9.41 Residents of Elm Park Road do not want the access road from Orient Way to Elm Park Road, and felt that the increased footfall and potential use of the road by moped riders would lead to an increase in noise and a security risk by creating an escape route.

9.42 One resident also raised concern over the increase in betting shops in the local area.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

23. Council to meet with residents of Elm Park Road to discuss concerns and potentially remove the access route from plans.

Council met with residents of Elm Park Road to discuss concerns. The access route through to Elm Park Road has been removed from the Development Brief.

24. Council and development partner to look at opportunities to reduce antisocial behaviour through the development.

The Council has consulted the Metropolitan Police regarding best practice measures and Secure By Design accreditation has been included in the Development Brief

10. General comments

10.1 On the whole, those who participated in these early stage consultations welcomed the

Council’s attempts to engage with residents so early in the process; however, there was a level of distrust of the Council particularly in regards to plans to exceed the height of 97 Lea Bridge Road and proposed loss of the pocket park on Site 2. The community need feel they have something to gain from being engaged in this process and need to feel listened to.

10.2 Some residents asked whether alternative sites could be found for housing development, particularly low density sites in industrial areas and around the Aldi site. Most residents acknowledged the need for regeneration in the area and the pressures on the Council to provide 1800 new homes per year under new London Plan housing targets, plus the financial constraints that the Council face including budget cuts of 45% limiting the ability to purchase land and develop housing. However, residents are concerned that because of these constraints, Local Authorities will be forced into negotiating reduced targets with private developers to secure scheme viability, thereby potentially compromising long term social and environmental benefits.

10.3 Many residents recognised that there is a need for an improved station entrance, new

housing and some development on these sites - but wanted lower buildings, genuinely affordable homes, improved public realm, protection of green space, improved public amenities and sufficient social infrastructure and not just shops.

Page 19 of 20

10.4 At this stage of the design process, current plans do not provide detail on the style and materials. However, residents felt it was important to consider this carefully so that any development has modern but timeless design. Residents also commented that they want design that fits in with the context of the area, including the Warner Estate, Victorian and Edwardian terraced houses, industrial areas, and green surroundings, and recommended that the Council consults with the local community on style and design.

10.5 Finally, proposals should ensure access for people with disabilities is fully considered.

Recommendations:

Council’s response:

25. Councillors to attend future consultation events to engage directly with residents.

Cabinet Member for Economic Growth and High Streets, Cllr Simon Miller, has been heavily involved in Community Ward Forums, meetings with PPLBSS and site visits. Ward Councillors have also attended Ward Forums and have been notified of updates.

26. Local residents to be further involved in design development and potentially the Design Panel.

The Council’s Design Review Panel, established in partnership with Design Council Cabe, reviews major development proposals in the borough and highlights strengths and weaknesses and opportunities for improvement. The proposals for the Lea Bridge Station Sites will be required to go through this process. The Council will arrange a meeting with PPLBSS to discuss role of Design Panel and how it works. Furthermore, the Council is considering how a Planning for Real exercise might be included in the design development process.

11. Recommendations and next steps

11.1 The recommendations included in the report above have been considered by the

Council. The Council’s response and any actions taken have been included in the response tables above. Further work is ongoing to address concerns raised by local people. Updates on the scheme development and answers to Frequently Asked Questions will be provided on the scheme website and will be updated at regular intervals: www.walthamforest.gov.uk/3StationSites.

11.2 The current indicative timetable for the scheme is as set out in the table below:

OJEU Notice for Development Partner issued November 2018

Competitive Dialogue with shortlist of Bidders March – August 2019

Cabinet appoints selected Development Partner October 2019

Pre application public consultation on designs January/ February 2020

Planning application submitted April 2020

Page 20 of 20

Formal consultation on planning application June 2020

Planning Application determined July/August 2020

Phase 1 start on site January 2021