haringey project final presentation

Build Up Programme / University of Westminster

London Borough of Haringey

Final Presentation 1 March 2010

Build Up Programme / University of Westminster

Alan Mace

Today we are presenting the final output from our 3 months with Haringey Borough Council

Thank you for the opportunity and the challenge.

We hope that our outputs are of value and will progress your objectives

Build Up Final Presentation

• Planning & Regeneration Centre Chris Dudley

• Tottenham Hotspur Planning Application Olumide Obasemo, Maria Tomolova

• Tottenham Green Urban Design and Development Framework Trevor Bendell Reza Shafaei

• Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document Alison Minto

• Haringey Sustainable Design and Construction GuidanceOlumide Obasemo Maria Tomolova

• North London Main Land Use and Development PlanAlain ChiaradiaYatwan Hui

The Agenda

About Build Up

- Retaining professionals- Importance for the future- Scale of task

- spatial, functional, sectoral

- Complexity of local governance

- Projects & participants- LB Haringey

Planning and Regeneration Center

Chris Dudley

Final Build-Up Presentation

on

01 March 2010

Planning Application

Maria TOMALOVA & Olumide M. K. OBASEMO

Presentation Outline

• Project Task

• Details of the Proposal

• Outline of Work Done

• Analysis of Work Done

• Input to Draft Report

• Personal Cogitation

• Appreciation

Project Task

To produce, in collaboration with the

dedicated Haringey Council Team,

the first draft of Planning Committee

report on the proposed scheme.

� Updated all the submissions / responses from the public and

stakeholders—from which to synthesise the key issues that would be

in the report:

• In total, about 900 public responses in the form of letters, e-mails and web portal

entries were received.

• Formal stakeholders’ submissions were also received from:

� Environment Agency

� Metropolitan Police

� SAVE Britain’s Heritage & The English Heritage

� Tottenham Conservation Area Advisory Committee,

� The FA & England’s Manager

� North London Chamber of Commerce

� CABE

� Surrounding Boroughs, e.g. Waltham Forest, Camden, Barnet, etc.

� Greater London Authority

� Utilities companies: Network Rail, ThamesWater, LEFPA, etc.

� Inputs on assigned section of the Draft Report

Outline of Work Done

Analysis of Work Done

Analysis of Work Done (cont’d)Highlights of Concern from Public

Submissions

• Traffic congestion & parking

problems are likely to be

exacerbated

• Proposed supermarket could

lead to net loss of jobs and

businesses

• Demolition of listed buildings

deemed unjustifiable, and could

lead to bad precedence

• Inadequate & ineffective disabled

facilities.

• Insufficient infrastructural

capacity for 56,000+ people

Highlights of Concern from

Stakeholders’ Submissions

• Network Rail & Thames Water

made compelling cases for

improvement measures to rail &

water supply facilities

• Conservation groups & NGOs

firmly insisted on the

incorporation of listed buildings

into the scheme

• Several issues yet to be resolved

with the Police, despite extensive

consultations already!

• CABE still unsatisfied with the

proposed stadium design and

some other aspects of the scheme.

Input to the Draft Report• The sections of the Draft Report in general include:

�Site and Surroundings

�The proposal

�Relevant History

�Consultations

�Policies

�Assessment

�Conclusion & Recommendations

• The synthesised key issues are used in the

consultation section of the Report

Personal Cogitation

• Tottenham, Haringey, is the best option of THFC, else they

would have chosen another; so the Council should not be

intimidated by the threat of the club moving somewhere

else and should be firm in the inevitable negotiation

process leading to the approval of the scheme!

• Having said that, the Council has to be forward-looking

and take into consideration the times we live in whilst

deciding on this application.

Thank you for your time

TottenhamTottenham High Road Historic CorridorHigh Road Historic Corridor

TottenhamTottenham Green Urban Design Green Urban Design Development Framework Development Framework

TottenhamTottenham High Road Historic CorridorHigh Road Historic Corridor

Final Progress Report 1 March 2010

Project Team

Project Managers, Haringey Council:Marc Dorfman Asst. Director Planning and Regeneration

Ismail Mohammed Group Manager Planning Policy

Stefen Krupski Project Officer / Sites Team

Build up Consultants:

Trevor Bendell Reza Shafaei

Reference Documents

1. A10 / A1010 Corridor Study, Potential Scope of Wor k: Draft Document

2. Mayor Great Spaces Initiative: Application Form to Join the Initiative

3. The Mayor’s Great Spaces: Haringey Policy 20094. Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter: Draft Issues and Options

Discussion Paper5. Haringey A10/A1010 Historic High Road Corridor / A C ultural

Quarter for Tottenham Green: Draft Brief for Consultant6. Tottenham High Road Conservation Area Character

Appraisal: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd 7. A New Plan for Haringey 2011-2026 Core Strategy – Pref erred

Options:

Reference Documents

8. Statement of Community Involvement – 20089. Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor:

Design for London, London Development Agency10. Core Strategy – Summary of Issues and Options:

Consultation Response

Council Documents Hierarchy

Area Description

• Chain of connected high streets, main road London to Cambridge• High street shopping, residential, grander institutional building, greens

Project Aims

1- The regeneration proposals focusing on creating a chain and succession of linked great spaces:

• South Tottenham Gateway• Seven Sisters• Tottenham Green• Bruce Grove• Tottenham Hotspur Area• Northern Gateway

2- Coordination to tie all together

3- Improve neglected links; Tottenham Green & Bruce Grove

Project Methodology

Tottenham Green Cultural Quarter

Key Project Description

• Historic space surrounded by grand civic buildings acquiring new cultural uses




• Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter




• Could become centrepiece of new cultural quarter• Removal of gyratory system as part of Tottenham Hale

intensification





intensification• Significant link on chain of historic high streets & spaces of

Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor






Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor• Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green






Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor• Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green• East and West sides divided by High Road






Tottenham High Road Historic Corridor• Proposed Great Space is existing Tottenham Green• East and West sides divided by High Road • West includes historic Holy Trinity Church, its yard, Sunday

School & vicarage

Key Project Objectives

• Identifying the boundary



• Reinforce the Green as an important visitor and educati onal destination within the Borough to attracting people




• Have a look at lower admission and upper admission





• Interview with land owners; what their development asp irations are; how they want to change the land use






• Design brief and Specification for external consultan t development






• Design brief and Specification for external consultan t development

• Development opportunities and constraints

Site MapTottenham Green land ownership Masterplanmap showing designated boundaries for land ownership, 2009.

Site MapRevised land use map showing designated outline of boundaries for Tottenham Urban Development Plan

Site Map

Tottenham Green

Main Stakeholders – Identification of Buildings

Land Use Key Buildings

Cultural

The Bernie Grant Arts Centre

The Marcus Garvey Library

The Tottenham Green Leisure Centre

The Tottenham Palace (community Church)

The Women Community Centre

Religious

The Holy Trinity Church, Philip Lane

The High Cross United Reform Church, Clusterworth RdThe St. Mark’s Church, High Rd

The Friends Meeting House

The Mary’s Church, Lansdowne Rd

Tottenham Baptist Church, High Rd

St. Francis de Sales Church, High Rd

Brook St. Chapel

Land Use Key Buildings

EducationalThe college of North East London (CONEL)

The Primary School

Commercial

Offices

Specific Retails

Tesco

Pubs and Clubs

Civic

The Tottenham Police Station

The Public Parking

The Bus Garage

Apex House

Open Space Tottenham Green

Historic

Edwardian Grade II

Old Boys School 1908

Bernie Grant Arts Centre

Tottenham High Cross and Well (Monument)Tottenham Green East Georgian Terrace

The Swan Public House

Tottenham Town Hall

Main Stakeholders – Identification of Buildings

Identification of Land Owners

Sources of Financial SupportFunding Body Programme Description Level Date

GLA Mayor’s Great Spaces InitiativeA unique opportunity to revitalise and

improve the quality of their public spaces2009-

Tottenham Green Cultural Area Improvement

LDA and DCSF Mayor’s Youth Offer

YOFto help provide more activities and services

for young Londoners£79m 2008-2010YCF

PAYP

GLAPriority Parks Initiative grant for Lordship

Recreation

To help Haringey council to carry out major regeneration of Tottenham’s largest green

space£400k

LDA and ESF

Community Grants programme

to small voluntary and community organisations to support their capacity to engage with local communities and deliver a range of skills and employment support activities

Up to £12,000

Closed 14 Sep 2009

Co-Funding Organisation programme(CFO)

to improve employability and skills in the capital with specific focus on providing greater employment opportunities for disadvantaged people

2007-2013

Sources of Financial SupportFunding Body Programme Description Level Date

LDA and ERDF ERDF Operational Programme

to promote sustainable, environmentally efficient growth in , capitalising on ’s innovation and knowledge resources. It will focus on promoting social inclusion through extending economic opportunities to communities, in areas where this is most needed.

2007-2013

English Heritage and GLA

Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) To support projects that could help local organisations to share their stories to celebrate the Story of London this summer

£3,000 -£10,000

Closed?

Heritage Lottery Funded Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI)

Completed in 2008

Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme (HERS)

Completed in 2007

Partnership Scheme in Conservation Areas (PSICA)

Began in 2008

Comparison of Aims

Study Haringey’s proposed development projects and summarise the main points

so that they are all under one Urban Design Framework.

Consider landowners/stakeholders intentions and look at any possible planning issues.

Compare stakeholders aims with that of the councils proposed development plans and indicate any differences.Seek to resolve any disputes/differences.

Suggest possible development options

Implement Urban Design Development Framework.

Reassess design proposals

Assessing The Design Proposals

1. Usability2. Legibility3. Permeability and connectivity4. Walk-ability5. Viability6. Quality7. Coherence8. Character

Identified Constraints1. Usability and functionality: • The open green spaces have no obvious function or purpose

• There are lots of over-left and poor-used open spaces, especially in-between of the buildings. are they public or private?

2. Legibility: • The Bernie Grant Arts Centre is hidden by the facade of the listed building – Leisure Centre is

hidden behind the car park

3. Permeability and connectivity: • Poor furniture acting as a barrier to new public realm – the High Rd and its physical elements

creates a major barrier to pedestrian movement - e.g. high volume of traffic, bus lane contraflow, central reservation and lack of pedestrian crossing segregate its 2 sides.

4. Walk-ability: • lack of easy walk-able and friendly-bicycle path. Lack of acknowledgement of desire lines within

the public realm

5. Viability: • Vacant new retail units in ground flour along east side of High Rd

6. Quality: • Recycling centre on main access to Bernie Grant Arts Centre –– rubbish dumping outside Bernie

Grant Arts Centre – poor quality of street furniture

7. Coherence:• Isolated and fragmented spaces and a distinct lack of permeability and Coherence between sites

e.g. retail, greens and cultural sites.

Identified Opportunities1. Usability and functionality: • Maximise the potential of the green spaces as usable spaces

• Increase use of the public realm at the rear of the Leisure centre

• Split Leisure Centre and Library / Re-locate library expand Leisure Centre

• New rear access to library

2. Legibility: • Decrease the dominance of the car park and improve the green space and links to Tottenham

Green

• Improve links to adjoining residential areas to the west

3. Permeability and connectivity: • Improve accessibility of the Green and the pedestrian access across the High Road to the Green

4. Walk-ability: • Formalise the desire lines; highlight borders and paths; enhance the landscaping

5. Viability: • Improve the links and the crossings between 2 sides of the High Rd.

Identified Opportunities6. Quality: • Enhance the appeal of the Green

• Make the green central to the community and urban realm

• Use interventions to reflect the history of the green spaces and build on the historical importance of the Green

• Better management and maintenance of public realm, planters and furniture

8. Character:• There many buildings – in particular Tottenham Green & Bruce Grove areas – that have good

characteristics that can be emphasised and built upon

Ideas for Improving Development Framework

1. Providing Landscaping to Tottenham High Road2. Linking The Fragmented Green/Public Spaces with

improved pedestrian routes and enhanced visual links3. Providing Urban Social Function for The Greens4. Providing a Coherent Social and Commercial Chain to

Link The Cultural Points

Creating an Overall Urban Design FrameworkSuggested methods for creating a means of linking together all the different Haringey projects so that they are all under one Urban Design Framework.

Method 1. Produce a single linking document – a spreadsheet or database – that carries references for all the relevant, useful and current documents. With this will be a covering document to explain a basic planning process to be used by everyone: a basic set of procedures to follow when carrying out planning routines (assessment an implementation). All those involved in the planning processes, will made aware of this UDF document, and they will all be instructed to refer to it in carrying out urban design work. Urban Design Framework.

Method 2.Create and instigate a new job post: ‘Urban Design Liaison Manager’. All planning staff – inc. planning staff, designers, developers, and other contractors – should be aware of, and liaise with this central pivoting key personnel.

Next Step

1. Send out survey documents to landowners/stakeholders.

2. Collate received landowners survey information.3. Compare stakeholders aims with that of Haringey’s

proposed Urban Design Developments.4. Highlight any differences and seek to such differences.5. Consider any design development options.6. Produce a time schedule for the proposed projects.7. Implement Urban Design Development Framework,

beginning with proposed start dates for particular projects.

Alexandra Palace Initiation Project

Alison Minto

Project AimsHeritage Building Projects:To support and work alongside the Physical Regeneration team in the progression of the Projects

Alexandra Palace:To work with the team in developing the Brief and PID documents and to look into funding opportunities

Alison Minto February 2010Alexandra Palace Project Initiation Document

Heritage Building Projects

Activity• Memo to the Council Leader• Situation at final presentation

Remove these

Replace these

Myddleton Road N22


Alexandra PalaceThe project will look to examine:

•Current issues that face the palace and the park•Options for the future use

•Options for managing existing resources

•To increase benefits for the local community economy•To make it self sustaining


Ways forward

Close completely

Managed decline

Establish new vision and develop


Current Provision and Facilities

Exhibition hall

Conference Facilities

Phoenix bar/ pub

Theatre – derelict

Ice rink

50% additional

Space

Currently unused

The Park:Playground

Pitch and puttCricket clubTwo CafesSkate park

Boating LakeDeer Enclosure

Benefited from £3.5m HLF funding

BBC tower and original recording

suites

Offices for the Trust

All under one roof


GovernanceHaringey Borough CouncilResponsible for keeping the Palace open under the 1900 Act

£ funding

TrusteesConsultant Committee

Statutory Advisory committee

Alexandra Palace and Park Charitable Trust

Alexandra Palace Trading Limited

The Community

Interest groups

Government

Commercial sector

The Media

Leaseholders


How to work together


Project space

Haringey Borough Council

APTL

APPCT

Haringey Borough Council

APTL

APPCT

Project space

Visioning ExerciseAPTL say it should be:

Pioneering

Distinctively different

Great Host

Of the People

Brilliant Basics


What about:

Profitable

Distinctively good

Great

For the People

Brilliant

Or:

Iconic

Exciting

Future proof

Sustainable

Funding Opportunities


Funding Opportunities


Most likely sources to explore:

Heritage Lottery FundFor applications over £5m First-round applications: 30 September 2010possible £10m Application

Community Infrastructure LevyUse the planning gain system and set a Council wide standard charge for cultural facilities

Population growthHaringey’s population is projected to grow by 10.2 % population increase of 20000 up to 2026 and assume that this is in 75 % new homes. 10000 population increase£141 contribution per person£14,100,000 Total over the 15 year period£940,000 per year

Project Programme

APTL

Haringey BC

APTL

Build up?

Unknown?


Conclusions and Next Steps

This is only just the beginning of this phase of the life of Alexandra Palace.

My suggestions:

� Complex organisational issues need resolving

� Speed progress up

� Establish Council project leadership and delivery team

� Make this an opportunity not a problem

� Take control and ownership


Thank you

Working on this project has been both a pleasure and a complex puzzle


Draft Haringey Sustainable Design and Construction Guidance Document

Final Report 1 March

Obasemo OlumideMaria Tomalova

with a kind guidance of Sule Nisancioglu andi and Richard Truscott

The Output and Objectives

o Collect set of best existing guidance, including relevant National Policy (PPSs), Regional Policy (The London Plan, 4B.6 Sustainable Design and construction)

o Catalogue and compare in a matrix

o Copy relevant sections

o The Content of a Good Guide

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate

Change:

While there may be economic cost to stabilising climate change, delay in doing so would be dangerous and more costly.Haringey produces 968 ktpa of

CO2 emissions (49% are from dwellings, 33% non domestic and 18% from transport)

The key issues of GLA SDC Guidance:

� Re-use land and buildings� Designs make the most of natural systems� Reduce the impact of noise pollution flooding and micro-climate

effects� Conserve and enhance the natural environment (Biodiversity)� Promote sustainable waste behaviour, recycling schemes, CHP

schemes, pre-demolition audit� Application for strategic dev should include a statement of

sustainability� Adapting to Climate Change - flexible use, ’urban heat island effect’

Sustainability Statement

Tackling Climate Change

• Haringey Council signed the Nottingham Declaration in Dec.2006

• Haringey Council Carbon Reduction Scenarios• Sustainable Community Strategy

• Haringey Green Fair (June2007)• SPG the Greenest Borough Strategy

• Haringey’s Sustainable Procurement Policy and Strategy set out a systematic measured and continuous improvement approach

UDPCore Policies:UD1 Planning StatementsUD2 Sustainable Design and ConstructionUD3 General PrinciplesUD4 Quality DesignUD6 Mixed Use DevelopmentUD7 Waste StorageUD8 Pl Obligations

LDF- Core Strategy- an important role in reducing Haringey environmental impact

London Plan relevant policies:

4A.1 Tackling Climate Changes4A.2 Mitigating Climate Changes 4A.3 Sustainable Design and Construction4A.6 Decentralised Energy4A.7 Renewable Energy4A.11 Living Roofs4A.12 Flooding4A.18 Water and Sewerage Infrastructure4A.21 Waste Strategic Policy and Targets

The Content of a Good SDC Guide:

• Sustainability in general, sustainable design, climate change with its effects

• Why we need to change our attitude to the nature with striking examples of results of our activities

• The government’s targets for energy efficiency, water supply and waste

• Relevant policy and strategies with explanation (national, regional, local)

• Environmental assessment methods and their application

• Location, re-use of buildings or sites

• Sustainable materials in constructions

• Sustainable waste management

• Energy efficiency and renewable energy

Content continuation

• Water conservation and management, SUDS, flood risk strategy

• Nature conservation and biodiversity

• Designing out of pollution • Mobility and transport • Principles of social sustainability

• Sustainable design and construction checklist

• The benefits of good design and construction (community, occupants, developers)

Content continuation

• How much does sustainable design cost?

• Adapting to climate change

• Need for planning permission

• Aspects which should be taken into account in development proposal

• Case studies • Glossary

Any Comments? Thank you for your attention

North London Value Planning and Regeneration Benchmarking Programme

2009-2011

North London Main Land-use and Development Plan

UDP and LDF-CS similarity analysis

Alain Chiaradia, Yatwan Hui

Final Report 1 March 2010 - Draft 02

Project / Output & Objectives

• Composite UDP and LDF CS Proposals Map for North Londo n

• Similarity analysis of UDP and LDF CS policies in N orth London

Target = core boroughs: Barnet, Enfield, Haringey, Waltham ForestExtended target = fringe boroughs: Islington, Camde n, Hackney

North London Strategic Alliance

Executive Summary

• How similar UDP and LDF CS policies are?• UDP policies

• between 40% to 60% are similar WF, B, H, E • between 30% to 45% are unique E, H, B, WF

• LDF CS policies • CS are compact , one third of UDP (DMP & IDP not available yet)

• between 77% to 98% are similar E, WF, H, B• between 2% to 23% are unique B, H, WF, E

Executive Summary

• Why are UDP & LDF-CS are so similar when places are uni que?• Policy compliance

• National policy• Regional policy (London Plan)

• Ad hoc efficiency • Policy maker s make good re-use of what is already

available

• UDP as text, place shaping as interconnected• Policy redundancy

Progress / UDPs proposals map

Themes 43% completed

• Town centre network including local centre• Employment area boundaries• Key development sites• GLA opportunity areas and area of intensification (including schedule

of development type/quantum, AAP)• Conservation areas• Metropolitan Open Land• Key parks• Green belt• AONB/ecology• Arterial, transport infrastructures, bus stop, tube and train stations• Heat demand and supply

Progress / UDPs proposals map

Obtained: Haringey, Waltham Forest, HackneyPending: Barnet, Enfield, Islington, Camden

Progress / UDP + LDF Policies

• Initial Target (extracting, matching, rating, analysis) 100% completedHaringey, Barnet, Enfield, Waltham Forest

• Extended Target 50% completedCamden, Islington, Hackney

- extracting: 100%- matching, rating, analysis: 0%

Similaritiesv. differences

Similar e.g. Promote growth in

town centre

Uniquee.g. Additional policies,

Place specifice.g. Enfield Town

Detail specific

e.g. Housing targets

Methodology / UDP + LDF PoliciesCollecting, extracting, matching, coding

Methodology / UDP + LDF Policies

Unique policy

3 Boroughs with similar policy



0

1

3

3

2

Rating similarity, uniqueness

General findings / UDP PoliciesFocus by number of policy

1. open space2. transport3. TC & retail4. housing

2006 Haringey2007 Waltham Forest1994 Enfield2006 Barnet

Total policy number

Policy number By theme 4 3 2 1

General findings / UDP Policies

Total word count

Word count bypolicy theme

Focus by word count

1. open space2. transport3. TC & retail4. housing

4 3 2 1


Similarity findings / UDP Policies

196 11798150“missing” policy

unique policy

2 similar

3 similar

4 similar

2006 Haringey

2007 Waltham

Forest

1994Enfield

2006Barnet

17% 11% 33% 10%32% 19% 27% 17%

20% 16% 10% 14%

27% 44% 17% 40%

59% 46% 70% 40%Overall similarity = ++

** Does not include area specific policy section* One policy can be matched by several policies

Matched policies*

Total policy number (461)** 95 154 51 161

Similarity findings / UDP Policies by theme

%similarity

similarity % = ((similar to 3 + similar to 2 + similar to 1) / policy number by theme )) x 100

Does not include Enforcement | Implementation


Findings / LDF Policies

Haringey Waltham Forest Enfield Barnet

DateMay 2009 Jan 2010 Dec 2009 Nov 2009

Stage Preferred Options Preferred OptionsProposed

SubmissionDirection of Travel

Word Count

1322 3453 13286 3445

No of Core

Policies12 11 46 14


Policy Theme Similarity 0 - 3

Haringey Waltham Forest

Enfield Barnet

Managing Growth 2 1 0 1 1Housing 3 1 1 1 1

Environment 3 1 1 1 1

Movement 2 1 1 0 1

Employment 3 1 1 1 1Town Centres 3 1 1 1 1

Design 2 1 1 1 0Conservation 3 1 1 1 1

Green Infrastructure 3 1 1 1 1Health and Well Being 2 1 1 0 1

Culture and Leisure 1 1 0 1 0Visitors and Tourism 0 0 0 1 0

Community Infrastructure

3 1 1 1 1

Regeneration 1 0 1 0 1Places 0 0 0 1 0


Score % Policy Sub-theme Rating HAR WAL ENF BAR

24/51 47% Housing 3 1 1 1 1Supply 3 1 1 1 1Delivery 1 0 0 1 1Quality and choice 1 0 1 0 1Affordable housing 3 1 1 1 1Affordable housing contributions 0 0 0 1 0Working with external partners 0 0 0 1 0Social and intermediate homes 1 0 1 1 1Working with external partners 2 0 1 1 1Particular housing needs 2 0 1 1 1Family housing 2 1 1 1 0High quality dsign 1 0 1 1 0Lifetime homes 0 0 0 1 0Guidance and standards 0 0 0 1 0Housing density 2 0 1 1 1London Plan Density Matrix 1 0 0 1 1Gypsy and travellers 2 0 1 1 1


Score Max Score

% Policy Rating HAR WAL ENF BAR

3 3 100% Managing Growth 2 1 0 1 124 51 47% Housing 3 1 1 1 126 51 51% Environment 3 1 1 1 1

30 60 50% Movement 2 1 1 0 1

20 33 61% Employment 3 1 1 1 126 48 54% Town Centres 3 1 1 1 122 48 46% Design 2 1 1 1 08 24 33% Conservation 3 1 1 1 118 39 46% Green Infrastructure 3 1 1 1 138 105 36% Health and Well Being 2 1 1 0 15 18 28% Culture and Leisure 1 1 0 1 00 3 0% Visitors and Tourism 0 0 0 1 014 30 47% Community Infrastructure 3 1 1 1 13 15 20% Regeneration 1 0 1 0 10 0 0% Places 0 0 0 1 0

Towards shared services – doing more with less– medium to long term

• Core policy team for sub-region, shared and better evidence base

• Policies bank (regional, national, international)

• Implementation | delivery bank (what work, why – de monstrated ROI)

• More focus on prevention, outcomes and monitoring – total place

• More place | people specific i.e. spatial plan ledgeo-market research pervasive in industry since 40 years, not so in LA

Next Steps / Suggestions

Towards shared services – doing more with less– easy win

• Sub region, systematic policy bank (london councils)

• Coordination template across sub-region (informal g roup + lead & owner)– vocabulary– wording style– policy classification– policy “missing”

• Take the big 5 to their own game, commission one st udy, reuse, reuse...

• Use of research LARCI and university collaboration + structured KT

• Use of small, experienced, innovative and caring co nsultancy

Next Steps / Suggestions

• Composite UDP and LDF Proposal Maps for North London

• Matrix analysis of key UDP and LDF policies in North London

• Benchmarking standard types of work and costs

• Evidence base for Bid Preparation to make it happens

• A different type of “Planning, Regeneration and Build ing Control Service for North London”

Next Steps / Outcomes & Outputs

Discussions /

“Policy needs to be a great deal more place specific, which is difficult as policy planners and DC planners tend to like generically applicable policy statements.

Building consensus will be key to boroughs working together, and forming joint-evidence as key part of that buy-in.”

Strategic Policy Planner LBTH - 2010

Thank you

haringey project final presentation

Documents

submissions responses

proposed scheme

public responses

proposed stadium design

haringey borough councilthank

proposed supermarket

britains heritage

peoplehighlights of