Category: ‘Opportunity Areas’

  • Opportunity Areas

    Opportunity Areas

    This page records activity up to mid-2018. The story since then is taken up on the front (news) page as blog posts and most recently by the page on the Examination in Public: Hearings / EiP / 2019

    On 20 January 2018 Just Space published a draft of a new chapter of the Community-led Plan for London, aimed primarily at Opportunity Area proposals where we have long argued the need for Social Impact Assessment Social Impact Assessment draft chapter

    Some thoughts, OAs comments Oct 2017, formulated as work in progress on behalf of Just Space, have been submitted to the GLA at a recent roundtable discussion (25 October 2017) on the operation and outcomes of OAs. Just Space would welcome informed contributions to a critical review of OAs in London’s plan-making, particularly those relating to case studies of impacts and to social, cultural  and governance aspects. Please comment or email to Robin Brown, hayescanal at hotmail.co.uk.

    Just Space Working Group: Opportunity and Intensification Areas: briefing for 4 Feb 2016 conference

    What are ‘Opportunity Areas’? 

    ‘Opportunity Areas’ (OAs) in the London Plan are large areas designated by the Mayor as places where large scale development can provide space for high numbers of jobs and homes, typically 5,000 jobs and 2,500 homes. There are currently 38 Opportunity Areas along with 10 ‘Intensification Areas’, which have a similar, but lesser role.

    When an Opportunity Area is designated, it quickly attracts a larger scale of development and encourages high density projects which might not get approval in other places.

    The Opportunity Areas have their own planning guidelines, called ‘Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks’ (OAPFs) which are largely conceived and written from City Hall, in tandem with the Boroughs.

    The OAs and OAPFs are at different stages of completion across London, from Cricklewood / Brent Cross in the late stages of development to ‘Kensal Canalside’ which is a new area.

    Negative Impacts

    Opportunity and Intensification Areas are seen to have a negative effect on the people who live and work in an area in a number of ways.

    They encourage the provision of expensive, high density housing which does not meet the needs of local communities, especially of families, as family housing tends to be discouraged in the OAs. In many cases new housing is provided at the expense of existing social rented housing, of which there is already a serious shortage.

    They threaten community facilities such as community halls and inexpensive sports facilities. It becomes harder for community based groups such as youth groups, tenants’ or pensioners’ organizations to find places to meet.

    They encourage speculative office development which, in scale, density and character, may be inappropriate to the local community, and which may replace other buildings and amenities that more readily serve that community

    Shops, cafes and service providers that serve the local community are priced out of the area by soaring rents.

    Around the outside of the OA boundaries we see a similar scale of development piggybacking on the Opportunity Area and extending these negative effects.

    Key Problems with the Opportunity Areas

    Opportunity and Intensification Areas are designated from above without informing, let alone ensuring the effective participation of the people who already live and work in the area. The central mechanism that drives them takes no account of the aspirations of people to be involved in the redevelopment of their neighbourhoods and to benefit from changes that take place. They do not currently include consideration of the existing land uses as a viable alternative option for the future.

    The main question being asked about the current development of London – why is it not providing the kind of housing that we need? – is seen on a dramatic scale in the Opportunity Areas, where growing numbers of new towers and acres of cleared land are not providing even the minimum amount of ‘affordable’ housing while much social and affordable housing is being lost in these areas.

    Opportunity Areas are planned in such a way as to require extensive infrastructural investment (new roads, bridges, rail links, tube stations) to increase the permitted densities of development. Some of this is recoverable through S106 planning gain arrangements (which lowers the amount of affordable housing which can be delivered in the area); some comes directly from government investment (e.g. TfL, or borrowing against future expected revenues such as business rates uplift). We are concerned that large amounts of public money are being spent for little public benefit.

    The current financial and planning models in Opportunity Areas encourage the continuing role of a limited number of favoured Volume Developers who require large cleared sites, entailing clearance of existing housing and businesses and the decanting of communities. High profit expectations and secret viability reports lead to agreements which drive down the delivery of social and affordable housing, and in some cases have led to the suspension of CIL charges. Smaller developers and smaller scale developments could often meet the actual housing demand more effectively without such dramatic negative effects and should be given an equal part to play.

    Some concerns

    There has not been a comprehensive documentation, review and assessment of the impact of Opportunity Areas (OAs) on London’s development against the principles of the London Plan. These would expect OAs to balance economic and social development, and environment, and to have regard to the health of Londoners, the sustainable development of the UK, and equality of opportunity.

    Community based evidence suggests overwhelmingly negative effects and indicates that in their current form they should be reconsidered.

    As planned, Opportunity Areas could deliver over 300,000 homes and 575,000 jobs. They are making the London of the future; they need to meet the needs of local residents and deliver high quality environments for current and future residents of the city.

    Given the impact of these OAs on the city, the highest standards of public participation should be expected, including early and full public information and consultation prior to their designation and effective participation early in the planning process.

    There has also not been an effective review of the role Opportunity Areas play in shaping the current spatial model for London’s development. The spatial and environmental sustainability of large transport investments to produce dense high-rise housing (dormitory neighbourhoods with unaffordable housing) around well-connected nodes, generating significant additional travel requirements is questioned. Alternatives which encourage more mixed-use live-work environments and which build on rather than eradicate the existing qualities and diversity of London’s neighbourhoods should be prioritised.

    Questions for Debate

    1. Perhaps there should be no place for Opportunity and Intensification Areas in a new London Plan because our experience suggests they make it harder to meet the real needs of the majority of Londoners? OA’s do not appear to be a particularly effective way to encourage the net addition of homes for Londoners, specifically genuinely affordable homes.
    2. If they continue, how can Opportunity Areas be made to function more democratically and effectively? Just Space proposes stipulations requiring a Social Impact Assessment for OA/IA developments. Such an Assessment would serve as a framework to address environmental impact and social and community infrastructure in Opportunity Areas. This would involve the GLA carrying out detailed analysis of what an area already contains: its housing, jobs, community facilities, locally appreciated buildings, and so on. A report on existing land and building uses should be prepared for public consultation. Existing uses must be evaluated and made a part of evaluating the viability of any new plans. Involving People in the Plans must be central to the Opportunity Areas and they should be subject to strict community involvement principles.

    Should public land within OAs be identified and dedicated to borough affordable and social-rented housing projects, remaining in public ownership?

    1. How can Opportunity Areas deliver the kinds of neighbourhoods Londoners need? Guidelines could promote redevelopment in the model of lifetime neighbourhoods or sustainable communities, supporting and maintaining existing local character, and indicate that such redevelopment should maximize the provision of social and affordable housing.
  • Legacy Development Corporation tested

    Legacy Development Corporation tested

    Wallis Road studios

    Just Space took part in an important Local Plan examination, March 3 – 12 2015, bringing together community groups and individuals from Stratford and Hackney Wick to challenge and try to improve the LLDC’s new Local Plan policy. (dead link) The London Legacy Development Corporation is the Mayor’s planning authority for an extended area around the Olympic Park.

    The main concern is whether the Corporation’s development plans will benefit local communities and result in the aim of economic ‘convergence’. Valued local employment is directly threatened by the loss of industrial buildings in Hackney Wick, Fish Island and Sugar House Lane and on Carpenters Estate where thriving and viable businesses have now to compete against landowners’ expectation of building high-density housing.

    Tonight these issues are put to the test when the Corporation’s little-known planning committee decides on two applications in Hackney Wick. You are invited to attend the meeting to scrutinise the process.

    6pm March 24, LLDC offices, Level 10, 1 Stratford Place, Mountfichet Road, London E20 1EJ (next to Stratford station Westfield exit).

    Hackney Independent highlights the link between retaining the heritage buildings and affordable workspace. At 80-84 and 88 Wallis Road, officers recommend demolishing all buildings on the site except one, even though they mark the majority as ‘Heritage Assets’ on the Conservation Area map. Approximately 32 businesses are listed as occupying Main Yard (dead link) while artists and the organisation Affordable Wick (who also appeared at the Examination) do not believe artists and small businesses will survive relocation into the new buildings.

    The proposed Groveworld scheme is for high-density housing blocks and the application includes a bizarre redacted light study (dead link) showing the complexity of planned developments all around the site with the evident loss of viable employment space on sites owned by the LLDC itself.

    A document showing the agreement for affordable workspace and affordable housing for the Wallis Road site will be revealed at tonight’s meeting. The Committee Reports are here.(dead link)

    Just Space and others will continue to scrutinise and highlight the LLDC plans.

    Update from MT: blog post from Liam Crosby (Community Links) on his experiences in participating in the Examination in Public on the LLDC local plan here. (dead link)

    Checked M E 21 07 2025

  • Just Space comment on City Fringe OAPF

    Just Space comment on City Fringe OAPF

    March 2015 In response to the Mayor’s consultation on a draft Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for the City Fringe, Just Space submitted a short comment, supporting the Mayor’s evident attempt to limit the damage to local economic activities from the voracious demands of residential development, but highly critical of the procedures being followed in the planning process. The full statement is here

    Checked Michael Edwards 21 07 2025

  • Just Space comment on draft City Fringe OAPF

    Just Space comment on draft City Fringe OAPF

    On 2 March 2015 JustSpace submitted the following short comment in response to the Mayor’s consultation draft City Fringe Opportunity Area Planning Framework.
    http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/planning/consultations/city-fringe-opportunity-area-planning-framework

    For a proper consideration of its content, strategies and proposals, there is a need to have knowledge of: the array of Masterplans, Local Plans, Action Area Plans… (vide para 5.55, p. 58). To gain an appreciation of these is made more difficult and time consuming because of the 3 boroughs involved;and the the functional and geographical areas, the localities and neighbourhoods – and this would mean all of the OA, rather than the ‘local patch’ knowledge that individual amenity/community groups would have, for various reasons.

    This Framework has a Vision (para 1.54, p.12) to enable business growth that has spatial/land use consequences for all of the OA. It seeks to ensure a consistent approach across the 3 boroughs (Strategy 1, para 1.57,p.12) and its primary aim (para 2.2, p. 16) is to create a positive environment for employment growth in the City Fringe.
    For local communities to marshall their resources during the consultation has proved impractical, particularly as no evidence has been brought forward to demonstrate that communities have been involved, unlike those mentioned as part of the wider stakeholder group (para 1.3, p. 2). Given the hetrogeneity of the OA, consistency of approach is an inappropriate strategy. However, a coordinated approach would better fulfill the purpose of the OAPF to elaborate and guide development plan policies . This is not simply a matter of semantics as this goes to the heart of the intent and purpose of the Planning Framework which, given the nature, characters, scales and extent of the OA, should enable a variety of locally appropriate responses to flourish. Consistency of approach conveys something entirely different.

    Recognition of the need to protect and support the distinctive economic clusters and provide for a variety of space typologies and affordable workspace is encouraging. Although it should be noted that existing models of affordable workspace have been criticised for not actually delivering the intended products useful to micro and small enterprises (research by Dr J Ferm, UCL, 2014, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900614000361 )

    The resulting Strategy 3 (para 3.7, p28) begins with the stated need for development to facilitate economic growth without the necessary qualification and recognition that sustainable development is the goal of the planning system and that the achievement of this should frame this facilitation.

    Given that the OAPF is to be delivered in partnership with the local boroughs (p.viii), the cited Implementation Chapter 6 is relatively underdeveloped and does not articulate much more than a listing of funding streams. More should be said on the mechanisms for cooperation, monitoring and review, as promised on p.viii (“in detail”), together with an explanation of more effective and continuing community engagement. This chapter is crucial to the OAPF but it has been inadequately and carelessly attended to as at para 6.20 (p.90) with its reference to LBE and at paras 6.37 & 6.38 to Ealing and Southall. This evidence of cut and paste from another OAPF undermines the credibility and standing of the City Fringe document.

    The Implementation paragraphs of the Executive Summary describe the Framework as “the plan”. If it is a plan and it does have maps clearly setting out spatial expressions, (including the identification of sites) of its content, then it should be subject to the formal procedures of plan-making with examination in public to form part of the development plan for London. Consideration should be applied to the need to subject this plan to a SEA having regard to its environmental impact.

    Correction is also needed to Chapter 1’s Fig 1.3 ‘Material Weight of the Framework’ which incorrectly depicts the planning hierarchy and material weights. Neighbourhood Plan is not on the same level nor does not have the equivalent weight of SPG or OAPF; it is actually at a higher level/has greater weight because a “Neighbourhood Plan forms part of the development plan and sits alongside the Local Plan prepared by the Local Planning Authority.” (National Planning Guidance ref 41-003-20140306). It should be in the diagram’s  box ‘The Statutory Development Plan’.

    END

    Additional comment from Robin Brown of Just Space: It seems to me that the GLA are attempting to counter the voracious demands of residential led development, as amplified by the 2013 permitted development rights for office to residential conversion, to protect the supply of employment land supported by their commissioned demand side appraisal. And that their draft policy at paras 2.16 & 2.17 detail the requirements on incorporating affordable workspace (in the core growth areas – map 2.3- roughly approximate to the permitted development exemption area).

    city fringe OA

  • LLDC Local Plan Examination starts this week

    LLDC Local Plan Examination starts this week

    Just Space has facilitated and submitted observations and objections to the London Legacy Development Corporation’s draft Local Plan. [The LLDC, a “Mayoral Development Corporation”, is in effect the 34th Borough in London and is responsible for local planning.]

    A Planning Inspector will examine the Plan in Stratford beginning at 10am on Tuesday 3 March. Address: Level 10, 1 Stratford Place, Montfitchet Road,
    Stratford, E20 1EJ. http://queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/our-story/transforming-east-london/local-plan/examination-of-the-legacy-corporation-local-plan (dead Link)

    Just Space says:

    “We consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant and does not meet the duty to cooperate. We also consider the Local Plan is unsound because:-

    •  It has not been positively prepared
    • It is not consistent with national and regional policy
    • It is not justified
    • It is not effective”

    Read the submission in full: LLDC Local Plan – Just Space representation October 2014

    Checked Michael Edwards 21 07 2025

  • new Grand Union Alliance forming at Old Oak Common

    new Grand Union Alliance forming at Old Oak Common

    Saturday 15 November 2014 1030-1630h Tavistock Halls, Harlesden Methodist Church, NW10 4NE Conference of the Grand Union Alliance covering Old Oak Common, Park Royal, White City and Kensal Canalside — a new network of community groups seeking to defend their area as it becomes a transport hub, an “Opportunity Area” and a Mayoral Development Corporation. Contact: grandunionalliance@gmail.com Details: http://harlesdentown.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/sat-15-nov-harlesden-grand-union.html and there is a flyer to download. Organised with JustSpace and the London Tenants Federation, supported by the Trust for London. Later:  a first report is very supportive, by Christian Wolmar, one of the speakers, on his blog:

    http://www.wolmarforlondon.co.uk/mayor_and_local_community_need_to_get_involved_in_old_oak_common (dead site)  He stresses the need for local community groups to be strongly engaged in the planning of the area – much more so than the Mayor seems to have facilitated so far.

    Checked Michael Edwards 21 07 2025

  • Influencing plans in Opportunity Areas

    Influencing plans in Opportunity Areas

    Just published: The London Tenants Federation and Just Space held a conference of people trying to exert some community influence on what happens in London’s Opportunity Areas —the 33 large parts of London where major developments are under way or proposed. It drew on the experiences of campaigners at King’s Cross over 25 years and the results are now published by LTF as an important report: https://justspace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/LTF-Conference-2013-report-KX-Opportunity-Area.pdf
    The conference was part of a two-year project supported by the Trust for London to foster community engagement in 6 rapidly-changing areas.

    The conference also saw the launch of a web-based map (broken link) linking community activity in London which is part of the same project.

    Checked by Michael Edwards 17 07 2025 (LTF website is under repair but this report has been re-homed at Just Space)