Barton Wilmore (housebuilders consortium)
Bovis Homes Limited
Buckinghamshire District Councils and Bucks Thames Valley LEP
Catalyst Housing Limited (CBRE)
CPRE London
The Crown Estate and Merton College
East of England Local Government Association
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Home Builders Federation
Just Space
London Assembly Planning Committee
London Borough of Barnet, Enfield or Hillingdon
London Borough of Bexley, Bromley or Croydon
London Borough of Richmond or Royal Borough of Kingston
London Borough of Newham or Wandsworth
London Chamber of Commerce and Industry
London First
London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies
London School of Economics
Lousada Plc
South East England Councils / South East Strategic Leaders

Meanwhile Use as Housing
M23. Would Policy H4 provide a justified and effective approach to encouraging meanwhile uses of sites for housing? In particular:
a)  Would it make an effective contribution to meeting the London wide housing need? Would it be likely to impact on the provision of permanent homes? In the absence of a time frame for meanwhile uses, would it be effective? How would it ensure the provision of homes that provide good living conditions for occupiers?
b)  Would it provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to this matter?
Participants for matters 23 and 25-28
Anthology
Catalyst Housing Limited (CBRE)
Centre for Accessible Environments
Inclusive Design and Access Panel
CPRE London
Design Council
Footwork Architects Ltd
Home Builders Federation
Just Space
London Assembly Conservative Group
London Assembly Planning Committee
London Borough of Barnet, Brent, Harrow or Hillingdon
London Borough of Merton, Richmond or Sutton
London Borough of Newham or other inner London Borough
London Councils
London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies
London Property Alliance
London Tenants Federation
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
New Policy Institute
NHS Property Services (NHSPS), NHS England (NHSE), NHS Improvement (NHSI) and Community Health Partnerships (CHP)
Retirement Housing Consortium

M34. Would policies D1 and D2 provide a justified and effective approach to delivering good design? In particular:
a)  Would the approach to delivering good design meet the good growth objectives set out in policies GG1, GG2, GG3 and GG4?
b)  In light of the requirements of policies D1 and D2 would they be effective in achieving the level of growth envisaged?
c)  Would policies D1 and D2 provide an effective framework to protect the distinctiveness of different parts of London, with particular regard to their social, economic, cultural and residential characteristics?
d)  Would the approach taken to design scrutiny be justified and effective? Would the proposed use of masterplans and design codes, as set out in Policy D2D, help to bring forward development and ensure high quality design? Would the proposed use of design review, as set out in Policy D2F, be justified and effective? In this regard, would the policies deal with strategic planning matters?

e)  Bearing in mind the resource implications for boroughs in carrying out Policy D2A1-11, would it be effective?
f)  How would the policies be monitored, given the nature of many of the requirements?g)  Overall, would the policies provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans and development management in relation to this matter?
m34 good design just space 2718 response in full
Blog post on Design sessions

Inclusive Design 
M35. Would Policy D3 provide a justified and effective strategic framework for delivering inclusive design? In particular:
a)  Would Policy D3 address matters that can be delivered and enforced through the planning regime, in particular the requirement for emergency evacuation? Would it strike the right balance between providing for inclusive design and delivering the planned level of growth?
b)  Would it be effective in ensuring the diverse needs of all Londoners are integrated into development proposals from the outset? Would it be effective in ensuring that the experience and views of all Londoners, particularly excluded groups, are taken into account in the evaluation of development proposals?
c)  In this respect, would it provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to this matter?
m35 inclusive design just space 2718 response in full
Blog post on Design sessions

Week 6 Tuesday 5 March afternoon: Density
M39. Would Policy D6 on optimising density be effective in achieving the intentions in Policy GG2 on making the best use of land and is the policy approach justified especially bearing in mind the cumulative impact on the environment and infrastructure? In particular:
a)  Would the provisions of Policy D6 provide an effective strategic context for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans? Would the detailed criteria provide an effective and justified basis for development management, are they all necessary and do they provide sufficient clarity about how competing considerations are to be reconciled by the decision- maker?
b)  Will leaving density to be assessed on a site-by-site basis compared to the matrix in The London Plan of 2011 be effective?
m39 density just space 2718
Provisional blog post from M. Edwards. Fuller note to follow here.
LSE blog post by Prof Ian Gordon here

participants for Density (Policy D6) [M39]
Mayor/GLA   defend their position and add new policy wording
Ballymore Group
CPRE London
Edwards, Michael
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Galliard Homes
Highbury Group
Home Builders Federation
Just Space
London Assembly Planning Committee
London Borough of Barnet
London Borough of Bromley
London Councils
London First
London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies
Monks Orchard Residents Association
Retirement Housing Consortium
Southern Housing Group
Turnbull, Pat

statements from non participants: Catalyst Housing, LSE London, 

Week 6 Wednesday 6 March, morning: Tall buildings, public realm and basements

Public Realm
M40. Would Policy D7 provide a justified and effective strategic framework for delivering high quality public realm? In particular:
a)  Would Policy D7 relate to strategic planning matters, particularly in relation to street furniture and management and ongoing maintenance of the public realm?
b)  Would the criteria of the policy be justified and effective, in relation to matters such as sunlight, the natural environment and meanwhile uses?
c)  Overall, would it provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to this matter?
m40 public realm just space 2718 response in full

Tall Buildings Written statements in response to M41 may be up to 3,000 words in length.
M41. Would Policy D8 provide a justified and effective strategic framework for the development of tall buildings? In particular:
a)  Would the local definition of what is considered a ‘tall building’ provide an effective strategic framework to guide the location of tall building development?
b)  Where there is no local definition of what is considered a ‘tall building’, would the definition at paragraph 3.8.2 be justified and would it be effective?
c)  Would Policy D8, generally provide an effective framework to guide the location of tall building development, taking account of its wider surroundings and any cumulative effect?
d)  Would it provide an effective strategic framework for the assessment of the impact of tall building development?

e) Overall, would Policy D8 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans, neighbourhood plans and development management in relation to this matter?
m41 tall buildings just space 2718 response in full

Basement Development
M42. Would Policy D9, in addressing the negative impacts of large scale basement development below existing buildings relate to a matter of strategic importance to London? Would it provide an effective strategic framework to ensure the best use of land whilst protecting the local environment and the living conditions of residents?

Week 6 Wednesday 6 March, afternoon:
Safety and security, fire safety, agent of change and noise

Safety, Security and Resilience
M43. Would policies D10 and D11, in addressing matters including fire safety, refer to strategic planning matters? In particular, would policies D10 and D11 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to this matter?
m43 fire safety just space 2718 response in full

Noise and Nuisance
M44. Would policies D12 and D13 provide a justified and effective strategic framework to mitigate the impacts of existing noise and nuisance generating activities or uses on proposed new noise-sensitive development and reduce, manage and mitigate noise in relation to new development? In particular:
a)  Would Policy D12, in setting out the ‘agent of change’ principle, benecessary in light of paragraph 123 of the NPPF?
b)  Would the identification and protection of ‘Quiet Areas’ be effective, as set out in Policy D13B? Would it be justified?
c)  Would policies D12 and D13 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to these matters?

Week 6 Friday 8 March morning : Heritage and Culture
Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

M45. Would Policy HC1 provide an effective and justified approach to conserving and enhancing the historic environment? In particular:
a)  Would Policy HC1 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to the historic environment?
b)  Would it provide sufficient detail to guide London boroughs in developing evidence that demonstrates a clear understanding of London’s historic environment?
c)  Would the approach to development management be effective, justified and consistent with national policy in relation to designated and non- designated heritage assets?
m45 heritage and culture just space 2718

World Heritage Sites

M46. Would Policy HC2 provide an effective and justified approach to the conservation, promotion, active protection and interpretation of the outstanding universal value (OUV) of world heritage sites (WHS)? In particular:
a)  Would Policy HC2 be an effective and justified strategic framework for the
preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to the WHS? Would it provide sufficient guidance to London boroughs on the need for policies in Local Plans to protect OUV of WHS?
b)  Would Policy HC2 provide sufficient detail on the approach to ‘setting’ and ‘buffer zones’? In this respect paragraph 7.2.4 refers to supplementaryplanning guidance? What is the up to date position on this? Would the policy be effective without this?
c)  Would the approach taken be consistent with paragraphs 132-134 of the NPPF, which sets out the way in which proposals affecting heritage assets should be assessed?
m46 world heritage sites just space 2718

Strategic and Local Views
Written statements in response to M47 may be up to 3,000 words in length.

M47. Would policies HC3 and HC4 provide an effective and justified approach to protect and enhance the composition and character of strategic views and their landmark elements in London? In particular:
a)  Would Policy HC3 be an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to the protection of those views?
b)  Policy HC3G and para 7.3.6 refer to local views. Are ‘local views’ a strategic matter? If so, what is the justification for giving such views the same degree of protection as strategic views? In this regard, would the policy be effective?
c)  Would the criteria in policy HC4 provide an effective and justified basis for development management? Would they provide sufficient clarity to enable a decision maker to reconcile competing considerations?

Friday 8 March afternoon : Culture and Creative Industries
M48. Would Policy HC5 provide an effective and justified approach to supportingthe continued growth and evolution of London’s cultural facilities and creativeindustries? In particular:
a)  Would it provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to those matters?
b)  Would the identification of ‘cultural quarters’, comprising locally-distinct clusters of facilities, venues and related uses, be justified as set out inPolicy HC5A2?
c)  Would it be effective in supporting the diversity in London’s cultural venues, facilities and uses?
d)  Would the identification of ‘creative enterprise zones’ be effective in supporting creative industries? What justification is there that such anapproach would ‘help boost the local economy of more deprived areas andsupport regeneration’?
m48 culture and creative industries just space 2718 response in full

Night Time Economy
M49. Would Policy HC6 provide an effective and justified approach to supportthe growth and diversification of London’s night time economy (NTE)? In particular:
a)  Is the definition of ‘strategic areas of night time activity’ as set out in table A1.1 effective and justified?
b)  Does it strike the right balance between supporting the NTE and protecting the living conditions of residents and nearby uses in terms of anti-social behaviour, noise pollution, health and wellbeing and other issues?
m49 night time economy just space 2718 response in full

Public Houses
M50. Would Policy HC7 address detailed issues that would be more appropriately dealt with in local plans and neighbourhood plans? Would it provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to the protection of existing public houses and support for new public houses?
m50 public houses just space 2718

Tuesday 12 March afternoon: extra session for matters not discussed on Feb
M29. Build to Rent
M33. Large Scale Shared Living Development
M30. Supported and Specialised Housing

Build to rent
M29. Would Policy H13 provide a justified and effective approach to build to rent housing to meet housing need? In particular:
a)  Would the criteria to define build for rent set out in Policy H13B be justified and would they be effective in supporting delivery?
b)  Would the approach to affordable housing requirements be justified and effective? Would it be effective in meeting local needs? Would the approach to discounted market rent homes be effective? Should the discount level be defined locally to take account of local circumstances?
c)  Are there specific design requirements of this type of housing and would the policy be effective in delivering them?
d)  Overall, would it meet the objective of Policy GG4 to delivering the homes Londoners need?
m29 build to rent just space 2718 Just Space response in full
Participants for matters 29-33:
Access Association
Audley Group
British Property Federation
Canary Wharf Group
Cass and Claredale
Downing
Equality & Human Rights Commission
Elysian Residences
Get Living London
Home Builders Federation
Just Space
London Assembly Planning Committee
London Borough of Camden
London Councils
London Federation of Housing Cooperatives London First
London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies
London Tenants Federation
NHS England
PRP
Retirement Housing Consortium
RICS
University College London
University of London

Large Scale Shared Living Development
M33. Would Policy H18 provide a justified and effective approach to the delivery of large scale purpose built shared living accommodation in London? In particular:
a)  Would the criteria set out in Policy H18A be justified?
b)  In the absence of the application of defined space and amenity standards, would it be effective and justified in delivering good design and the objectives of policies GG1 to GG4?
c)  Would the size of development defined in paragraph 4.18.3 be justified?
d)  Would the affordable housing requirements be effective and justified?
e)  Overall, would it deliver the planned level of growth to meet the objectives of good growth policies GG1 to GG4?
 Blog on today’s discussion

Monday 18 March morning: Central Activities Zone, Offices, Industry and Freight

Central Activities Zone including Isle of Dogs (north) (“CAZ”)
M58. Would policies SD4 and SD5 be effective in ensuring an appropriate mix of housing, offices [footnote says Table 6.1 of the Plan indicates 367,700 additional office jobs in the CAZ 2016-2041 ] and other development in different parts of, and outside, the CAZ to support:
a)  the “strategic functions” of the CAZ (paragraph 2.4.4);
b)  “locally orientated uses” in the CAZ (paragraph 2.4.5) and Policy GG1“building strong and inclusive communities”;
c)  Policy GG4 “delivering the homes Londoners need”; and
d)  Policy GG5 “growing a good economy”?
Just Space submission in full: M58 CAZ Just Space

Monday 18 March afternoon : Offices
M59. Is Policy E1 justified and would it be effective in ensuring that identified needs for additional office floorspace are met in appropriate locations in accordance with national policy? In particular:
a)  Are the figures in Table 6.1 for projected office employment growth and office floorspace demand 2016-2041 in different parts of London justified?
b)  Would the locations identified in parts C and D have sufficient capacity and be likely to deliver the amount of additional floorspace required such that needs in all parts of London can be met?
c)  Are the “office guidelines” set out in Figure A1.4 justified, and is the way in which they are intended to be used in the implementation of part D2 clear?
d)  Would policies E1D4 and SD7A1 provide an effective approach for office development in town centres that are not identified as having potential for speculative and/or mixed use office development in Figure A1.4?
e)  Is the proposed use of Article 4 Directions set out in parts E and F clear and is it justified having regard to national policy, bearing in mind the minor suggested change to paragraph 6.1.6?
f)  How would Policy E1 affect the implementation of Policy GG4 “delivering the homes Londoners need”?
g)  deleted from final agenda. Would policy E1(G) be effective in ensuring the availability of an adequate supply of low cost and affordable office space [Note that policies E2 and E3 are considered under M60]
Just Space submission in full: M59 Offices Just Space

Participants:  Offices (Policy E1) [M59]
Canary Wharf Group
CBI
DTZ Investors
Federation of Small Businesses
GLA Industrial BIDs Group
Home Builders Federation
Just Space
London First
London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies
London Property Alliance

Tuesday 19 March morning
M62 Land for Industry, Logistics and Services to Support London’s Economic Function
Written statements in response to M62 may be up to 4,000 words in length.
The Mayor published a further suggested change relevant to Matter 62 on 8 March [FSC/13]

M66. Would Policies G6-G9 assist in creating a healthy city in accordance with Policy GG3 and will they provide an effective strategic context for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans? Are the individual policies and detailed criteria justified and necessary and would they provide an effective basis for development management? In particular:
a)  Will Policy G6 be likely to achieve net gains in biodiversity and consistent with national policy? Are specific provisions relating to European sites in BA necessary give other legislative requirements?
b)  Will Policy G7 be effective in protecting trees and woodland especially ancient woodland and veteran trees and in increasing the extent of London’s urban forest?
c)  Does Policy G8 provide sufficient encouragement to food growing and urban agriculture?
Just Space submission in full: M66 Biodiversity and food growing Just Space

Week 8 Friday 29 March all day
Sustainable Infrastructure
Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Infrastructure and Managing Heat Risk
Written statements in response to M67 may be up to 3,000 words in length.

Friday 3 May, morning
Social Infrastructure
Delivering Social Infrastructure
M51. Would Policy S1 provide an effective and justified approach to thedevelopment of London’s social infrastructure? In particular would it be effective in meeting the objectives of policies GG1 and GG3 in creating a healthy city and building strong and inclusive communities? In particular:
a)  Would Policy S1, in requiring a needs assessment of social infrastructure and encouraging cross borough collaboration provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to the development of social infrastructure?
b)  Would it provide a justified definition of social infrastructure?
c)  Would it provide an effective development management framework for boroughs, particularly with regard to Policy S1D, F and G?
Just Space submission in full: M51 Social infrastructure Just Space

Health and Social Care Facilities
M52. Would Policy S2 provide an effective and justified approach to support the provision of health and social care facilities in London? In particular:
a)  Would Policy S2 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to the provision of health and social care facilities?
b)  Would it adequately provide for preventative health and social care to meet the aims of Policy GG3 ‘creating a healthy city’?
c)  Would it provide effective and justified guidance on development management matters with appropriate flexibility to reflect local circumstances?
d)  Overall, would it meet the aims of Policy GG3DA, in respect of planning for appropriate health and care infrastructure?
Just Space submission in full: M52 Health and social care Just Space

Education and Child Care Facilities

M53. Would Policy S3 provide an effective and justified approach to support the provision of good quality education and childcare facilities in London? In particular:
a)  Would it provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to good quality education and childcare facilities?
b)  Would it provide appropriate guidance on development management matters taking account of local circumstances? Does it take account of the impacts of poor air quality on the provision of good quality education and childcare facilities in accordance with Policy GG3 DB? Should Policy S3A3 include a development size threshold to ensure a strategic approach to the policy? In the absence of a size threshold, would this be realistic, particularly in light of Policy H2, which increases the role of small sites in meeting London’s identified housing need?
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

Friday 3 may, afternoon
Play and Informal Recreation
M54. Would Policy S4 address strategic matters of London wide importance relating to play and informal recreation? In particular:
a)  Would Policy S4 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to play and informal space?
b)  In light of the need for increased densities and differing local contexts, would requirements as set out at Policy S4B2 be justified, particularly a space standard per child for accessible on site play provision? Overall would it provide sufficient flexibility to reflect local circumstances?
Just Space statement in full: M54 Play spaces Just Space

Sports and Recreation Facilities M55. Would Policy S5 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to sports and recreation facilities? In particular:
a)  Would it provide appropriate strategic guidance on development management matters?
b)  Should it make specific reference to elite sports, stadium and playing fields?
c)  Would it strike the right balance between provision of good quality sports and recreational facilities and protection of green spaces?
d)  Would it be effective in protecting existing sports and recreation facilities?
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

Public Toilets
M56. Would Policy S6, in relation to public toilets, address a strategic matter of London wide importance?
a)  If so, would it provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to the
provision of public toilets?
b)  Would it be effective in ensuring the provision and future management of free publically accessible toilets including ‘Changing Places’ toilets as part of development proposals outlined in parts A and B of that policy?c) In light of the community toilet scheme supported by many boroughs, would it be effective?

Burial Space
M57. Would Policy S7 provide an effective and justified approach to the provision and reuse of burial space in London? In particular:
a)  Would Policy S7 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to this matter?
b)  Would it provide an appropriate strategic approach to guide London boroughs in developing a cross borough approach to this matter?
There is no Just Space submission

Week 10 Tuesday 7 May all day
Transport
Transport Schemes and Development
M76. (a) Are all of the transport schemes set out in Table 10.1 necessary and adequate to deliver the development proposed in the Plan?
(b) In the context of the identified funding gap of £3.1billion per year, is there a reasonable prospect that the transport schemes set out in Table 10.1, and any other essential strategic transport schemes, will be delivered in a timely fashion in relation to the timing of development proposed in the Plan?
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

M77. Would the successful implementation of the policies in the Plan, including delivery of the transport schemes set out in Table 10.1, be likely to achieve
(a) the target of 80% of all trips in London being made by foot, bicycle or public transport by 2041, and
(b) the mode shares in central (95%), inner (90%) and outer (75%) London set out in Figure 10.1A?
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

M78. (a) Are all of the requirements of policies T1 to T4 necessary to address the strategic priorities of London, or do they extend to detailed matters that would be more appropriately dealt with through local plans or neighbourhood plans?
(b) Are the expectations of development proposals relating to the provision of improvements to transport infrastructure and services set out in policies T1A, T2D, T3B-E, T4, and T9 justified and consistent with national policy? [long footnote: Expectations of development proposals include: support and facilitate the transport schemes set out in Table 10.1 (policy T1A(2)); provide mitigation to address any adverse transport impacts, including cumulative impacts (policies T4C and T9C); provide public transport and active travel infrastructure where the ability to absorb increased travel demand has been exhausted and existing public transport is insufficient (policy T4D); mitigate the cumulative impacts of development on public transport and the road network capacity (policy T4E); support capacity, connectivity and other improvements to the bus network (policy T3E); not increase road danger (policy T4F); demonstrate how they will deliver the ten Healthy Streets Indicators set out in Figure 10.1 (policy T2D(1)); and submit Transport Assessments, Travel Plans, Parking Design and Management Plans, Construction Logistics Plans, and Delivery and Servicing Plans in accordance with Transport for London Guidance (policy T4B).]
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

M79. How would delivery of the development proposed in the Plan (particularly the housing and employment development in Opportunity Areas and housing targets in outer Boroughs) and the associated car parking standards affect the

safety, reliability and/or operation of the motorways (M1, M4, M11 and M25) and strategic trunk roads in and around London? [footnote: The Mayor responded to the Panel’s Preliminary Question PQ12 relating to this matter on Friday 7 September 2018.]
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

M80. How would delivery of the Plan’s transport policies and schemes affect (a) the objectives of Policy GG1 “building strong and inclusive communities” andadvancing equality of opportunity as required by the Equalities Act; and (b) theobjectives of policies GG3 “creating a healthy city”, SI1 “improving air quality”,and SI2 “minimising gas emissions”?
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

Thursday 9 May morning
Car Parking
M81. Are all of the requirements of policies T6 and T6.1 to T6.5 necessary to address the strategic priorities of London, or do they extend to detailed matters that would be more appropriately dealt with through local plans or neighbourhood plans? In particular:
a)  Should the Plan allow local plans and neighbourhood plans to apply the maximum car parking standards flexibly to take account of local evidence including about car ownership and use; parking stress; public transport; walking and cycling; the scale, mix and design of particular developments; the character and appearance of an area; and economic viability?
b)  Are the requirements of policies T6 and T6.1 to T6.4 relating to the provision of infrastructure for electric or other ultra-low emission vehicles justified and consistent with national policy?
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

Car Parking: Residential
M82. Is the approach to non-disabled persons residential car parking set out in policies T6 and T6.1A-F justified, and would it be effective in helping to helping to achieve sustainable development? In particular:
a)  Are the maximum standards set out in Table 10.3 justified?
b)  Is the requirement for all large-scale purpose-built shared living, student accommodation and other sui generis residential uses to be car-free (other than disabled persons parking) justified?
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

M83. Is the approach to disabled persons residential car parking set out in policies T6B, T6D and T6.1G-H justified, and would it be effective in helping to helping to achieve sustainable development? In particular:
a)  Is the requirement for a minimum of 3% of dwellings on residential developments of ten or more units to be provided with at least one designated disabled persons parking bay justified (Policy T6.1G(1))?
b)  Is Policy T6.1G(2), relating to the potential provision of an additional 7% of dwellings being provided with a designated disabled persons bay, justified and would it be effective?
c)  Are the detailed requirements of Policy T6.1H justified and consistent with national policy, and would they be effective?
Just Space submission: M83 Car Parking Disabled Residential JS

Car Parking: Non Residential Uses

M84. Is the approach to parking for non residential uses set out in policies T6 and T6.2 to T6.5 justified, and would it be effective in helping to helping to achieve sustainable development? In particular:
a)  Are the maximum standards for offices set out in Table 10.4 justified?
b)  Is the approach to commuter and operational parking for industrial and storage or distribution uses set out in Policy T6.2C and T6.2F justified and consistent with policies E4-E7?
c)  Are the maximum standards for retail set out in Table 10.5 justified?
d)  Is the approach to hotel and leisure uses parking set out in Policy T6.4 justified?
e)  Are the standards for non-residential disabled persons parking set out in Table 10.6 justified?
f)  Is the requirement for existing parking provision to be reduced to meet the maximum standards when sites are redeveloped justified (Policy T6I)?
g)  How would the approach to non-residential car parking affect the objectives of Policy GG5 “growing a good economy” and the vitality and viability of town centres in the context of policies SD6-SD9 and E9?
See the Just Space submission of March 2018.

Cycling
M85. Is Policy T5 justified and consistent with national policy, and would it be effective in helping to helping to achieve sustainable development? In particular:
a)  Are all of the requirements of Policy T5 necessary to address the strategic priorities of London, or do they extend to detailed matters that would be more appropriately dealt with through local plans or neighbourhood plans?
b)  Are the minimum cycle parking standards set out in Table 10.2 justified?
c)  Should the Plan allow local plans and neighbourhood plans to apply the minimum cycle parking standards flexibly to take account of local evidence?
Just Space submission in full: M85 Cycling Just Space

Thursday 9 May, afternoon
Air Quality and Water Infrastructure
M74. Would the policies for air quality and water infrastructure assist in creating a healthy city in accordance with Policy GG3 and provide an effective strategic context for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans? Are the individual policies and detailed criteria justified and necessary and would they provide an effective basis for development management? In particular:
a)  Are the requirements in Policy SI1 clear and will they be effective in improving air quality whilst delivering the homes Londoners need in accordance with Policy GG4?
b)  Will Policy SI5 ensure adequate provision for water infrastructure and encourage a sustainable use of resources? Is the requirement to use the optional requirement of the Building Regulations justified?
Just Space submission: M74 Air Quality and Water Infrastructure Just Space

Friday 10 May morning
Aviation
The Mayor’s response to Preliminary Question 13 is relevant to this matter.

M87. (a) Are the requirements of Policy T8 necessary to address the strategic priorities of London and, if so, would they be effective in that regard? (b) Or does policy T8 cover matters that are dealt with by national policy and/or would be more appropriately dealt with through local plans or neighbourhood plans? (c) Are changes to Policy T8 and/or other parts of the Plan necessary to ensure consistency with national policy relating to Heathrow Airport including the

London Plan EIP 2018-2019: Panel Note 6 Annex 1 Matters (Nov 2018)

Airports National Policy Statement: new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England (June 2018)? [footnote: The Mayor responded to the Panel’s Preliminary Question PQ13 relating to this matter on Friday 7 September 2018.]
Just Space submission: M87 Aviation Just Space

Friday 10 May, afternoon
Waterways
M86. (a) Does the Plan contain justified and effective policies to promote and encourage the use of the River Thames and other waterways for the provision of passenger transport services and the transportation of freight? (b) Are all of the requirements of policies SI14 to SI17 necessary to address the strategic priorities of London, or do they extend to detailed matters that would be more appropriately dealt with through local plans or neighbourhood plans?
Just Space submission: M86 Waterways Just Space

Monday 13 May afternoon (morning free?)
Digital Connectivity Infrastructure
M75. Given that this matter is addressed in the Building Regulations, would Policy SI6, in relation to digital connectivity infrastructure be justified and effective?
a)  Notwithstanding the above, what is the justification for ensuring sufficient ducting space for full fibre connectivity infrastructure or other affordable 1GB capable connection? Would this adequately provide for digital connectivity to meet the aims of Policy GG5 ‘growing a good economy’?
b)  Would the criteria in this policy provide an effective framework for development management?
c)  Would Policy SI6 provide an effective and justified strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans in relation to digital connectivity infrastructure?
There is no Just Space submission

Wednesday 15 May all day?
Town Centres and Retailing
Town Centre Network
M88. Is the town centre network set out in the Plan justified and would it be effective in ensuring that identified needs for main town centre use developments are met in appropriate locations in accordance with national policy? In particular:
a)  Is the existing town centre network classification of (i) international, (ii) metropolitan, (iii) major and (iv) district centres illustrated on Figure 2.17 and set out in Table A1.1 justified?
b)  Given the definitions of the classifications of town centres set out in Annex1 and Figure 2.18, is the identification of centres other than “international” and “metropolitan” in the Plan justified and consistent with national policyrelating to town centres and compliant with legislation relating to the purpose of a spatial development strategy?
c)  Are the future potential changes to the town centre network illustrated on Figure A1.1 and set out in Table A1.1 justified?
d)  Are the classifications, as set out in Table A1.1 and described in Annex 1, for (i) night-time economy functions, (ii) commercial growth potential, and (iii) residential growth potential justified?
Just Space submission: M88 final Town Centre network Just Space 2718

Notes/blog from the session

Retailing
M89. Would policies SD6, SD7, SD8, SD9 and E9B provide an effective strategic framework for the preparation of local plans and neighbourhood plans relating to town centres and all types of main town centre use development (including bulky goods retailing), that is consistent with national policy?
Just Space submission: M89 Retailing Just Space 2718

Notes/blog from the session

M90. Is the approach to development management set out in policies SD6, SD7, SD8, SD9 and E9BA justified and consistent with national policy and would it be effective in terms of:
a)  ensuring that identified needs for all forms of main town centre uses, including bulky goods, are accommodated in appropriate locations in accordance with national policy;
b)  requiring large scale commercial development (over 2,500sqm of A Use Class floorspace) to support the provision of small shops and othercommercial units (including “affordable units” where there is evidence oflocal need); and
c)  supporting Policy GG4 “delivering the homes Londoners need”?
Just Space submission: M90 development management for retail Just Space 2718

Hot Food Takeaways
M91. Are policies E9C and E9D relating to proposals containing hot food takeaways justified and consistent with national policy and guidance about healthy communities and limiting the proliferation of certain use classes in identified areas22. In particular: