W19P321

Woolwich Town Centre SPD

tASK 2

fLORA wALKER, pHIL sMITH, hARPRIYA cHAGGAR, aISHA sTOLL

Contents page Intro

Section 1

Section 2

Contents page

2

Executive Summary

Section 3

Evaluation

50

3

Evaluation of proposals methodology

51

Methodology of SPD

4

Evaluation of proposals - Movement and Connectivity

52

Potential Approaches

5

Evaluation of proposals - Public Realm

53-54

Summary of 2012 Masterplan

6

Evaluation of proposals - Land Use

55

Area Context

7-8

Evaluation of proposals - Social Infrastructure

56

SWOT of the area in 2020

9

Conclusion

57

Vision and Objectives

10

Critical Reflection

58

Concept Maps

11

Potential Approaches

12 -14

Precedents

15-18

Proposals

19

Walk through approach

20

Policy Context

21

Movement and Connectivity Strategy

22-28

Public Realm Strategy

29-36

Land Use Strategy

37 - 41

Social Infrastructure Strategy

42-49

Section 4

Critical reflection on the conduct of 59 group working and management of individual contributions

Annex

2

60

Executive summary The Woolwich Town Centre SPD aims to overcome the shortfalls of the Woolwich Town Centre Masterplan produced in 2012. The choice to create an SPD was due to a number of reasons: 1. Firstly the masterplan in itself was not suited to a traditional masterplan format but instead read more as a framework, and due to the approach taken by the document writers in prioritising individual site allocations it has since resulted in piecemeal development as well as visual and social fracturing throughout the area.

2. Secondly the masterplan placed development over people, with little thought to partnerships or community involvement.

Due to these reasons this document does not aim to prioritise development at the expense of people and place and as such an SPD will be more appropriate as it gives builds upon existing policy and gives the reader more in depth design guidance that does not aim to be too prescriptive.

With this in mind this SPD will use a variety of tools to address the shortfalls of the 2012 Masterplan and achieve a vision that is able to re-connect and integrate the missing pieces that have been forgotten.

3

methodology of spd Section 1: First we take what we learnt from the masterplan and our identified SWOT of the area and the area context and this feeds into the sub-objectives, objectives and vision:

SWOT of the area

Take away from 2012 masterplan

Area Context

Vision Objectives Subojective

Contept maps Evaluation of approaches to create proposals

Section 2: Together with the concept maps the policy and critique of the 2012 maserplan takeaway help to further inform the interventions that will achieve the overall vision:

Section 3:

Section 4:

Theme specific critique of 2012 masterplan

Policy within Local Plan

Formal tools Informal tools Precedents

Proposal to achieve objectives

Evaluation of proposals Reflection on group work 4

Informed by the 2012 masterplan thesis evaluation will help inform the approaches we take forward to the interventions that will help achieve the overall vision of the SPD.

Potential Approaches 5

Summary of 2012 Masterplan

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

Key features of the 2012 Masterplan: Objectives are referenced but poorly The contents of the Masterplan relate to the objectives set through most of the document, but this is done poorly.

6

3.

4

2

Themes

Poor delivery

41% of language is Many site allocations were not delivered and are consdiered unlikely DIRECTIVE

to be delivered. Of the site allocations where deverlopment has been delivered, it is not delivered as it is indicated it should be within the Masterplan document. One reason this happened was because the tools used within the document were not done effectively, it is considered this is related to the quality of the information and guidance within each site allocation rather than the poor effectiveness of using site allocations as a tool.

Language is mainly directive but ambigiuous A mixture of directive, aspirational and informative language is used throughout the Masterplan. A moderate use of directive language within the Masterplan improves effectiveness of the tools used but overall qualitative evaluation of the language used within the document indicates that it lacks detail and frequently uses ambiguous and problematic terms, which undermine the ability of the Masterplan to deliver positive design outcomes.

10

Information and Guidance are operationalised as tools within the document, though there is a greater amount of information rather than guidance.

8

0

4.

Mainly Guidance

10

Occurrence

1.

2.

Site 2 Cross rail - cross rail and residential delivered, but severed from town by A206 and no improvements to existing businesses, creating strong visual and physical contrast

Average = 2.7

1 Not delivered and unlikely to be delivered 2 Not Delievered but likely to delivered 3 Delivered not as intended 4 Delivered as intended

8

Site 1 Glass yard No development has taken place Site 11 Former Gala Bingo - change of use delivered but as a Cathedral, not the use intended to increase night time economy of the town centre

Site allocations Site allocations under construction, completed or with planning permission when Masterplan was being written.

Occurrence

6

4

Average = 2.3 2

0

Themes

1 Ineffective tool 2 Poorly effective tool 3 Effective tool 4 Very effective tool

41% of language is DIRECTIVE

Those parts selected in orange do not set out proposals or delivery

6

Site 2 Cross rail - cross rail and residential delivered, but severed from town by A206 and no improvements to existing businesses, creating strong visual and physical contrast

Information Guidance Site Allocations

Area context

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

The area can be split into 4 main categories; social infrastructure, green and open space, land uses and transport. The maps below explore the spatial distribution of these characteristics as well as the variety within each category.

Woolwich is a varied placed and this is notably represented in these maps.

Social Infrastructure

Green and public open space

Community halls

Public open space

Educational centres/nusery/daycare

Open green space

Religious centres Pharmacies/GP surgery Libraries Leisure Pubs

0m N

Scale: 1:5,000

0m

500m

N

Land uses

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

Transport

Residential

Crossrail / DLR

Business

Cycling routes

Mixed use development

Foot tunnel

Education hub

Ferry

Town Centre

0m N

Scale: 1:5,000

access points

500m

0m N

7

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

Area context

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

Main Community Stakeholders

SPD Boundary The boundary change in this SPD as compared to the 2012 masterplan was done to identify the areas that needed the most attention. We found that the business park to the east of the 2012 boundary did not need further development.

A significant failing of the 2102 masterplan was that it did not identify the important community stakeholders within the area. It did not set up a channel in which development proposals could consult members of the community and as such resulted in stark social disparities. Methods of community consultation are further explored in Section 2 of this SPD.

Advocacy in Greenwich

Wider transport links from Woolwich It is important to recognise the wider transport links that meet in Woolwich and leave from Woolwich. These links help to gain a better understanding of how Woolwich may transition in the future and how this will affect the proposals as set out in this document.

Speak Out Woolwich

8

SWOT of the area in 2020

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

This SWOT of the area is compromised from an in-depth critique of the physical area:

WEAKNESSES

STRENGTHS • • • •

•

Historic Character A number of open and green spaces throughout the area Proximity to the riverside Accessibility and transport connections including the foot tunnel and ferry Social infrastructure

• • • Airplane noise Listed buildings

Vacant and run down retail building frontages

Open spaces/ Green spaces Riverside location

Significant severance

Social infrastructure

Main roads

Foot tunnel

Limited physical and visual connectivity with river front

Ferry

Plan boundary

0m N

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

• • • • •

Plan boundary

#b6dcde

#89bbb1

•

•

Conservation area

#6c8eaf

#e58c85

#b37268

0m N

Scale: 1:5,000

#3a6363

OPPORTUNITIES

Green connections throughout the area Walking and cycling connectivity Ability to enhance the public realm and sense of place Enhance the activities of the town centre Improve connection to the riverside Connect the outer residential areas to the SPD area

500m

#89bbb1

#b6dcde

#6c8eaf

THREATS #e58c85

#b37268

#3a6363

•

• •

Connection to surrounding communities Riverside location

Run down buildings / vacant shops

Green space connectivity Pedestrian and cycle connectivity

Conservation area

Open green space

Crossrail

Town centre / retail core Heritage buildings

Main roads with high traffic flow

Crossrail / DLR

0m N

Scale: 1:5,000

#89bbb1

Significant severance

Conservation area

500m

#b6dcde

#6c8eaf

#e58c85

•

Spatial inequalities from the rest of the town

Public open space

Plan boundary

Plan boundary

#b37268

Physical severance between Royal Arsenal and rest of area Run down appearance of area and vacancy Severance from A206/ A205 and river Poor arrival at DLR station

#3a6363

9

0m N

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

#89bbb1

#b6dcde

#6c8eaf

#e58c85

#b37268

#3a6363

Stark visual and social inequality and severance between Royal Arsenal and rest of area due to Crossrail associated development Vacant buildings in town centre core area Conservation area limiting development High flow traffic resulting in poor pedestrian environment and severance

Vision and Objectives Sub-Objectives

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

Vision

Objectives

The vision can be broken down into four objectives that can then be further split up into multiple sub-objectives. They have been informed by the lessons taken from the 2012 masterplan of Woolwich Town Centre; the context of the area; and identified SWOT of the area. By splitting the vision in this way it will aid us in creating achievable proposals.

To create high quality connectivity to and through Woolwich town centre.

To create connectivity to Woolwich Town Centre from peripheral residential areas.

To create high quality connectivity between the riverside and Woolwich Town Centre.

To improve and prioritize sustainable and integrated modes of transport.

TRANSPORT

VISION:

To prevent and reduce severance within Woolwich Town Centre, in particular from the A205 and A206

PUBLIC REALM Density and Character

LAND USE

To create high quality connectivity to Woolwich town centre from peripheral residential areas, with sustainable and integrated modes of transport.

To create a future Woolwich which is integrated and accessible, with a unique heritage and character. The metropolitan town centre will act as a focal point for the communities of the area and meet their social and economic needs.

Create a high quality public realm that integrates with and invites strategic locations to use the urban core, instilling a sense of civic pride for Woolwich’s unique heritage.

High quality public realm and open space Integrate strategic locations Promote heritage and civic pride within the public realm

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Create an overarching vision for high quality, integrated public realm.

To understand and plan for existing and incoming communities within the area and conserve and enhance social infrastructure for these communities.

Increasing Employment

Improve business quality

10

Integrate existing communities into proposed developments Conserve, Enhance and Create Social Infrastructure

Concept Maps

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

The concept maps are a visual representation of the subojectives from the previous page and help to form the overall vision of the area:

SPD boundary Main movement corridor Important movement corridor Interchange zone DLR / Crossrail River Thames Public greenspace Town centre / retail core 0m N

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

Residential periphery Social infrastructure

Transport

Public realm and open space

Land use

Social Infrastructure 11

Potential approaches & tools, plus critique

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

The tables below break down the formal and informal tools identified within Carmona, 2017 paper. Their benefits and weaknesses are then critiqued and using this we will be able to better inform the approaches we take in achieving our vision for Woolwich in Section 2 of this SPD.

Description of Tool

Design of buildings (façade, relationship with street) , Uses, Integration with public realm , Enhancing sustainable transport network and general connectivity

Pros

Strong ability to influence outcomes Given strong status in decision making Can be deployed in a geographically generic or specific way May be prescriptive or generic

Collating information into a single location, makes it more likely to be utilized – this makes actors progressing the Provides knowledge transfer of place specific context development more effective.

Provides greater understanding to support decision making Woolwich has a rich heritage and history, and providing information helps establish this as important Gives an indication of standards whilst allowing flexibility

Cons

Potential for duplication of local plan policies Reactive approach – specific development is proposed by private sector May not be spatially specific (but can be!)

Non directive. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to utilize or not Likely to stick to the status-quo – may not be innovative or challenge the existing situation.

There can be too much information – need to be highly selective and prioritise information that is included Information may require skilled interpretation to be applied effectively to development proposals.

More detailed guidance for specific sites, giving an indication of the requirements for development of that site.

Good for larger areas Doesn’t just apply to a set area – can extend beyond a site boundary

May be overly prescriptive Usually most beneficial for large and complex development sites

Stating that particular features will be encouraged

Retains lots of flexibility

Doesn’t have to be implemented

Relating tools to existing national and regional policy

Cross referencing reduces duplication and can be seen to add strength to existing policy by drawing attention to it.

Doesn’t always add value. All of the development plan applies – there is no need to restate policies as all policies always apply.

Ability to impose a consistent and cohesive strategy

May be inflexible May homogenise character of places and leave them unresponsive to contextual difference

A detailed specification of design requirements

12

Suitable for Woolwich SPD

Potential approaches & tools, plus critique Description of Tool

Rewarding good practice by offering financial or nonfinancial bonuses, such as exchanging floorspace for alternative provision elsewhere to implement good design

Pros

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

Cons

Outcomes are often dependent on quality of development implemented by If both parties interests are aligned, it can result in successful developers. collaborative working There can be a failure to deliver public amenity space once bonus has been taken (Carmona, 45)

Emphasises ‘streamline’ formal process of control which can Rewarding certain behaviours via systems design: if you ensure high quality design (Carmona, p44). exceed 60% affordable housing then fast track the planning Encouraging developer subsidies on design codes/ process frameworks, allow local authority to better manage projects

Lack of governance/control over Missed opportunity for key engagement

Direct investment in strategic areas Public realm – quality Transport links – cycle routes Bus route subsidies Land acquisition – CPO CIL spending commitment

Ensure quality of design CPO- Guarantee maintenance of heritage sites BSOG can recover fuel costs- more money for local authority

Lack of governance/control over Missed opportunity for key engagement

Subsidy of social infrastructure / business / employment – office space

Can increase private funds

Might not having funding to start with Where is maintenance of funding- not indefinite

Description of Tool

Suitable for Woolwich SPD

Pros

Cons

Policy control Relating to Conservation protection and Environmental protection

Can only be applied so much without allowing for flexibility Has the strongest weight attached to it in decision making These types of policy often fall under the category of “discretionary” (p.12) and Can be applied to a single area or large area as such can lead to inconsistent outcomes.

Has the ability to be flexible but with more detailed guidance it The strength of the policy depends on professional interpretation, local circan increase the certainty in these systems cumstances and political decision making (p.12)

Allocation of specific sites or areas to be used for specific uses

Directs development to specific areas that need it and away from areas that need to be protected 13

Can be too prescriptive and result in piecemeal development Not always used effectively as it could be

Suitable for Woolwich SPD

Potential approaches & tools, plus critique Description of Tool

Research: To explore urban problems and processes and provide recommendations that aim to address problems or influence processes.

Audit: To understand the characteristics of place

Dissemination of evidence through practice guides, case studies and education

Communicates key knowledge and messages to influence and engage Awards, Campaigns, Advocacy

Indicators, Design Review, Certification, Competitions

Pros Can provide information about place quality in an “objective and informed manner” (Carmona p20) Can support practitioners to understand and influence processes that shape the urban environment.

Can provide an intricate picture of the specific characteristics of an area. Presents an informed starting point to strengthen policy and decision making. Can be used to measure a wide variety of characteristics Practice Guides can take many different forms in order to influence different stakeholders Case Studies can inspire. They can support the testing of innovative urban rationales. Comparisons of similar projects can set precedence and provide rationales applicable to diverse urban areas Education at all levels can lead to design-sensitive practices gaining traction within formal design governance Awards can provide design exemplars relevant to local, regional, national and global scales and generate good publicity for design Campaigns package key design messaging into memorable pieces, useful in place marketing Advocacy can enable agendas and changes of process to be adopted behaviourally rather than systemically- therefore cheaper Indicators can give a clear steer on design strategies that are normatively considered as desirable Developmental tools to diagnose and monitor design qualities Design Review offers objective and constructive feedback on proposals Certification enable developments to state they reach defined and recognised benchmarks Competition can raise standards of design

Working together with landowners, businesses, developers, Partnerships can unite diverse groups with shared interests and authorities to improve an area to define and implement projects, policy, process and

14

SECTION 1

Potential approaches

Cons Research is not able to accurately predict outcomes of urban development thanks to urban complexity.

Hypotheses are developed at varying scales and may not relate to local urban contexts Methodology such as indicators and categories need to be developed and communicated convincingly to ensure audit outcomes are useful Costly and time consuming

Practice Guides are normally very general and not place-specific.

Case Studies present projects that worked due to complex urban interactions at a local level which may not be replicable Practitioner’s ability to apply learning is highly dependent on the conditions they are working within (PESTLE)

Setting a local exemplar via awards can lead to copying of the successful design regardless of appropriateness to location Campaigns must get key messaging right, use engaging content and a variety of channels to be successful- this may be expensive Advocacy is often based on relationships and can be accompanied with conflicting views from organizations and individuals

Indicators are only capable of offering a very broad-brush recommendations for design which might be considered reductive.

Design Review has no statutory role and can be ignored.

Certification could be claimed to be reductionist grapples with subjectivity and objectivity issues that require “expert judgement” to evaluate.

Partnerships can result in conflict of interests and relationship conflicts between different parties. Decision making processes are slower.

The management of space following development can cause conflict.

Suitable for Woolwich SPD

Precedents

Potential Approaches

Explanation of approach The use of precedents is an approach this SPD will take in order to better inform our proposals in Section 2. We seek to first analyse how applicable the precedents are as tools, how they compare with Woolwich Town Centre in terms of similarity of context and objectives, how successful they have been and if modifications would need to be made to be more applicable to Woolwich. Precedents refer to proposals such as “PR1.1 Public Realm and Open Space Aims for Woolwich.” These proposals will be explained in more detail in “Section 2, Proposals.”

Proposal

Precedent Name

Movement and Connectivity

MC1 To create connectivity to Woolwich Town Centre from peripheral residential areas.

MC2 To create high quality connectivity into and through Woolwich town centre.

MC3 To create high quality connectivity between the riverside and Woolwich Town Centre.

MC4 To improve and prioritise sustainable and integrated modes of transport.

MC5 To prevent and reduce severance within Woolwich Town Centre, in particular from the A205 and A206.

Greater Manchester wayfinding

Love your laneway and Green your laneway projects, Melbourne Australia

City of London Riverside Walk enhancement strategy

London Borough of Enfield, “Cycle Enfield”, Cycle Hubs

Southwark / Elephant and Castle

40% - wayfinding strategy implemented by Transport for Greater Manchester, focused on major transport nodes and key cultural and social destinations and aimed at visitors.

40% - precedent focused on rejuvinating the city centre rather than enhancing permeability, but many of the opportunities and urban context are similar.

40% - City of London riverside has a very different demographic of users and use patterns, however faced similar issues to Woolwich such as connecting the riverside to further inland and creating a permeable and pleasant environment.

40% - the scale of projects and change in Enflied is much larger than may be possible in Woolwich, oweing to the amount of funding made available for Enfield. However, the aspiration is the same and many elements of the Cycle Enfield Mini Holland Project are transferable to Woolwich context.

50% - The roads being addressed are TfL red routes - busy, high movement roads. Elephant and Castle are central locations with higher levels of pedestrian, cycle and vehicle movements.

Woolwich routes have high levels of vehicle movements but at present has less multi modal conflict.

80% - to improve transport by sustinable means through and into the city centre.

Yes, extremely successful. More than 30 laneways transformed into 60% - sought to improve the user envi- 80% - Objectives are the same, though the culutral and social hotspots and ronment and ensure that the route was scale of funding required to deliver the same now there is a movement towards continuous, well used and accessible. outcomes as Enfield may not be possible. greening laneways as part of climate resilience.

Yes

Colourful crossings appear to be successful, The strategy was a success, although attracting users to cross at these locations, reYes, extremely successful. More is could be seen that much of the ducing collisions. Anecdotal evidence suggests than 30 laneways transformed into The strategy is still ongoing but appears sucriverside environment was already at a users think they enhance the built environment. culutral and social hotspots and cessful. Two awards have been given to Enfield high quality and changes were mostly The Elephant and Castle roundabout project now there is a movement towards Council for their projects. The Cycle Hubs they superficial. Key successes were ensurhas been immensely contraversial, but appears greening laneways as part of have delivered are successful. ing continuity of the riverside walking to have delivered some improvements in enviclimate resilience. route and increasing legibility. ronemtn to pedestrians and cyclists. The issues of severance still exists but is reduced.

This was focused on the Manchester region, applying this in the Woolwich context means looking at a different geographic scale.

Project success was aided by More of a focus on linking the riverside strong community contribution and with Woolwich town centre, rather than ownership, which would need to be improving riverside environment. replicated for Woolwich.

Image

Similarity of Context

Similarity of Objectives

Success?

Improvements/ challenges to applying?

15

Delivery of funding is a challenge in applying this intervention to Woolwich, though creative thinking and public-privte partnerships mean delivery is still viable.

70% - Elephant and Castle rounadabout project and Southwark Colourful Crossings were each seeking to address severance and rebalance the importance of “place value” against “movement value”.

Ensuring that bold steps are taken to reduce the severance, and firmly delivering on the aspiration that streets should be for people as well as vehicles.

Precedents Proposal

Precedent Name

Potential Approaches

Public Realm

PR1.1 Public Realm and Open Space Aims for Woolwich

PR1.2 Public Realm PR1.3 Biodiversity and Open Space Quality Net-Gain Audit

PR2.1 DLR Interchange as Social Hub - SPD

PR2.2 “Our River- PR2.3 Public Realm side� Landscape Site Briefs Brief

PR3.1 Hare Square PR3.2. Public Realm Design CompetiCharacter Areas with tion Design Codes

City of London Public Realm Design Guide SPD (July 2016)

Lambeth Council, Commonplace.com website, for public realm consultation in West Norwood (2018)

Lichfield County Council Biodiversity SPD (2016)

Battle Bridge Place, Kings Cross Central Limited Partnership and Townshend Landscape architects (2015)

Yangpu Riverside project, Shanghai, Original Design Studio (2016)

Van Gogh Walk, Stockwell, Streets Ahead and Lambeth Council (2013)

Low_Line_ Commons, RIBA design award, Southwark (2019)

30% Lichfield has many more protected environments

75% connecting 80% - much an interchange longer stretch of with a riverside (or riverside canal-side area)

70%, similar focus on residential but not leading to an urban core

75% - Riverside area 75% - Larger Scale, with new residential but similar public specific sites require 100% (Same context) realm and public different types of space context attention

Vauxhall Nine Elms On the Southbank,Public Realm Strategy (2015)

PR3.3. Partnership to broaden heritage trail

Royal Greenwich Heritage Partnership (2008)

Image

Similarity of Context

Similarity of Objectives

Success?

Improvements/ challenges to applying?

50% - Some riverside areas - Less residential - Much more business use - Lots of heritage - More investment opportunity - Wealthier

70% Smaller scale

75% - Public Realm - Movement - Social Infrastructure - Functional Mix

100% improve 100% involve and biodiversity of area respond to local needs within development in shaping public realm process

100% bringing 100% Creating a new use and welcoming point open space to of arrival ex-industrial riverside

80%, focus on pedestrian permeability and quality of public realm

100% People focussed project including green infrastructure

60% Less emphasis on bridging divides and connecting places

50% The route is focussed on military heritage so quite narrow

Yes

Yes

Yes- award winning

Yes

Yes, award winning

TBC

No

No

Much easier to attract investment in City of London

Not all community suggestions will be actionable and difficult to engage with all users

Need to identify which species to recommend and which areas should be promoted for biodiversity

Challenge in reaching consensus

More focus on pedestrian links and connections between character area

Include oral history, workers history, wayfinding, event programmes

Yes

Emulate public private partnership

16

Funding will be Decision on more challenging where- community in Woolwich involvement key

Precedents Proposal

Precedent Name

LU1.1 Develop character areas and intergrate existing building pattern Old Oak and Park Royal

Potential Approaches

LU1.2 Manage expected housing growth

Armourers Court

Land use

LU2.1 Introduce range of mix use buildings through partnership working

LU2.2 New Wine Church as flexible mixed use space

LU3.1 Design frontages for existing businesses

Woolwich Works

East Street Exchange

Merton Council

40% Concept of flexible mix use spaces in Woolwich and includes partnership working with theatre company however concentrated to one area

80% Utilses existing building uses whilst creating opportunity for more uses. The location of East Street Exchange is also situated in a busy junction similar to New Wine Church.

Looks at correctly managing movement

90% Very relevant in showing a detailed design guide for shop frontages and how to maintain and enhance existing character

80% Objectives similar in regards to introduces flexible spaces and co working spaces to Woolwich as well as increasing job opportunities a new night time economy

80% East Street Exchange shows clearly how flexible a space can be within a busy area and also how it can be appreciated by the local and wider community

90% Merton council’s document aims to tackle high street activity through preserving the distinctive character and proving employment opportunities

Image

Similarity of Context

Similarity of Objectives

Success?

Improvements/ challenges to applying?

60% Addresses character areas from the perspective of considering new development which is relevant to the ongoing development in Woolwich however Old Oak Park Royal is a larger site in comparison

30% Relatable in terms of development around DLR station box in increase activity however the use of tall buildings is misplaced

60% Old Oak Park Royal highlights how important character areas in respond30% Meets objectives in terms of deliving to future development much like ering new affordable homes however how Woolwich should intergrate with compromising existing character new projects whilst defining key character areas.

Yes, work has been developed in auditing and assessing the specific character areas of OPDC

The project had been approved in 2014 and scheduled works to start 2018 however due to Crossrail there have been Currently undergoing works however prodelays progressing this. Could be consid- gress made so far in the area has proved ered unsuccessful due to the response successful in promotion it has recieved from the public expressing the development will look “odd” against Royal Arsenal

Preventing a zoning approach which could potentially segregate the area.

Gaining the correct funding to ensure Important to approach through the development does not compromise the vision of intergrating character areas to character and is not investment driven become a cohesive Woolwich

Yes, example images show success in transforming a familar building for Successful and continued to be most high streets to a more attractive used as library and event space. Well version with improved design quality. loved by the community, and is and The document also carries a fair bit of aesthically fits to the area. weight as it must be considered alongside Merton’s character study and other planning policy documents

Addressing how to introduce an additional range of uses which can co-exist alongside Maintenance and management of Woolwich Works and how not to detract space footfall from one to the other. Funding could also present an issue

17

Old businesses showing unwillingness to change shop front and lack of understanding in how to carry out changes

Precedents Intervention

Precedent Name

Potential Approaches

Social Infrastructure

SI1.1 Best code of conduct for community consultation

SI2.2 Encourage a mix of uses and meanwhile uses

SI2.3. North of Spray Street Meanwhile Spaces

SI2.4. New Leisure Centre development brief

SI2.5. Royal Arsenal Play Design Competition

Sidewalk Toronto (ongoing)

Campus Maritus Park (1999-2013)

Model Project House of Statistics (2015- ongoing)

Places Leisure Eastleigh

Shaping Neighbourhoods: Play and informal recreation SPD (2012)

Image

Similarity of Context

Similarity of Objectives

Success?

Improvements/ challenges to applying?

30% the area was larger in context 40% - was also by the riverside but was 50% - had similar open spaces that and had been derlict for some time 70% the area was similar in size but much larger in scale and to create a needed better use but was more run- with historical meaning. The prothe context was a little more smart area down and facing economic hardship posal was created from resistance to development

Yes - has many examples that can be applied to the area

100% - to engage the community in a meaningful way and get active participation

90% get people and businesses involved (more business minded), create a mix of uses that can be enjoyed yearly and through all times of the day

70% The objective was to create meaningful development and think alternatively to traditional resi/commercial uses

100% The objective was to create meaningful development that was well designed and incoporated the community

80% providing additional play space that isn’t always traditional but more long term and fixed

yes and no - gained criticisms and praise

Yes

Ongoing but so far yes

Yes (and gained a 2019 RIBA award)

Yes

very focused on urban data to engage residents

involved greater partnership and financial backing through fundraising but with woolwich being more on the small scale these challenges don’t have to apply

It requires strong community mindSplits up awards into different cateed engagement and participation gories but needs more site specific as well as a strong shared vision incentives to applying between partners

18

funding, patnership with landowners

Proposals 19

SPD Proposals: walk through of approach

SECTION 2

Proposal

The Woolwich Town Centre SPD contains a number of proposals. Each proposal contributes to meeting the vision and objectives for the Town Centre. This page provides an overview of how the proposals are set out on the following pages (left of this page) and an overview of how each component was put together.

Vision

Stakeholder views, context research and existing policy documents were used as evidence which fed into the vision.

Created by Eucalyp from the Noun Project

Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

Four core objectives were identified, each of which responds to the vision.

Objective 4 Created by Eucalyp from the Noun Project

A number of proposals were then identified, which contribute to meeting at least one objective.

Introduction Created by Yoyon Pujiyono from the Noun Project

Overview maps Concept map Proposals map

A spatial location was identified for each proposal, first based on the concept map for its objective, then based on detailed mapping of the area.

Proposals Created by Arthur Shlain from the Noun Project

Tools:

Each proposal was given further detail to enable it to be implemented. This detail took the form of one or more policy and urban design tools. The tools can be broadly categorised as Guidance, Incentive, Control or Informal.

Phasing, Funding, Dependency Phasing: Phase 1 - 1-2 years

Phase 2 - 2-3 years

Phase 3 - 3-5 years

The contents set out for Objective 1 to the left are replicated for Objectives 2 to 4.

Tools were selected based on the evaluation of potential tools and approaches set out in Section 1 of this report.

Created by Maria Kislitsina from the Noun Project

20

Policy context

SECTION 2

Proposal

Royal Borough of Greenwich Local Plan (2014)

Social Infrastructure

Land Use

Public Realm

Transport and Movement

Woolwich Town Centre Masterplan 2012 1. Objectives Failure to address poor connectivity between the town centre and the residential periphery, failure

to address severance created by A205 and A206, failure to improve links from the riverside to the town centre.

2. Tools Lack of detail and clarity in the information, guidance and site allocation. Doesnt define "small scale improvements". Recognises that severance is an issue, but doesnt define what the impacts of severance and main roads are on people and the environement. Doesnt show where the residential hinterland is. Doesnt give examples of barriers to pedestrian movements, doesnt indicate types of paving or green infrastructure that could be used.

Failure to identify key bodies involved in delivery of improvements. Anything delivered has been piecemeal and has not resulted in the objectives being fully met.

3. Delivery

TC2

Sustainable Travel

IM4

IMb/c

4. Language:

Use of directive language makes clear what improvements could be, and indicates precedents that could help inform change.

1. Objectives Failure to properly address social and visual disparity between Royal Arsenal and everywhere else

It wasn’t aspirational No coherent tall buildings plan or clear strategy to keep development at a human scale

2. Tools

Only vague guidance and reference to “improvement” of public realm No clear precedents given (description of qualities, materials, scale, movement)

3. Delivery

Little mention of management/ delivery was given

4. Language: Lack of definition of quality public realm and open space

It didn’t contain a clear strategy to link public realm and open spaces with character and heritage

1. Objectives Highlights the need for Woolwich to become metropolitan centre however does not focus on preservation of character, stakeholder engagement or an integrated approach to site allocation

Woolwich Town Centre

Improved links between the Town Centre, the Royal Arsenal and the riverside.

Support for integrated and sustainable transport. Development should be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users first.

IMb and IMc - Walking and cycling and parking standards

Development should contribute to encouraging walking and cycling, through improvements to movement networks, provision of facillities and parking, improve user experience, and take account of desire lines. Car parking should be limited to minimum neccessary whilst providing for disabled access.

Woolwich Town Centre Strategic Development Location

3.3.6 The environment of the Town Centre will be improved. Improved links between the Town Centre, the Royal Arsenal and the riverside. The market will be retained and enhanced.

IM1

Infrastructure

Use of planning obligations to ensure public realm provides a properly planned, well designed, accessible and integrated environment. Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment sustainability rating for “significant amounts of public realm is ‘Excellent.’

Community Cohesion

CH1 4.7.6 Enhance community safety through design using measures to reduce crime and increase natural surveillance

EAI

Increasing employment opportunities and expanding existing businesses to meet skills of local people.

Woolwich has significant opportunity to provide jobs to local people .

2. Tools Strong use of site allocation however lack clarity. Requires variety of tools including guidance and a way to incentive development

DH2

Woolwich is identified to have potential for tall buildings without compromising heritage assets. Refer to ‘Guidance on Tall Buildings’ by English Heritage and CABE.

3. Delivery Fails to deliver many of the promised site allocations causing major visual disparity between Royal Arsenal and Spray Street and deterioration of Powis and Hare Street

DH3

Preserving and enhancing the character of conservation areas whilst establish a pattern of development at local level. Heritage should be used as a feature of regeneration and enhancement of Royal Greenwich heritage assets.

4. Language Directive and aspirational language used, could be improved through stronger precedents to support proposals 1. Objectives: Little is spoken of the importance of social infrastrcutre or existing communities within the document 2. Tools: Social infrastructure is mainly spoken about in terms of isolated sites to be developed.

Sites are mentioned as possible locations but not how they could service the community 3. Delivery: The community is not represented within the document and there is little mention of possible engagement, consultation or patnerships for future development within the area.

The lack of mention of the community within the document has led to little integration of the existing town and community into the newer developments within the area 4. Language: Absence in language of communities within the area, development proposals linked to social infrastructure was was brief and focused on visual appearance 21

TC2

Woolwich should act as a major centre in South East London, any development should attribute to the reclassification of Woolwich as a metropolitan centre.

EA(b)

Pubs: The Council supports retaining pubs which have a community rorle and resist demolition or change of use unless it is not economically viable. An assessment must be made prior to application.

OS(b)

Community Open Space: This policy requires new buildings and extensions to existing buildings in Community Open Space to be limited to certian heights and scales. Designated spaces are limited.

CH1

Cohesive Communities: measures that help to create and maintain cohesive communities as well as encouaging diversity and reducing inequalities in the area.

CH2

Healthy Communities: developments must enable residents to lead more healthy and active lifestyles

CH(a)

Loss of Community Facilities: the LPA will protect existing social and community facilities, proposals that would result in a loss must re-provide in the borough

Movement and Connectivity Strategy

SECTION 2

Proposal

Movement and Connectivity Objectives Woolwich town centre benefits from high public transport accessibility, specifically in the form of strategic pan-London transport such as the DLR and Crossrail. It also benefits from being on key London walking routes, such as the Thames Path. However, poorer accessibility exists from residential areas into the town centre and the town centre itself is relatively impermeable. There is a high level of car usage within the Town and further to this, busy main roads running through the town (A205 and A206) create severance within the urban space. This has contributed to physical and socio-economic disparities on either side of the roads.

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

Important movement corridor Key movement gateway Interchange zone

This section of the Woolwich Town Centre SPD seeks to build on Policy IM4 and IMb and c in the Greenwich Local Plan, which states that development should seek to improve the quality and quantity of sustainable transport networks, encourage the integrated use of sustainable transport modes for trips and reduce severance.

MC2 To create high quality connectivity into and through Woolwich town centre.

1.1 Information and guidance 1.2 Proposal map

DLR / Crossrail River Thames Public greenspace 0m

Residential periphery

4.5 Case study

3.1 Information and guidance

3.2 Example improvements

MC4 To improve and prioritise sustainable and integrated modes of transport.

4.3 Example improvements

Proposals map

Legend

2.2 Proposal map

Gateways to the Town Centre Laneway permeability improvements

2.4 Laneway case studies

4.2 Guidance

Town centre / retail core

1.3 Example improvements

4.1 Information

500m

Social infrastructure

MC3 To create high quality connectivity between the riverside and Woolwich Town Centre.

2.1 Information and guidance

Scale: 1:5,000

N

2.3 Laneway guidance

4.4 Interchange map

SPD boundary Main movement corridor

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

MC1 To create connectivity to Woolwich Town Centre from peripheral residential areas.

Concept map

3.3 Proposal map

MC5 To prevent and reduce severance within Woolwich Town Centre, in particular from the A205 and A206.

Retail walking loops

Riverside movement improvements

Interchange zone SPD boundary DLR / Crossrail

5.1 Information

River Thames Public greenspace

5.2 Guidance

0m N

5.3 Example improvements

500m

Town centre / retail core Residential periphery

The map above provides a spatial representation of the proposals. Numbers correspond to the proposals on the following pages.

5.4 Boulevard section 5.5 Case study

Scale: 1:5,000

22

High Quality Connectivity between peripheral areas and Centre

SECTION 2

Proposal

MC1: To create connectivity to Woolwich Town Centre from peripheral residential areas.

1.1 Information and Guidance Development should contribute to connectivity and movement by sustainable modes of transport within the area.

It help to expand the walkable and cyclable catchment of the town centre through improvements at key ‘gateway’ locations that link the residential periphery to the town centre, (identified on the proposals map). Improvements at these gateway locations should seek to improve movement by sustainable modes of transport into the town centre.

Case Study: Madrid, ESP. Colourful and interesting street crossings, designed by local artists.

1.2 Sites 1.2A to 1.2J - gateways to the town centre To encourage greater connectivity between the town centre and the residential periphery, gateways into the town centre from the surrounding residential periphery have been identified (shown in the proposals map on the previous page).

Case Study: Coombe Town Tunnel, UK. Well lit cycle and pedestrian routes.

Improvements to these gateways should be made in line with “1.3 Example improvements” below.

1.3 Example improvements Improvements should: • Increase the number of routes for cyclists and pedestrians • Increase the length of continuous pedestrian and cycle routes • Increase quality of routes for cyclists and pedestrians.

This should focus on: • Legibility, navigability, wayfinding • Lighting • Quality surfacing User experience, for all age groups (visually attractive, lower noise, increase greenery, clean air, safe crossings, places to stop, things to see, play spaces)

Case Study: Amsterdam, NL. Visible, secure, convenient parking.

Case Study: Greater Manchester Wayfinding, UK. Clear informative signage and wayfinding.

23

High Quality Connectivity Into and Through Centre

SECTION 2

Proposal

2.4 Laneway Case Studies

MC2: To create high quality connectivity into and through Woolwich town centre.

1.

2.

3.

4.

2.1 Information and Guidance The urban fabric of Woolwich Town Centre Development is impermeable and illegible. To remedy this, development within the SPD area should contribute towards increasing filtered permeability for cyclists and pedestrians in the town centre.

Routes in the town centre and routes linking key destinations should be created and made attractive for use wherever possible to improve efficiency of movement and to make the area more navigable.

Love your Laneway and Green your Laneway projects, Melbourne, Australia Clear Alleys Program, Seattle, USA Forgotten Spaces: Revitalizing Perth’s Laneways Strategy, Perth, Australia Brighton Lanes, UK

Additional Planning Guidance on laneway enhancements: Turning Laneways into Public Places (Together Design Lab)

2.2 Laneway permeability proposal There is potential a higher quality of connectivity within the town centre by increasing its permeability for pedestrians and cyclists using new routes and existing laneways, in particular within area 13 on the proposals map.

2.3 Laneway Guidance Laneways should be welcoming, inclusive, beautiful, people orientated, accessible and green.

They should enhance a sense of place, increase connectivity and be part of a wider network of public spaces.

The laneways can function as green, commercial, cultural, and artistic spaces as well as movement corridors for pedestrians, as detailed in the case studies identified.

Case Study: Montreal, CAN.

Case Study: City of Perth, Aus.

Main area for permeability improvements New / improved links for permeability

24

Case Study: City of Melbourne, Aus. Social, commercial and cultural activities in laneways.

Case Study: Seattle, USA. Making best use of city space.

High Quality Connectivity Into and through Centre MC2: To create high quality connectivity into and through Woolwich town centre.

SECTION 2

Proposal

MC3: To create high quality connectivity between the riverside and Woolwich Town Centre.

2.5 Walking loops

3.1 Information and Guidance

New routes and increased permeability should be developed with a view to developing retail and leisure walking loops through the town centre.

Legibility and navigational aids should contribute to encouraging pedestrian circulation on these routes, to ensure retail footfall and access to the riverside.

Woolwich benefits from a riverside location, which can provide huge social, economic and environmental benefits, providing amenity, health and biodiversity functions.

Development should seek to ensure that the riverside should be easily accessible from the town centre. Opportunities to link the riverside with the residential periphery beyond should also be considered.

Improvements should make reference to PR2.2

3.2 Example improvements

SPD boundary Main walking loop Secondary walking loop

A detailed Riverside Walking and Landscaping Strategy (RWLS) will be created by RB Greenwich to guide development of pedestrian routes along the riverside and into the town centre. This will detail how the routes will be legible, navigable and accessible to users.

Interchange zone DLR / Crossrail River Thames Public greenspace

Improvements should follow the TfL Healthy Streets guidance and, as well as being informed by the RWLS should contain:

Town centre / retail core Residential periphery Social infrastructure

• • • 0m N

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

High quality materials and surfacing that reflect and enhance the character of the area Locations of wayfinding totems and signage including walk times Include locations of interest and places to stop, for example play spaces, exercise spaces.

3.3 Site 12 - Riverside movement improvements and connectivity

Case Study: Riverside Walk Enhancement Strategy, City of London, UK.

0m N

25

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

High Quality Connectivity Into and Within Centre

SECTION 2

Proposal

4.4 Interchange map

MC4: To improve and prioritise a sustainable and integrated transport network.

4.1 Information

Crossrail

Woolwich will host a Crossrail station which will link the town centre with central London. Alongside the existing DLR links, Crossrail will hugely reduce the journey time from Woolwich into the centre of London, encouraging a greater flow of people both in to and out from the centre of Woolwich. Whilst areas already within an easy walk of the station are at an instant advantage from this increased accessibility, it is important that the residential periphery is also able to benefit, and can reach the Crossrail station quickly and easily by sustainable modes. Accordingly it is important that Woolwich is able to support an integrated mix of transport uses.

Pow is

Stre e

t

General Gordon Square

4.2 Guidance

Plum stead R

Beresford Square

Spr ay S t

ree t

DLR (East) Vinc e

Transport interchange Interchange Area

nt R o

Development should contribute towards expanding and enhancing the sustainable transport network in Woolwich, in particular to support the integrated use of sustainable transport modes to and from key locations such as transport nodes, the town centre and residential areas.

oad

ad

Improvements to improve and prioritise a sustainable and integrated transport network should be focused within the interchange area identified above.

This will encourage use of multiple sustainable modes in one trip, for example: cycle > rail > walk.

4.5 Case Study: Cycle Hubs, London Borough of Enfield, UK

Accordingly, improvements to networks should be made by increasing and enhancing routes along desire lines, with a strong focus on facilitating the ease of interchange between sustainable transport modes at node locations.

Making cycling more attractive, convenient and secure through cycle hubs and Sheffield stands.

The interchange zone should contribute to local identity, whilst offering convenience, safety, comfort and clarity to the user.

4.3 Example improvements Signage and improvements to navigation and legibility Secure, convenient and visible cycle parking, located on desire lines Improvements to bus waiting shelters (respite from wind and rain) Real time passenger information for buses Locate quality secure cycle parking at visible locations on desire lines. Enfield: Mini Holland / Cycle Enfield Scheme 26

High Quality Connectivity Into and Within Centre

SECTION 2

Proposal

5.4 Boulevards

MC5: To prevent and reduce severance within Woolwich Town Centre, in particular from the A205 and A206.

5.1 Information The A205 and A206 are key vehicle routes that form part of the TfL managed Road Network.

Whilst the importance of these routes for public transport vehicles, freight, deliveries and disabled access is noted, heavy use of these routes has the ability to negatively impact Woolwich town centre through: • Severance • Noise pollution, • Air pollution, • Road safety.

Pavement Benches Outdoor eating / drinking Cycle parking Trees and plants Street art

Bus lane

Road Reduced vehicle speeds (narrow lanes and traffic calming) No parking

Cycle lane Segregated from traffic Signage Well lit

Mixed use buildings Commercial and active frontages on ground floors

Interventions should seek to ensure that the A205 and A206 routes have a high place function as well as a high movement function.

Streets will require plants and landscaping, as well as prioritised space for pedestrians and sustainable modes. (Picture showing desired look and feel: Champs Elysees, Paris)

5.2 Guidance Improvements should be made to the road, including to the pavements and landscaping either side of the road and in the central reservation which should reduce the negative impacts from these roads, and aim to: • Create a boulevard feel (high movement, high place quality) • Reduce traffic speeds • Reduce traffic congestion • Increase ease of movement from one side of the road to the other • Enhance usage for public transport vehicles and discourage private vehicle journeys • Improve pedestrian and cycle experience when following these routes or crossing these routes • Improvements should be targeted at locations where they will have the most impact, namely at movement ‘desire’ lines, but should be extensive throughout the town centre.

5.5 Case Studies: Elephant and Castle and Southwark

5.3 Example improvements Potential improvements may include: • Planting trees, shrubs and other green infrastructure as part of a street landscaping strategy to create a boulevard feel, to reduce the impact of vehicle emissions to air and to screen vehicle noise.

• Widening pavements, improving surfacing and adding benches to enhance pedestrian experience.

• Narrowing roads and other traffic calming measures to reduce traffic speeds • Reallocating road space to prioritise movement of pedestrians, cyclists and buses • Increase the number of road crossings, located on pedestrian and cycle movement ‘desire’ lines.

Rebalancing the streets place and movement function - colourful crossings (Southwark, TfL) Interventions should creatively seek to address severance whilst balancing the need for vehicle movement.

This should be done by enhancing the pedestrian and cycle experience. Through improving the ability to cross roads easily wherever possible and enhancing the environment to improve the experience of waiting to cross.

27

phasing and delivery for movement and connectivity Name of Proposal

MC1 To create connectivity to Woolwich Town Centre from peripheral residential areas.

MC2 To create high quality connectivity into and through Woolwich town centre.

MC3 To create high quality connectivity between the riverside and Woolwich Town Centre.

MC4 To improve and prioritise sustainable and integrated modes of transport.

MC5 To prevent and reduce severance within Woolwich Town Centre, in particular from the A205 and A206.

Phasing Phase 1 = delivery complete in 1-2 years Phase 2 = delivery complete in 2-3 years Phase 3 = delivery complete in 3-5 years

Funding

> Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding, raised through Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 agreements. > TfL funding.

1

> Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding, raised through Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 agreements. > Small scale improvements to laneways (as set out in Guidance documents, such as planters and street art) may be made by local businesses and residents. > Businesses and communities may fundraise and make contributions to more expensive improvements (as set out in signposted Guidance document, such as street lighting and surfacing).

2

> Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding, raised through Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 agreements. > TfL funding.

2

> TfL > Crossrail > Private and Partnership > Section 106 and 278 > Community Infrastructure Levy

2

3

> Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding > Transport for London Funding > Section 106 and 278 > Community Infrastructure Levy

28

SECTION 2

Proposal

Dependencies and mitigation

> Gateway improvements may be delivered regardless, but a wider network of sustainable transport routes which pass through the gateways will ensure maximum benefit from this proposal. > Dependent on RB Greenwich and TfL prioritising improvements and ensuring sufficient funding is diverted to these improvements. > CIL and S106 funding is dependent on capturing and diverting this revenue from private sector development.

Mitigation: make this proposal a Council priority, set up a working group with stakeholders, engage with local communities to ensure their needs are met. > Dependent on community involvement and getting support and buy in/contributions from businesses and community groups. > Dependent on Council support and funding. > No dependency on transport infrastructure projects.

Mitigation: set up a working group with representatives from stakeholders such as community groups and local businesses. Utilise this as a forum to share best practice and knowledge and to generate change. Obtain political buy in to ensure this proposal becomes a council priority. > Dependent on production of Riverside Walking and Landscape Strategy to provide detailed guidance on the nature, scale and type of improvements that are required.

Mitigation: ensure Strategy is implemented rapidly. > Dependent on successful opening of Crossrail station in Woolwich (though this is in final stages before completion). > Dependent on contributions from Crossrail and TfL, though these bodies have shared interests. > Dependent on Council support through funding. > Dependent on approval of proposals by TfL and RB Greenwich, particularly in terms of design and road safety.

Mitigaation: Ensure that this proposal is a standing item major project on TfL and RB Greenwich collaborative working meetings.

Public Realm Strategy Public Realm Objectives

SECTION 2

Proposal

Concept Map

The quality of public realm greatly effects how a place is experienced. Woolwich's public realm currently tells the story of two cities.

5

Division between recent Crossrail associated developments and the rest of the town centre make Woolwich feel like two places; old Woolwich and new Woolwich.

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

The Plumstead Road acts as an open wound severing these two areas. This SPD aims to stitch these areas back together with proposals that call for coherent high quality public realm that is integrated with strategic points and plays a role in building civic pride for the area as a whole.

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

4

Public realm improvements will closely relate to the other objectives of this SPD , knitting together transport, functional mix and social infrastructure.

SPD boundary River Thames Connected Green Riverside

Quality

Integration

Public realm severance area

Civic Pride

Public realm improvement at entrance points Public realm investment at transport interchange 0m N

PR 1. High Quality Public Realm and Open Space

PR 2. Integrate Strategic Locations

PR 1.1 Public Realm and Open Space Aims for Woolwich

PR 2.1 DLR , Crossrail Interchange as a Social Hub

PR 1.2 Public Realm and Open Space Quality Audit

PR 2.2 “Our Riverside�

Landscape Brief

PR 1.3 Biodiversity Net-Gain

PR 2.3 Public Realm Gateways and Site Briefs

PR 3. Promote Heritage and Civic Pride within the Public Realm

The recently redeveloped Royal Arsenal enjoys high quality footways and open spaces, as will the Warren development upon completion. The rest of the area's public realm needs to match this standard if it is to feel like it is part of the same place.

PR 3.1 Hare Square Award PR 3.2. Public Realm Character Areas with Design Guidance

Woolwich's public realm must connect and link areas, rather than amplify existing social and physical inequalities between them. This SPD will do this by integrating strategic transport locations with the town centre and the riverside infrastructure, plus upgrade important links to Woolwich's residential hinterland.

PR 3.3. Partnership with Historic England to broaden heritage trail

The Public Realm chapter and proposals above aim reduce divisions and enable Woolwich to reach it's potential in an inclusive way so it can achieve it's long term ambition to become a metropolitan centre.

29

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

Woolwich's heritage and civic pride does not solely exist in the Royal Arsenal. Public realm interventions will attempt to present a more balanced image of sources of civic pride in Woolwich that highlight Woolwich's important social, industrial and political heritage as well is it's military heritage.

Public realm improvements must be of a consistent high quality, better integrate attractions with the town centre, invite pedestrians from the residential hinterland in, address severance caused by the Plumstead road and instil a well distributed sense of civic pride.

PR1. High Quality Public Realm and Open Space Existing Public Realm

10

Proposal

PR1.1 Public Realm and Open Space Aims for Woolwich 5

4

SECTION 2

Objective: To clearly state Woolwich's Public Realm aims to ensure high quality is delivered consistently.

These aims will guide and shape public realm development and improvements across the area.

b

9

1. High Standard of Design: High quality components, materials, implementation and detailing. Design with maintenance costs in mind to ensure that materials are long lasting and easily sourced

Public Squares: a. Beresford Square b. Hare Square (proposed)

2. Integrated Streets and Spaces: address existing physical disparity by ensuring public realm investment is equally distributed within the area, connecting streets and spaces with each other.

Outlying Pedestrian nodes (order of usage)

a

2

8 7 6

1

1. Sandy Hill Road

6. Anglesea Road

2. Plumstead Road

7. Vincent Road

3. Grand Depot Rd

8. Calderwood Street

4. Church Street

9. Duke Wellington Av

5. Marleborough Rd

10. Hare Square

3. Inclusive Streets and Spaces: accessibility and enjoyment for all must by evidenced at the earliest stages and throughout design and management processes

SPD boundary River Thames Parks Public Squares

4. Sustainable and Biodiverse Streets and Spaces: streets and open spaces should encourage active travel and should use as much planting for biodiversity, storm water trees, sustainable urban drainage and use of sustainable materials.

Powis Street Public Realm

3

Core Public Realm Riverside Public Realm 0m

N

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

Dual Carriageway Severance

5. Protect and enhance Woolwich’s heritage and character: ensure public realm design elements relate sensitively to and add value to the town’s heritage assets

Key Public Realm Features: Much of Woolwich's urban core is pedestrianised, linking retail with DLR stations.

However, the core also features a busy bus interchange for many local routes.

General Gordon Square and Beresford Square (a market six days a week) are of key importance as pieces of open space within the urban core.

6. Community Participation: Woolwich’s community must be involved in shaping their town’s public realm and open space

Street, leading to the Woolwich leisure centre.

Severance of Plumstead Road affects the accessibility of this centre. The Woolwich Ferry also creates an unfriendly pedestrian environment that attracts many HGVs. A riverside route straddles new development in the centre and east.

The Love Lane Tesco Store detracts character from its surroundings, with inactive frontages and lack of human scale.

A new green link within the Warren redevelopment will reconnect the urban core with the riverside and provide an inclusive green space incorporating a playground.

The historic and pedestrianised Powis Street stretches westward and connects with Hare

Two medium sized green open spaces sit on the east and west extent of the SPD area.

Case Study: Guidance: Information City of London Public Realm Design Guide SPD (July 2016)

30

PR1. High Quality Public Realm and Open Space PR1.2 Public Realm and Open Space Quality Audit

SECTION 2

Proposal

PR1.3 Biodiversity Net-Gain

Objective: To ensure community members shape public realm plans to address most pressing needs

Objective: to require development to deliver a net-gain in biodiversity

Conducting a citizen’s audit will help to direct investment to Woolwich’s public realm and open spaces that need it the most.

This policy will result in fast-track processing of applications that aim to improve biodiversity of the area. The benefits will be promoted widely.

Developments should ensure that they do not cause the fragmentation of habitats.

Rather, they must incorporate beneficial nature conservation features and must result in a net-gain of biodiversity.

If this is impossible on-site, compensation schemes must produce greater levels of biodiversity than those that will be lost.

There are two Sites of Nature Conservation Importance including the River Thames within the SPD boundary. These sites can benefit from off-site compensation, however, new areas for biodiversity should also be established.

Vital clues and creative ideas can be forthcoming when residents, visitors, workers and business owners are asked what they enjoy or would like to see more of in specific areas.

Results from this audit will be incorporated into PR2.3 Public Realm Site Briefs and will be used to support phasing plans.

The audit will be done using both digital and non-digital forms of data collection.

Woolwich's Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

Sites of Nature Conservation Importance SPD boundary Site of Nature Conservation Importance Parks

Case Study: Informal Evidence Commonplace.com website, used by Lambeth Council for public realm consultation in West Norwood (2018)

0m N

Case Study: Process Management Lichfield County Council Biodiversity SPD 2016

Case Study: Promotion A visualisation of community views of the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Neighbourhood Plan area (ASH 2019)

31

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

PR2. Integrate Strategic Locations

SECTION 2

Proposal

PR2.1 DLR Interchange as Social Hub - New SPD for DLR Site

PR2.2 “Our Riverside” Landscape Brief

#89bbb1

#b6dcde

#e58c85

#6c8eaf

Woolwich Riverside Areas

Objective: To harness development of the DLR site to improve experiences of Woolwich’s urban core

Hare Square (proposed) Objective: To bring the river back to the people, creating a coherent and adaptable landscape for all.

Leisure Centre/Ferry

Major improvements are required around the DLR station, given increased pedestrian flows between the Crossrail station and the DLR station.

Crossrail

Stre e

t

General Gordon Square

Woo lw New ich Rd

Pow is

Plum stead R

Beresford Square

Social Interchange Interchange Area

nt R o

ad

DLR Station as a Social Hub

1. Pedestrianise upper section of Woolwich New Road

2. Clusters of trees of variety of species will line road

3. New DLR plaza design surpassing the

Woolwich DLR

Early engagement with Berkeley Homes as Royal Arsenal and The Warren will be required.

a

Reference to the Thames Policy Area is necessary. Particular attention must be paid to safeguard riverside biodiversity, protect wharves and optimise accessibility to green spaces and pedestrian routes.

TfL and Oakmayne have waited for Crossrail to develop this site leaving an opportunity to claw back as much ground floor space for public realm as possible, plus an opportunity to pedestrianise Woolwich New Road, re-routing buses down Vincent Road.

ree t

Vinc e

This proposal should take place even if plans to move Woolwich Ferry have not been brought forward.

The transport hub will feature design interventions below that support it becoming a locus of social life.

oad

Spr ay S t

DLR (East)

The Warren Royal Arsenal A strategy is needed to bring together the riverfront's disconnected areas; giving them distinct b River Thames characteristics and uses, reconnecting the path where it has been interrupted by the Ferry in the past.

Parks

#89bbb1

Indicative plan of Our Riverside Site Brief Woolwich Riverside Areas Hare Square (proposed) 0m

Leisure Centre/Ferry

500m

Scale: 1:5,000

N

The Warren

quality of Crossrail with indoor public space

b

Royal Arsenal River Thames

4. Public art response to Woolwich identity

Parks

5. Permeable route between DLR stations (east to west)

6. Sociable Seating

Woolwich Crossrail

#b6dcde

a

Battle Bridge Place, Kings Cross 0m N

Case Study: Site Brief, Direct Investment and Public/Private Partnership Battle Bridge Place, Kings Cross

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

Case Study: Site Brief, Direct Investment and Public/Private Partnership Yangpu Riverside project, Shanghai, bringing new use and open space to ex-industrial riverside

32

#6c8eaf

#e58c85

PR2. Integrate Strategic Locations

SECTION 2

Proposal

PR2.3 Public Realm Site Briefs Objective: To improve public realm improvements targeted at gateways to residential hinterland Public realm briefs will follow PR1.1, Woolwich’s six Public Realm and Open Spaces Aims.

The briefs also give an important opportunity for PR1.2, Public Realm Audits, to define what improvements need to take place and when. Once sites are decided, briefs will be developed and direct investment will be made to public realm improvements in these areas.

The plan below highlights pedestrian gateways in order of the amount of homes surrounding them that would benefit from an improved gateway into Woolwich.

Areas 1. and 2. have been chosen due to their proximity to the Transport Interchange and the new leisure centre.

Proposed pedestrian gateways

5

4

10

b

9

Pedestrian nodes

a

2

8 7 6

Public Squares a. Beresford Square b. Hare Square (proposed)

1. Sandy Hill Road

6. Anglesea Road

2. Plumstead Road

7. Vincent Road

3. Grand Depot Rd

8. Calderwood Street

4. Church Street

9. Duke Wellington Av

5. Marleborough Rd

10. Hare Square

Aspiration: Public Realm Improvements conducted with community involvement, Van Gogh Walk, Lambeth

SPD boundary River Thames

1

Parks Public realm investment at transport interchange Public Squares

3

Dual Carriageway Severance 0m

N

Scale: 1:5,000

500m

33

PR3. Integrate heritage and civic pride within the public realm

SECTION 2

Proposal

PR3.2. Public Realm Character Areas, Design Codes

PR3.1 Hare Square Design Competition Objective: To produce a future-facing, people oriented and unique design for the Leisure Centre site that includes a new public space and re-provides social infrastructure.

Objective: To highlight the value of each part of the Town Centre to ensure development and it's public realm responds sensitively to what is already there.

The competition brief will specify requirements to provide a new piece of riverfront public open space that includes an improved crossing with Hare Street, links in with PR 2.2 "Our Riverside" and re-provides social infrastructure.

Public Realm Character Areas attribute value to features that can not be highlighted in the development plan. Listed buildings, predominant characteristics, materials and landmarks/open spaces of varying sizes/buildings of merit will all be highlighted here.

A new riverside view from the bottom of Hare Street must be obtained as per the 2012 Masterplan stated.

Using PR1.2 Public Realm Audit, a hierarchy of objectives will be developed to address the most acutely felt challenges and opportunities for each area's public realm. (See e.g. of poor public realm below)

A panel of judges will consist of a consortium of businesses, residents and civic interest societies.

Design Codes can be developed for any particularly sensitive areas, such as heritage areas and transport interchanges.

River Thames Mud

Woolwich Town Centre PR3.2. Public Realm Character Areas with Design Codes will be crossreferenced in the next Local Plan and any relevant forthcoming SPDs

Ferry Woolwich Foot Tunnel

Leisure Centre Site

Woolw ich

High Str eet

N

0m

t ree

e St Har Pow is

Str e

Scale: 1:5,000

et 500m

An example of what would constitute priority public realm improvement on Plumstead Road

Precedent RIBA Competition : Development Brief, Public/Private Partnership and Promotion through competition Strategy-led: Lowline Commons, Southwark Council and Architecture-led: St Luke's Finsbury Leisure Centre

Case Study: Guidance: Information, design codes and development brief Vauxhall Nine Elms On the Southbank Public Realm Strategy, 2015

34

PR3. Integrate heritage and civic pride within the public realm PR3.3. Broaden Heritage Trail in partnership with Historic England, The Royal Greenwich Heritage Trust and local schools

SECTION 2

Proposal

Principles that must be addressed by Heritage Trail: 1. Woolwich has no Blue Plaques denoting people of note who have lived there.

Creating a narrative using personal stories will help bring the history to life. Local school children can interview grandparents to include more recent histories

Objective: To animate and integrate heritage within the public realm of Woolwich Town Centre, not just around the Royal Arsenal .

In 2019, Woolwich Town was designated as a conservation area, requiring consent for any demolition or change made to buildings. The quality and detailing of buildings and their historic narrative is fascinating.

2. Woolwich has a rich industrial, military, cultural and political history that would be brought to life within the public realm using carefully placed and creative wayfinding such as Birmingham's "Civil Rights Trail" and the Cooperative Society (see below.)

However, the history of the area is not properly recognised or activated. The Royal Greenwich Heritage Trust's walking tours of the area do not include the majority of the old town, and are skewed towards military history.

3. Including stories of what Woolwich buildings were originally used for, who used them and how they have adapted to serve the community will be important. For example, General Gordon Square used to be known as the ‘smokehole’ in the 1900s due to the soot and fumes from the railway cutting. Now it is one of the most important parts of the town!

Conservation Area where a broader heritage trail must focus

No Blue Plaques

Birmingham Heritage Wayfinding

Case Study: Informal promotion: Existing Royal Greenwich Heritage Trust Route

Areal photo, 1925 35

Woolwich Cooperative Society, Powis St, 1884

Phasing and Delivery for public realm proposals Name of Proposal

PR1.1 Public Realm and Open Space Aims for Woolwich PR1.2 Public Realm and Open Space Quality Audit PR1.3 Biodiversity Net-Gain

PR2.1 DLR Interchange as Social Hub - SPD for DLR Site PR2.2 “Our Riverside� Landscape Brief

Phasing

Funding

1

2

PR2.3 Public Realm Site Briefs 1

2

PR3.1 Hare Square Award 2

PR3.2. Public Realm Character Areas with Design Codes

PR3.3. Partnership to broaden heritage trail

Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding

Political will at Council will be required. If this is not achievable, strategic aims can be co-developed with Councillors

Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding

If funding is not available, this audit could take place as part of statutory consultation for the local development plan.

Small amount of Royal Borough of Greenwich funding required to promote scheme and provide information on protected habitats

This scheme needs to be introduced carefully and slowly to convince decision makers and developer of its importance. Promotion will be key.

TfL Private and Partnership Section 106 and 278 Community Infrastructure Levy Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding Public Private Partnership in association with Berkeley Homes Section 106 and 278 Community Infrastructure Levy GLA Stronger Communities Fund and TfL Liveable Neighbourhoods fund Section 106 and 278 Community Infrastructure Levy

If the development of the DLR site does not progress within Phase 1 or pedestrianising Woolwich new Road, Royal Borough of Greenwich must prioritise investment in public realm between DLR and Crossrail with particular focus on Plumstead Road Crossing

Public and Private Partnership Funding with Berkeley Homes Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding Community Infrastructure Levy

Woolwich Ferry relocation- if this does not occur the site will be less attractive so may attract less investment in a public/private partnership.

The crucial condition is that this site must retain social infrastructure and public open space.

Royal Borough of Greenwich Funding

These character areas and design codes are dependent on officer time. Political will may need to be gained to support this proposal. This could be done by hosting Councillors on a tour of these areas and discussing what objectives and design codes should be aimed for

1

1

2

2

3

Proposal Dependencies and mitigation

1

1

SECTION 2

3

Planning gain from the riverside development will fund this landscape brief. If development does not proceed, Royal Borough of Greenwich will be required to invest in the landscape brief directly.

This may not be feasible for the whole area, so this proposal should focus on riverside land near the leisure centre.

Ideally these improvements will be funded by GLA or TfL Grants. Failing that, CIL and S106 and 278 funds will be used to fund improvements

Partnership Funding with Heritage England, Royal This proposal will depend on a large group of stakeholders- For success, they must have aligned Borough of Greenwich Heritage Trust and local aims. This can be influenced in the initiation of the project with extremely clear and simple aims. schools

36

LAND USE strategy

SECTION 2

Proposal

Land Use Objectives Concept Map Land use for Woolwich will focus on development of employment land and increased job opportunities. Land use with also tackle protecting and enhancing the integrity of the existing character in Woolwich and how this can respond to incoming development.

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

EMPLOYMENT LU2: Increasing employment

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

CHARACTER LU1: Density and Character LU1.1 Develop character areas and intergrate existing building pattern LU1.2 Manage expected housing growth through density

LU2.1 Introduce range of mix use buildings through partnership working LU2.2 New Wine Church as flexible mixed use space Looking at land use through the perspective of optimising existing land functions and increasing employment opportunities. Building on the existing identity of Woolwich as a cultural destination, the proposals in this chapter will investigate how to maintain this and bring forward new

QUALITY

The concept for land uses focuses on introducing a range of mix uses along Powis and Hare Street in particular. Currently these two street are the main high streets in Woolwich and have the opportunity to increase employment in the area. It is also an aim to provide mixed use spaces that appropriately serve the community in Woolwich/

LU3: Improve business quality

In terms of density the aspiration is to strategically manage growth without compromising existing character and preventing a surge in high density buildings on the south side of the planned area. This will be done by implementing a level of control and keeping the higher density buildings in the new Royal Arsenal development.

LU3.1 Design frontages for existing businesses LU3.2 Generate a night time economy 37

LU1: DENSITY AND CHARACTER

SECTION 2

Proposal

LU1.1 Develop character areas

LU1.2 Manage expected housing growth

Objective: Redefine Woolwich as a cultural destination through identifying the character areas that can distinguish Woolwich as a unique place to be.

Objective: Respond to housing need by strategically approaching residential land and managing the increase in density around high activity areas.

Town Centre (Powis/Hare Street) The intergrated zone where the two stations meet is unique as its relationship presents the opportunity for high activity and potential for concentrated residential in the form of tall buildings. The image on the right is the expected development for Armourers Court where residential is set to sit on top of the DLR box.

This could threaten the integrity of the existing heritage, and with the increasing density of the Royal Arsenal this could conflict with policy DH3. Growth should be managed through density in order to preserve surrounding character and comply with Policy DH3.

Riverside Royal Arsenal Market squares

Policy DH3 in the local plan highlights the unique heritage within the Borough, Woolwich should continue this preservation of character through intergrating a distinct building pattern to protect the area. Through implementing a zoning method through auditing and assessment of the area it can be determined how areas of Woolwich can function as their own spaces. The above map is an example of how areas of Woolwich can be defined to suit the existing and past context.

Land use and transportation should interact with each other.

As demonstrated in the diagram on the left, an overlap of uses around stations can increase footfall and activity. It is important that with cross rail development, quality of services and uses are enhanced to defer the potential of Woolwich becoming a commuter borough. Promotion of metropolitan centre needs to run throughout as it is so frequently referred to ‘Increasing densities while diversifying the mix of land uses can strengthen accessibility and efficiency of the region’s transportation system’.

Case study: Old Oak and Park Royal The Old Oak and Park Royal character areas study is an example of large scale development considering the character of the surrounding area and implementing this into the development process. The character areas study put together by OPDC and Mayor of London is thorough in assessing the value of character areas through their building style, use and overall impact. A similar approach should be taken in Woolwich, especially in responding to the Royal Arsenal and cross rail development. The diagram on the right is taken from the OPDC character areas study showing how important character is to development areas.

Combining closely spaced station areas that have similar planned land uses

OPDC Character Areas Study, Assessing Potential Impact on Character

Proposal is to disperse this expected housing growth across the market area and throughout the interchange zone. This will be implemented through control in change in policy which will allow for protection of the environment and a consistent pattern in development. Incentives will encourage the percentage of affordable housing surrounding the station through process management.

In regards to future development Woolwich has no distinctive protected viewing corridor however consideration should be taken towards providing views to the riverside as density increases.

38

LU2: INCREASING EMPLOYMENT LU2.1 Introduce range of mix uses

SECTION 2

Proposal

LU2.2 New Wine Church

Objective: Seek opportunities to encourage mixed uses in Woolwich to increase employment opportunities.

Objective: Redesign New Wine Church as a flexible mixed use space. Designed and maintained by the community.

Policy EAI in the local plan suggests Woolwich has the potential to create skilled jobs for local people. To do this it is important to introduce a range of offerings to Woolwich and help existing businesses expand. There is an opportunity to partner up with the Woolwich Works Trust which is delivering Woolwich works.

With the development of Woolwich Works the rest of Woolwich needs to keep up with development and show integration across the SPD boundary area.

Developing the rest of Woolwich will be beneficial to the success for Woolwich Works as it can provide services that it does not and will further Woolwich’s potential as a metropolitan centre, bringing in people from across the borough. Partnership will work by the local authority and Woolwich Works Trust working together to identify vacant units with historical value and how they can become flexible spaces. Incentives will be through direct investment into the public realm to ensure design quality and delivery.

New Wine Church has a rich history and is a Grade II listed building. Alterations to this building are limited however the proposition to introduce new uses would increase the traction to this area and mitigate the harsh impacts of the busy junction. Currently the building functions as a community church, this can continue and work alongside a flexible community co working and event space run by the community. Its location at the end of Powis street and open up the riverside creates a destination space and increases activity throughout Woolwich.

Case study: Woolwich Works

Case study: East Street Exchange

Woolwich Works aims to develop Woolwich’s Royal Arsenal as an arts and cultural district through restoration of the historical buildings in the area. The £31.59 million development will convert 5 listed buildings into a number of flexible spaces including a theatre, education facilities, and a venue for hire. Woolwich Works Trust has experience working with venues across the West End and Camden’s Roundhouse, and is able to explore the true cultural aspects that Woolwich has to offer.

Woolwich Works will transform the Royal Arsenal and how it will serve the community. However spreading this growth across the SPD boundary will be crucial to making Woolwich thrive as a whole for those visiting and locals.

The East Street Exchange is an example of a buildings existing use hosting multiple uses whilst retaining original purpose. This project between Walworth Road and Old Kent Road in Southwark has allowed a public library to enhance its offerings and become a flexible co-working space. Through extending offerings the library is able to serve a wider range of the community. The New Wine Church has the opportunity to become a space like East Street Exchange as it has an interesting history and is already a building of great communal value.

39

LU3: IMPROVE BUSINESS QUALITY

SECTION 2

Proposal

LU3.2 Generate night time economy

LU3.1 Design frontages for existing businesses Objective: Activate ground and first floor uses by improving shop frontages and defering residential at ground and first floor level. Intergrate the design of new developments to existing local businesses in Woolwich.

The Royal Arsenal development has caused major visual disparity between shop frontages along the A206, as shown in the image above. In order to increase Woolwich’s economic resilience and retail activity these two areas should show some cohesion. The historical nature of the Borough allows for the implementation of guidelines in form of design codes on how best to design shop fronts to ensure protection of the environment and to revitalise businesses.

The guidance will also have a number of incentives attached to encourage businesses to take part. These incentives will include bonuses where businesses are rewarded for their compliance with best retail practice. The exchange of more floor space onto first floor level should give businesses a reason to take part. Ultimately this should defer residential uses taking over the high street and retail districts and make ground and first floor uses dedicated to retail and services.

The guidance should not be restrictive in how businesses present themselves but should provide the right information to help Woolwich become a distinctive and attractive place. Merton Council’s Design SPD on shop frontages (2017) is an example of how best to assess improvements needed and how to do so considering architectural context of the area. See below for an example of the type of changes that can be made.

40

Objective: Widen Woolwich’s offerings through creating a night time economy. Aim is to develop Woolwich as a place for locals and for people to spend time. Beneficial to local businesses.

The local authority and licensing will contribute in allowing extending opening hours and types of services on offer. Policy TC2 is focused on building Woolwich’s metropolitan status and a successful night time economy would contribute to doing this. To create a balance this should include cafés, restaurants and working spaces as well as retail. The desire to create a thriving night time economy without encouragement of anti social behaviour. With informal tools business owners can take part in promotion to advertise events where businesses can transform into flexible event spaces.

Night time activities should be concentrated towards the end of Powis and Hare Street as currently these areas lack vitality and provide the opportunity for businesses to occupy. This will be a response to the activity in the Royal Arsenal that will generate from Woolwich Works and PunchDrunk theatre company.

Local stakeholders will play a huge part in implementing a night time economy and having a say in what they feel should operate in the evening in Woolwich. In introducing a night time economy it will be important to grasp a maintenance strategy that will mitigate issues around safety.

Phasing and Delivery for Land Use proposals Name of Proposal

LU1.1 Develop character areas and integrate existing building pattern

Phasing

Dependencies and mitigation

Royal Borough Greenwich Funding

Resistance to the ‘zoning’ approach to reconfiguring the public realm as well as commitment from the borough to carry out character areas study. Will require detailed study to ensure character areas are properly integrated.

TfL, Berkley/Peabody homes, S106

Gaining appropriate funding and approval for development. Resistance will come from the existing planned works which are yet to be delivered. Mitigation will be needed for negotiating with TfL why the site around the station should avoid tall building approach and consider gradual growth in density.

Royal Borough Greenwich Funding Public private partnership

Dependent on Woolwich works committing to supporting services on Powis and Hare Street to establish a network of uses to serve Woolwich. Establishing a relationship between participating partners will ensure quality of delivery.

Community Infrastructure Levy

Willingness from New Wine Church to agree to new uses in the space and for approval on renovating the listed building. Mitigation will be required from the borough to appropriately execute renovation to this Grade II listed building.

Royal Borough Greenwich Funding

Dependencies lie in quality of design codes produced and how relatable they are to context of Woolwichs heritage. The delivery of improving frontages is reliant on businesses taking action and following guidelines and maintaining frontages according to guidance.

Royal Borough Greenwich Funding

In approval of licensing and for businesses to take part in extending opening hours and offerings from the businesses. It will also be reliant on getting community to agree and accept a new night time economy.

3

LU2.1 Introduce range of mix use buildings through partnership working

2

LU2.2 New Wine Church as flexible mixed use space

LU3.2 Generate a night time economy

Proposal

1

LU1.2 Manage expected housing growth

LU3.1 Design frontages for existing businesses

Funding

SECTION 2

2

1

1

41

SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE strategy

SECTION 2

Proposal

Social Infrastructure Objectives

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

This SPD is bringing back the community into the development process, both as active participants and meaningful contributors. The failings of the SPD were that the community were left out and as such new developments are virtually absent in providing social infrastructure. Not only that but by not prioritising the community in the masterplan, the feel and look of these spaces are such that they seem to cut themselves away from the rest of the town centre resulting in a visually and socially fractured landscape (photo below).

This SPD seeks to rectify this by through enacting social infrastructure interventions under the following objectives:

SI1: Integrate existing communities into proposed development SI1.1. Best code of conduct for Community Consultation SI1.2 Incentivise meaningful proposals that integrate existing communities in the area

Prioritising classic infrastructure as well as open spaces as the areas to enhance and create.

Looking to specific areas in need to the northeast and northwest as places that need re-connecting and re-invigorating

Civic use

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Community MINDED

Social Infrastructure Concept Map

SI2: Conserve, Enhance and Create Social Infrastructure SI2.1. Conserve Existing Social Infrastructure

Existing Social Infrastructure Map

SI2.2. Encourage mix of use and meanwhile uses SI2.3. North of Spray Street Development brief SI2.4. New Leisure Centre development brief SI2.5. Royal Arsenal Play Design Competition and Partnership

Gates leading into new development at Royal Arsenal

42

Socia infratructure is varied and spread through the boundary of the SPD mainly concentrated to the centre.

There is little infrastructure in the newer developments within Royal Arsenal.

SI1: Integrate existing communities into proposed developments

SECTION 2

Proposal

SI1.1 Best code of conduct for Community Consultation Precedent for participation: case study - Sidewalk Toronto in Toronto, Canada Promoting active participation through a more humanist approach as well as utilising technology to visualise alternative designs for the neighbourhood. These methods can be used to gain feedback from proposals for developments within the area.

Policy CH1 pertains to cohesive communities and aims to steer development to encourage diversity and reduce inequalities in the area.. The 2012 masterplan resulted in development that created deep visual and economic diversity between the Royal Arsenal and town centre, this could have been mitigated by a code of conduct that development proposals would have to accord to in order to obtain planning permission. Preferred approach to consultation and participation:

1.Humanist Approach 1a. Must foster active participation, for example see the precedent Sidewalk Toronto.

2. Awareness of digital divide

2a. Not everyone has easy access to technology and therefore participation should not solely rely on these methods.

Post-it note board The local community is invited to stick post it notes with feedback and it is collected on a regular basis.

2b. Proposals that support a mixed approach to participation will be supported over those that favour digital means of participation.

Model example Combination of creating a to size replica of one apartment uni - it allows community to see what itwould look like in real life and invites feedback

Digital viewings Digital is combined with the physical to provide a combined approach to consultation.

The Digital provides 3D views of the project as well as invitng community members to make their own amendments.

3. Performative ethics

SI1.2 Incentivise meaningful proposals that integrate existing communities in the area

3a. Being wary of not creating a predetermined outcome through consultation, for example the production of highly stylized drawings and maps show that the project is almost completed and less open to change.

4. Community engagement consultant

Process management:

4a. Strategic and major proposals must appoint an engagement consultant in order to effectively manage the community consultation process.

Allowing that the proposal accords with the associated policies set out in the Local plan, any proposal relating to the provision of thoughtful quality social infrastructure including those set out within this section, will be backed through process management. We aim to incentivise communities by making the process of submitting a planning application faster and simpler to encourage additional proposals involving communities and to better help community groups creating proposals.

Similar to the London Plan policies to fast track applications relating to the Affordable Housing the 2019 draft plan aims to incentivise development proposals to create additional affordable housing.

43

SI2. Conserve Enhance and Create Social infrastructure

SECTION 2

Proposal

SI2.1 Conserve existing social infrastructure Social infrastructure is not mentioned within the original masterplan save for the identification of the Leisure centre and Gala bingo development sites. Recent policies pertaining to social infrastructure within the core strategy are centred around protection of spaces as per policy CH(a) and EA(b) but there is a lack of direction to what can be done with spaces if they are not economically performing well. Further policy OS(b) relates to community open space and seeks to restrict development surrounding it but does not attempt to direct use or management of the space.

Social infrastructure is concentrated to the main town centre and is dispersed outwards. There is far fewer social infrastructure in the recently built mixed development within the Royal Arsenal.

As such it is important to think about how the open and green spaces can accommodate social infrastructure as well as indoor spaces. This is further explored in SI2.

Existing open spaces with the potential to maintain temporary social infrastructure

Existing community infrastructure (including available sites):

The protection of open and green space as social infrastructure must also adhere to policies within the Local Plan relating to the protection of open space and green infrastructure.

44

SI1. conserve, Enhance and Create Social infrastructure

SECTION 2

Proposal

SI2.2 Encourage a mix of uses and meanwhile uses There are a variety of spaces throughout the SPD boundaries and they have the potential to accommodate a variety of uses. Proposals must accord with SI1 to work with the community to identify what is needed within the area to best be able to best use or reinvigorate these spaces.

Site 1: New Leisure Centre

Site 2: Former Gala Bingo

Site 3: North of Spray Street

This space will be developed in accordance with the 2012 Woolwich Masterplan designation.

This site will be further developed in accordance with the North of Spray Street development brief SI2.3

Open and green spaces within the framework boundaries

4.

2.

3.

This space will be developed in accordance with the 2012 Woolwich Masterplan designation.

5.

Site 4: Hare Square

Site 5: Royal Arsenal

This site will be further developed in accordance with the Hare Square development brief within PR3.1

The number of open and green spaces within this site will be further developed in accordance with the Royal Arsenal Play Competition development brief SI2.5

1.

Case study precedent for mixed uses in open spaces - Campus Martius Park in Detroit, USA Ultimately proposals that generate a mix of uses that can cater to the time of year and encourage a variety of users will be prioritised. Campus Martius Park in Detroit, USA displays a good example of year round events that have the ability to be implemented across the spaces within Woolwich creating sustained activity throughout the area.

There are a number of spaces that can be better utilised and managed to accommodate alternative spaces for social infrastructure, examples of uses include:

Potential uses:

Markets/Pop ups

Outdoor classes

Performances

45

SI2. conserve, Enhance and Create Social infrastructure

SECTION 2

Proposal

SI2.3. North of Spray Street Meanwhile Spaces Development brief Spatisalisation of activity: There are a number of vacant sites within Spray Street and the street itself has a number of key characteristics that can be utilised and enhanced, including green infrastructure, outdoor furniture, heritage buildings and a pedestrianised route. There is an opportunity to realise outdoor spaces as an extension to proposals that target the ground floor indoor spaces of this street.

Proposals must work well with commercial uses existing further south on the street.

heritage buildings

Green infrastructure

This space will be invigorated by creating spaces of interest within the identified development sites to the north of the street, by creating spaces we can draw movement through this path, generating activity in this part of Spray Street. For uses that can be accommodated in the public realm refer to SI2.2. This street does form an extension to the retail parade and uses should be respectful of this. Activity should enhance these uses and provide employment.

outdoor seating Pedestrianised route

Case study Precedent for innovative and community minded project: Model Project House of Statistics in Berlin The style of collaborative design ensured that they would prioritise “experimental uses” such as co-working, and live-work spaces or community meeting rooms, art exhibitions and project spaces on ground floor level.

While awaiting long term development proposals will be considered that are:

It will be important to ensure accordance with Best code of practice to ensure that the context of the area is taken into account when designing proposals.

• • •

46

Temporary in nature Provide social infrastructure that respond well to the needs of the community Utilise the assets existing in the area

SI2: Integrate existing communities into proposed developments SI2.2. New Leisure Centre development brief

SECTION 2

Proposal

Case Study Precedent for open and mixed leisure centre development: Places Leisure Eastleigh (Awarded RIBA South Award 2019)

With the existing leisure centre being freed to create the Hare Square development, there is the opportunity to create a new and improved leisure centre with a more open concept with open ground floor activity that contributes to accessible and permeable development, as well as re-providing the important social infrastructure asset.

The faรงades are all open with large windows and there is a large opening at the main entrance where users can see through to the cafe and swimming pool. The distinct and more modern style of building creates a distinct sense of place. The seating to the front and side encourage social gathering and are a good use outside. Other uses can include play space.

Close to transport connections (potentially minimise amount of car parking provided) Green infrastructure to protect Advantageous open space to be better utilised

Proposals will be encouraged that: Encourage social activity inside and outside.

Is inclusive and cater to different groups in the community.

Design is open, modern but approachable and in keeping with the local area Re-provide the amenities of the existing leisure centre with additional facilities where demand can be evidenced.

47

SI2: Integrate existing communities into proposed developments

SECTION 2

Proposal

SI2.3. Royal Arsenal Play Design Competition Development brief: Royal Arsenal Play Competition + Partnership The goal is to draw existing and incoming residents together through the Royal Arsenal as there is a distinct severance between this area and the rest of the SPD boundary. The Royal Arsenal does not contain a lot of traditional social infrastructure as shown in the map below, but does contain many open and green spaces, shown in the images below, that can better contribute to civic infrastructure.

Play spaces are selected as the primary use for these spaces as it a more informal type of social infrastructure, having local schools collaborate on the creation and design of these spaces will encourage public use for those living around and within the SPD boundaries.

Proposals will be considered that: 1. Are designed to be temporary in nature 2. Take inspiration from the surrounding area 3. Can demonstrate a collaborative approach with nearby schools 4. Are inclusive and accessible 5. Accord with the Best Code of Conduct for community consultation The final decision will rest with the panel set up as mentioned in PR3.1 Hare Square Design Competition.

Case Study Precedent for play spaces: GLA SPD - Shaping neighbourhoods: play and informal recreation Play spaces can be simple or intricate and can borrow from the terrain of the area, green infrastructure existing on the site and other assets the site may have to offer.

Photo examples of the spaces within Royal Arsenal:

Examples from this SPD are varied and provide examples of good uses of space to create play space

48

phasing and delivery for social infrastructure proposals Name of proposal

SI1.1 Best code of conduct for Community Consultation SI1.2. Incentivise meaningful proposals that integrate existing communities in the area SI2.1 Conserve existing social infrastructure

SI2.2 Encourage a mix of uses and meanwhile uses

SI2.3. North of Spray Street Meanwhile Spaces

Phasing

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

2

1

Dependencies and mitigation

This proposal seeks to create a more comprehensive way of addressing community consultation to better inform proposals. The larger the proposal the more funding will be required and this will all be privately funded.

It relies on commitment from plan makers to implement and for the local authority to enforce this across the board taking into consideration the context of proposals and area it would be implemented in.

This process aims to streamline the process to encourage greater participation. Therefore it will not require funding.

Dependency on relationships between the local authority to ensure a speedy process and that adequate assessment of proposals are undertaken in shorter time periods.

Will require no upfront funding but only ongoing mainteDepends largely on maintenance and demand for infrastructure assets to nance. Funding may be required depending on economic be retained. There are existing policies to mitigate closure and also proposcircumstances if businesses are not doing well. al S12.2 encourages mitigation for poorly used or performing spaces.

1

SI2.4. New Leisure Centre development brief

SI2.5. Royal Arsenal Play Design Competition

Funding

2

This is a general proposal with specific sites that are developed elsewhere in the document so the funding is a mixture - some of which are noted below. Overall it will depend on a case by case basis.

Again as this is a general proposal some spaces will have higher dependencies and need a greater amount of partners where some will not.

Funding is either private depending on the proposal put forward or unclear if the proposal is led by community groups.

Dependency for involving social infrastructure into private interest relies S106 agreements within those private interests.

Alternatively meanwhile community use projects rely on funding.

3

3

Greenwich leisure limited (GLL) a social enterprise within This proposal is dependent on land release in the proposed area. Currently Greenwich which specialises in leisure related projects has a tenancy agreement for the next few years and so it will be unclear and management of these facilities. what economic conditions and partnerships will be available during this time.

S106 from developments which need to provide play space and are unable to directly on their site (allowing that is in close proximity to the development)

49

Dependency on local authority backing for play spaces in that particular location as well as land owner agreement within the Royal Arsenal for temporary spaces.

This proposal will depend on partnerships and they will be varied according to what is being proposed over the years.

Evaluation 50

evaluation of proposals methodology The methodology for evaluating the proposals is set out below A traffic light system has been adopted for simplicity, with red suggesting weakness and green strength.

Where categories fall in between the colour scale they were rounded up, for the sake of simplicity and to reiterate positive aspirations for Woolwich Tool

This column highlights which tools have been used for the specific proposal.

The total will show how varied the use of tools are within each proposal.

These tools were identified in section 1 of the report.

SECTION 3

Evaulation

Strong Performance

Acceptable Performance Weak Performance

3. Evaluation of Delivery

1. Objectives

2. Evaluation of Tools

If the proposal links with one or more of the objectives below then it will appear in this column.

Strength of each proposals’ use of tools is evaluated based upon the variety of tools used, their suitability for the purpose and the quality of information that accompanies the tools.

3+ objectives: 2 objectives:

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

1. Likely availability of funding 2. Number of stakeholders and the alignment of their view 3. Resilience relating to major infrastructural change

1 objective:

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Strength of delivery is evaluated based upon:

eg. +ve • 3+ tools employed • Tools very suitable • Excellent accompanying information

Use of language is rated by assessing whether tools are communicate using the following type of language and languages’ appropriateness for that type of tool 1. Directive

Each of these areas will be considered in order to arrive at an overall rating for delivery

2. Aspirational

eg.

PR3.1 Hare Square

eg.

MC4 Sustainable and integrated transport network

• • • •

-ve • 1 tool employed • Tool not suitable • Limited • accompanying information

4. Evaluation of Language

Funding quite likely Dependent on Woolwich Ferry relocation Multiple stakeholders with unaligned views

3. Informational

•

•

51

Some directive language used alongside indicative aspirational language This fairly appropriate but could be more specific

Overall Strength of Performance

The proposals’ average rating for the following categories:

1. Objectives 2. Tools 3. Delivery 4. Language

Overall Strength of Performance will be rounded up if the result falls in between the rating system to reiterate aspiration. Woolwich has the potential to be a well designed town centre. eg.

1. Objectives 2. Tools 3. Delivery 4. Language

TOTAL=

evaluation of proposals - movement and connectivity Name of Proposal

Objectives

Objectives High quality intergration and connectivity

Objectives

High quality intergration and connectivity

Evaluation of Tool

Objectives

Objectives

Reconfiguration of Conserve, protect High quality intergration public Conserve, protect spaces and enhance

and connectivity

and enhance

Reconfiguration of public spaces

Community participation

(+) Multiple tools are utilised to deliver this proposal which improves likelihood of its success. (+) Desired outcomes are clear and further information and guidance is signposted. More detail could be provided.

Objectives

High quality intergration Conserve, protect connectivity andand enhance

High quality intergration and connectivity

#6c8eaf

#b6dcde

Reconfiguration of public spaces

Conserve, protect and enhance

(+) High level of directive language. More detail on each specific gateway and descriptions with further images to convey look and feel would enhance communication of proposal.

(+) More than one tool is utilised to deliver this proposal which improves likelihood of its success.

(-) Further detailed information and guidance, as well as more in depth case studies would improve quality and likelihood of success.

(+) Main stakeholders are limited and likely to mostly have aligned interests (RB Greenwich and developers, along with local communities). (+) Funding stream is clear (developer contributions through CIL and S106) and proposal is not dependent on other infrastructure.

(+/-) Of the language used, a high proportion is directive. More detail could help to enhance communication.

(+) Multiple tools are utilised to deliver this proposal which improves likelihood of its success.(+) Tools used are considered appropriate.

Good information and guidance is provided and further sources signposted. More detail could be provided

(+/-) A range of stakeholders would be involved (principally Crossrail, TfL, RB Greenwich) but interests are mostly aligned. (+) Multiple funding sources are available including continuous revenue from cycle parking. (+) Cornerstone infrastructure (Crossrail) is already in place.

(+) High level of directive language.

(-) Example improvements give an indication of possible improvements but are not prescriptive, reducing certainty.

(+) Multiple tools are utilised to deliver this proposal which improves likelihood of its success. (+) Tools used are of a good quality, clarity and with a good level of information.

(+/-) Whilst there are few key stakeholders (principally TfL and RB Greenwich) there are many regulatory standards to meet. (+/-) Delivery relies on effective accruement and spend of S106 and CIL funding by RB Greenwich, and development coming forward in the area which could contribute to this in the first instance.

(+) High level of directive language., assisted by clear images to convey look and feel.

#b37268 #b6dcde

#3a6363 #6c8eaf

#e58c85

#b37268

#3a6363

#3a6363

#3a6363

#b37268

#e58c85

#6c8eaf

#b6dcde

#89bbb1

(+/-) A range of stakeholders would be involved but interests are mostly aligned. (+/-) Delivery relies on effective accruement and spend of S106 and CIL funding by RB Greenwich, and development coming forward in the area which could contribute to this in the first instance.

(-) Success is partially dependent on a wider network of infrastructure being implemented.

Language Use

(+) High level of directive language., assisted by clear images to convey look and feel.

#e58c85 #89bbb1

Community participation

#b37268

#e58c85

Evaluation of Delivery

(+/-) A range of stakeholders would be involved, included non-public sector actors such as businesses and communities, but interests are mostly aligned. (+/-) Delivery relies on effective accruement and spend of S106 and CIL funding by RB Greenwich, and development coming forward in the area which could contribute to this in the first instance.

#6c8eaf

#b6dcde

Reconfiguration of public participation spaces Community

Conserve, protect Reconfiguration of and enhance public spaces

#89bbb1

High quality intergration and connectivity

Community participation

Community participation

#89bbb1

Objectives

(+) Multiple tools are utilised to deliver this proposal which improves likelihood of its success.

(-) Further detail could be provided.

Reconfiguration of public spaces Community participation

Reconfiguration of Conserve, protect public spaces and enhance

High quality intergration Conserve, protect and connectivity and enhance

Objectives

MC2 To create

high quality connectivity into and through Woolwich town centre.

Evaluation

Tools

MC1 To create

connectivity to Woolwich Town Centre from peripheral residential areas.

SECTION 3

Community participation

Objectives Objectives

MC3 To create

high quality connectivity between the riverside and Woolwich Town

Objectives

Reconfiguration of public spaces

Conserve, protect and enhance

Objectives

Objectives

High quality intergration and connectivity

#b6dcde public spaces #89bbb1

#e58c85

#6c8eaf

#b6dcde

#89bbb1

#3a6363

#b37268

Conserve, protect High quality intergration and enhance and connectivity

Community participation

High quality intergration and connectivity

Reconfiguration of public spaces

Conserve, protect and enhance

Reconfiguration of Conserve, protect public spaces and enhance

#b6dcde

#89bbb1

Reconfiguration of Community participation

#b6dcde #b37268 #e58c85 participation #6c8eaf #89bbb1 Community

#b6dcde #89bbb1 public spaces

#6c8eaf

Community participation

Reconfiguration of public spaces

#e58c85

#b37268

#3a6363

Community participation

MC5 To pre-

vent and reduce severance within Woolwich Town Centre, in particular from the A205 and A206.

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm #89bbb1

#b6dcde

#89bbb1

#b6dcde

#6c8eaf

#89bbb1

#6c8eaf

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

#e58c85

#89bbb1

#b37268

#b6dcde

#3a6363 #6c8eaf

#b37268 #e58c85 participation Community #b6dcde

#6c8eaf

Community participation

Objectives

Objectives High quality intergration and connectivity

Conserve, protect and enhance

Reconfiguration of

Conserve, protect Reconfiguration and enhance of public spaces

#89bbb1

High quality intergration and connectivity

MC4 To improve and prioritise a sustainable and integrated transport network.

High quality intergration Conserve, protect and connectivity and enhance

High quality intergration and connectivity

#e58c85

#6c8eaf #3a6363

#e58c85

#6c8eaf

#e58c85

#3a6363

#6c8eaf

#e58c85

#b37268

#b37268

#3a6363

#3a6363

#3a6363

#b37268

#b6dcde

#e58c85

#b37268

#3a6363

#b37268

#3a6363

52

Overall Performance

evaluation of proposals - Public Realm Tools used Name of Proposal PR1.1 Public Realm and Open Space Aims for Woolwich PR1.2 Public Realm and Open Space Quality Audit

Objectives 3 = green/ 1= red

Clarity of tool - high Integrate Connectivity Improve Quality, + Grow Sustainable Integration + Build Transport Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

Integrate Connectivity Improve Quality, + Grow Sustainable Integration + Build Transport Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Social Enhance Functional Infrastructure for ExistingMix + Optimise + Incoming Communities Density

PR1.3 Biodiversity NetGain PR2.1 DLR Interchange as Social Hub - SPD for DLR Site

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Integrate Connectivity Improve Quality, + Grow Sustainable Integration + Build Transport Pride in Public Realm

Integrate Connectivity Improve Quality, + Grow Sustainable Integration + Build Transport Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

PR2.3 Public Realm Site Briefs

Utilises guidance and informal promotion

Integrate Connectivity Improve Quality, + Grow Sustainable Integration + Build Transport Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

Evaluation

Evaluation of Delivery

Language Use Directive

Inexpensive Dependent on new development being brought forward

Directive and clear language used

Inexpensive No dependencies Audits do not reach all

Directive and clear language used

Inexpensive Dependent on stakeholders

Precise and directive language

Funding: direct investment required Stakeholders: Small group of aligned stakeholders needed Infrastructure required: Woolwich New Road pedestrianisation

Clear and directive language

Clarity and suitability of tool- high Uses informal tool: evidence Guidance- cross referenced within PR 2.3 Clarity of tool- high Uses Incentive: Process design Informal: Promotion Clarity of tool- medium

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

PR2.2 “Our Riverside�

Landscape Brief

Evaluation of Tools

SECTION 3

Uses Guidance: brief Incentive: direct investment Informal: public private partnership

Funding: direct investment required Stakeholders: Small group of aligned stakeholders needed Uses Development brief, direct Infrastructure required: investment and public private partnership Woolwich Ferry Relocation Clarity of tool- high

Clarity of tool- medium as it is informed by PR1.2 Development brief, citing other policy, direct investment and informal tools of public private partnership

53

Directive and clear

Funding: direct investment Require partnership with Directive over GLA- Stronger Communities informational and TfL Liveable Neighbourhoods grants.

Overall Performance

Enhance Social Enhance Functional Infrastructure for ExistingMix + Optimise + Incoming Communities Density

evaluation of proposals - public realm Tools used Name of Proposal

PR3.1 Hare Square Award

Objectives 3 = green/ 1= red

Integrate Connectivity Improve Quality, + Grow Sustainable Integration + Build Transport Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Social Enhance Functional Infrastructure for ExistingMix + Optimise + Incoming Communities Density

PR3.2. Public Realm Character Areas with Design Codes

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

PR3.3. Partnership to broaden heritage trail

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Evaluation of Tool Clarity of tool - medium Utilises informal tool of design competition as promotion, direct investment and partnership Moderately clearly defines how tool should work Guidance with development briefs, and development of Informal knowledge and promotion Clarity of purpose and supporting information .

Informal promotion and partnership is accompanied by direct investment in wayfinding

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

54

SECTION 3

Evaluation

Evaluation of Delivery

Dependent on Woolwich Ferry relocation Stakeholders being brought forward Inexpensive Must be promoted effectively

Language Use Directive Balance struck with leaving brief as open as possible

Directive but area objectives and codes also need to be this directive

Inexpensive Dependent on few stakeholders with aligned views.

Mainly Informational

Overall Performance

evaluation of proposals - land use Tools used Name of Proposal

LU1.1 Develop character areas and integrate existing building pattern

Objectives 3 = green/ 1= red

SECTION 3

Evaluation

Evaluation of Tool Clarity of tool - high

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

Uses variety of tools and refers to local plan policies Clarity of tool - medium

LU1.1 Manage expected housing growth

LU2.1 Introduce range of mix use buildings through partnership working

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

Enhance Social Enhance Functional Infrastructure for Existing Mix + Optimise + Incoming Communities Density

LU2.2 New Wine Church as flexible mixed use space Integrate Connectivity Enhance Social Enhance Functional + Grow Sustainable Mix + Optimise Infrastructure for Existing Transport

Density

LU3.1 Design frontages for existing businesses

LU3.2 Generate a night time economy

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

+ Incoming Communities

Enhance Social Enhance Functional Infrastructure for Existing Mix + Optimise + Incoming Communities Density

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

Evaluation of Delivery Inexpensive Dependent on future development

Directive, clear and informative

Expensive

Includes incentives to encourage affordable housing

Dependent on planned works for residential development and funding

Clarity of tool - high

Inexpensive

Uses a variety of tools and reliant on partnership working

Depedent on stakeholder commitment

Clarity of tool - high

Expensive

Uses variety of tools and includes partnership working

Dependent of stakeholders and funding

Clarity of tool - high

Inexpensive

Use of incentives and design codes

Dependent on stakeholder invovlement

Clarity of tool - high

Inexpensive

Uses variety of tools including informal promotion

Dependent on change in policy

55

Language Use Directive

Directive and clear

Directive and clear

Clear and Informative

Directive, clear and informative

Directive and clear

Overall Performance

evaluation of proposals - social infrastructure Tools used Proposal

Objectives 3 = green/ 1= red

Evaluation of Tool

SI1.1 Best code of conduct for Community Consultation

Clarity = High, provides an appropriate precedent and is specific in explanation

SI1.2. Incentivise meaningful proposals that integrate existing communities in the area

Clarity = Medium, short and concise but could be expanded further

SECTION 3

Evaluation

Evaluation of Delivery

Language Use Directive

Infrastructure: Depends on none Stakeholders: Depends on none Funding: Depends private cooperation

Directive and clear

Infrastructure: Depends on none Stakeholders: Depends on council commitment Funding: Depends on none

Directive and clear

Infrastructure = Depends on none as it seeks to protect and not to create Stakeholders = requires no stakeholders as seeks to protect.

Funding = may require funding for maintenance to retain community assets over time.

Mainly Informative with some directive

Infrastructure: All depends on none but one, spaces are existing and need active local community use.

Stakeholders: requires multiple stakeholders on a case by case basis Funding: would require a mix of private and public with no sources of funding being identified

Mixture of aspirational directive and informative

Infrastructure: Depends on none Stakeholders: None required Funding: Private with a combination of S106

Directive and clear

SI2.4. New Leisure Centre development brief

Clarity = High, multiple images and clear case study to draw from Variety = High, utilises a number of tools to achieve goal

Infrastructure: Depends on none Stakeholders: Highly dependent on land assembly and stakeholders coming forward Funding: Public/private interest with multiple partners

Mainly directive with informational

SI2.5. Royal Arsenal Play Design Competition

Clarity =High, reasoning is clear and precedent contains a variety of examples to draw inspiration from.

Variety = high, utilises a number of tools to achieve goal

Infrastructure: Depends on none Stakeholders: Highly dependent on land owner agreement Funding: small scale interventions can be funded by S106 agreements

Mixture of aspirational directive and informative

SI2.1 Conserve existing social infrastructure

Variety = medium could use additional tools to create more comprehensive process.

Variety = medium, uses two groups of tools Clarity = High, provides maps to highlight the areas mentioned within the information provided and references specific policies that the proposal must accord with.

Variety = Moderate - Guidance/Control

SI2.2 Encourage a mix of uses and meanwhile uses

SI2.3. North of Spray Street Meanwhile Spaces

Clarity = Moderate, specificity in sites and gives variety of examples but is not too specific with design outcome Variety = High = Guidance/Control/Incentive

Clarity = Moderate, use of precedent and reference to additional proposals makes use of tool more clear in achieving outcomes Variety = Guidance/Incentive

56

Overall Performance

Conclusion

SECTION 3

Evaluation

This Woolwich Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document builds upon the Woolwich Town Centre Masterplan of 2012.

2

The decision to produce an SPD was made in order to provide a detailed vision for how development in Woolwich Town Centre will be able to improve the area as a whole, not just through specific development sites, of which there are relatively few.

Used a broad range of tools in a clear and effective way The diagram below shows a wide mix of tools used in the SPD as opposed to the 2012 Masterplan’s almost exclusive use of guidance. Data in Table 2 Annex

The SPD is likely to be more successful that the 2012 Masterplan document because it has:

1 Consistently applied strong, people-centred objectives

Process M Direct Investment Bonus Subsidy Info

15%

Objectives were addressed throughout proposals. Cross referencing was quantified in the evaluation of tools and data was then compiled and analysed in Table 1. (annex).

Citing Policy Devel Brief Policy Guidance Codes

39%

18% 28% Site Allo Environmental

Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

Partnership promo knowledge evidence

All of the proposals were evaluated to have a strong ability to perform ..... with the exception of one:

27 Proposals 1 Proposal LU1.1 Manage expected housing growth

3 Integrate Connectivity + Grow Sustainable Transport

Enhance Social Infrastructure for Existing + Incoming Communities

Enhance Functional Mix + Optimise Density

Improve Quality, Integration + Build Pride in Public Realm this data by attributing the most referenced objectives with The diagram above visualises

Clearly explained how these tools will be delivered ependencies D Phasing Funding and Mitigation

In a context of uncertainty with regards to funding , infrastructure and stakeholder partnerships, the delivery of the portfolio of proposals have been carefully considered as a whole in an effort to avoid piecemeal and inequitable development.

wider arrows. It is evident that Public Realm was most strongly cross referenced, followed equally by Connectivity and Social Infrastructure and lastly Land Use mix.

4

These results are expected due to the pressing need to address disparities within the pubic realm, connectivity and social infrastructure in Woolwich. Incentivising mixed day and night time use and optimising density will support these improvements

to take place by stimulating Woolwich’s economy.

Carefully considered language used The SPD learnt from the Masterplan’s use of vague, imprecise language to ensure that it strikes a clear balance between informational, directive and aspirational tones.

57

Critical reflection 58

critical reflection

SECTION 4

Critical Reflection

Critical reflection on the conduct of Group working and the management of individual contributions to it Week one 24 Feb to 1 March Following the submission of the groups report for Part 1 of the module, there was a collective will to try to front load the work of Part 2 of the module, in order to put the group in a strong position for pulling together the report. In the first week of the task the group carried out a review of the group work undertaken in Part 1 of the module. Phil set up a folder system on One Drive and the group agreed the core structure the report would take. Phil and Flora undertook further research during the reading week to better understand the wants and needs of the community of the area by identifying key stakeholders and community groups, this was to help inform the actions proposed in the Part 2 report. Aisha reviewed the area context around the boundary of the masterplan, in order to understand whether the masterplan boundary was appropriate for the groups Part 2 proposal. This work led to an initial draft of the vision and objectives for the Part 2 proposal. At this point the key difficulties were scoping which issues could be most effectively targeted through a planning document, and which issues should be prioritised and addressed. The group worked through this by knowledge sharing and discussion.

Weektwo 2to9March The group brought together a “menu” of possible tools (categorised as Guidance, Incentives, Control and Informal tools) to utilise as part of the groups proposal for the area. At this stage there was some difficulty in identifying tools that firstly would work well, and secondly work well in the context of Woolwich. Precedents and Case Studies were researched and collated in order to inform the “menu” of tools but identifying high quality examples was not straightforward. Different group members were assigned a different category of tool (I.e. Guidance, Incentive, etc.) to research for the “menu”, which involved identifying tools appropriate for the Woolwich context and critiquing them. This led to each member of the group having a strong understanding of their assigned type of tool but less in depth knowledge of others. In order to address this the team sought to pool knowledge of through meetings and discussion. Following the collation of the “menu” of tools, the group agreed we would produce an SPD. At this stage in the module, each team member had a good appreciation of other team members strengths, work style and interests. This helped with effective assignment of tasks and ensured group members were able to contribute according to their strengths. The group had also formed an effective stategy of making key decisions by tabling opinions, discussing options as a group and then reaching a consensus.

Weekthree 9to15March At this point section 1 of the report was nearly complete. Phil prepared a draft version of the report which Aisha then added to and led on completing. The context mapping for the report was finalised by Aisha and the group began to explore in detail how best to structure the SPD to be produced. Each group member chose a core objective which their proposals would seek to meet. Group members began to select proposals to implement from the “menu” of tools. The group grappled with how best to present the SPD so that each proposal and intervention clearly related back to the objectives and vision. The key issues were that some proposals related to more than one objective, and that some proposals relied on multiple tools to be implemented, which the group considered to be important for robustness of approach and to make successful delivery more likely. The group began to think about how the tools we proposed would be operationalised, what indictors of success would look like and how best to evaluate proposals. It was recognised that this is a difficult thing to attribute any certainty to, and that aspects such as dependency on other factors (such as “to be delivered” transport infrastructure) have the ability to dramatically influence the SPDs outcomes.

To add further complexity to this stage of the project, one group member (Flora) and the groups tutor (Valentina) were both self isolating, preventing face to face contact. Despite this challenge Phil, Aisha and Harpriya were able to meet in person for group working sessions, and were able to communicate digitally with both Flora and Valentina. The group continued to develop their proposals and began regular digital catch ups and feedback sessions through Microsoft Teams.

Weekfour 16to22March At this stage in the project all of the team were self isolating and Harpriya had fallen ill. All members of the group were able to maintain digital communications both for the tutorial session and throughout the week, pushing the project work forwards. This was in the face of pressures from changing government guidance regarding the Covid-19 crisis, constant home working, and balancing university work with employment pressure, all of which had a notable impact on the groups mental as well as physical wellbeing. Following the tutorial session on 18 March the team had a lengthy discussion to collate ideas, give feedback and discuss approaches. The feedback from the tutorial indicated that the structure of the SPD needed to be organised to clearly show how each objective was being delivered.

The result of discussions was that the document was simplified to a clear hierarchy of the Vision, the Objectives that deliver it and the Proposals that contribute to each objective, rather than including an additional layer of themes that were being addressed through each proposal. It was recognised that most proposals contributed to the delivery of more than one objective; to address this the team decided that proposals usually responded to one objective more than others, so should be included within that section, but that the report should flag where more than one objective was being met through a proposal. Flora produced symbols for tools and the different categories of tools in order to provide clarity over which tools and which type of tool were being utilised, in a visual way.

Weekfive 23to29March The group continued to further their proposals, continuing some research of high wuality precedents and case studies. There was still some ambiguity about how best to show how each proposal related to the vision and objectives. It was decided that a page should be included at the start of the SPD proposals in order to introduce the reader to the format and structure of the proposals, which Phil produced. At this point the group also began to bring together their initial ideas for the evaluation of their proposals. The team noted difficulty in ensuring a consistency of approach due to everyone working remotely. Not having the ability to meet up also created difficulties in giving feedback and reduced the ability to give some work the benefit of group discussion and improvement. To try to resolve this we had multiple meetings on Microsoft Teams each week and continued updates on Whatsapp. We shared documents for team review and made use of templates to try to ensure consistency of approach.

Weeksix 30Marchto5April The team continued to meet virtually to discuss progress. At this stage Harpriya had recovered but was still in self isolation, and the group had been social distancing for two weeks. The group reviewed our approach to the evaluation of our proposals during the tutorial on 1 April. At this point the group’s evaluation of proposals sought to analyse and include multiple factors that might influence the success of each proposal, and then codify this to rank how well we thought each proposal would perform. However, following group discussion and feedback from Valentina, we decided to simplify our approach in order to make explicitly clear the criteria against which each proposal was evaluated against. The team discussed a number of options, including focusing on evaluation of potential delivery of each proposal, but Aisha noted that some form of evaluation of the tool’s performance was also required. At this stage the team decided to evaluate the various proposals within the SPD against the same elements that were analysed for the original Woolwich Town Centre Masterplan in Part 1 of the module, namely: Links to Objectives, Use of Tools, Delivery, and Language. In order to keep codifying these elements clear, performance was symbolised using RAG colour coding. Each group member finalised their Proposals pages and their Evaluation Pages, maintaining communication to ensure consistency and to reflect peer review from other group members. Phil documented the progress of the group week by week in order to inform the reflection, and during the final week put together a draft reflection for the team to add to and amend as appropriate. Aisha was in charge of compiling each group members pages into the final report.

59

Annex Table 1

Table 2

Table showing how much each objective is addressed by proposals in each chapter area.

Where each chapter consisted of a differing number of proposals, these were converted into percentages.

Table showing how much each tool was used within each chapter area.

Where each chapter consisted of a differing number of proposals, these were converted into percentages.

The percentage use of each objective was then calculated into a whole number

Objective Movement

Public Realm Land Use

Social Infrastructure

Tool Type Guidance (% split of use)

Chapter Area

Incentives Control

Informal

Chapter Area

Movement

100%

100%

40%

80%

Movement

34%

19%

0%

46%

Public Realm

78%

100%

22%

89%

Public Realm

39%

0%

22%

39%

Land Use

50%

67%

100%

67%

Land Use

28%

23%

33

22%

Social Infrastructure

57%

86%

71%

100%

Social Infrastructure

55%

59%

18%

5%

Total

3

4

2

3

Total (%)

39%

15%

18%

28%

60