5. TOOLS & STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 TOOLS

5.2 STAKEHOLDERS

This section provides an overview of tools which were considered to deliver the objectives and of stakeholders which are expected to be involved.

5.1 TOOLS

TOOLS USED

Character Areas and Design Guidance

Community Land Trust

Community-Led Sustainable Cooperatives

Community-Led Management

Conceptual Masterplan

JUSTIFICATION

Formal: guidance (design guidance). Informal: knowledge (character areas).

The design guidance used by the 2015 NDP left too much room for interpretation and was too vague. A single character area for Fortune Green and West Hampstead was not sufficiently qualified and incorporated too much variation, resulting in greater scope for negotiation on the part of developers. Dividing the Area into 9 separate character areas will form the basis for a more stringent design guidance based on architectural detailing, materials, form and scale. The precedent case used was the Newcastle Character Assessment and Odiham NDP.

Formal: control

The 2015 NDP highlighted the need for affordable housing but did not provide a solution, and so the formation of a CLT can address this issue. CLTs take ownership of homes on a not for profit basis to ensure affordable homes are kept in perpetuity, unlike affordable homes under council or private ownership which can be sold off for profit, an example being ‘right to buy’. CLT house prices and rents are priced on local income rather than the market in order to provide ‘truly affordable’ homes in comparison to those required as affordable under the London Plan. The precedent case study was St Clements CLT (2017) and Winslow Neighbourhood Plan (2014).

Formal: control

The community can form and support a cooperative in collaboration with utility companies and/or developers to introduce and install decentralised sustainable technologies, such as renewable energy systems. Especially in large scale developments, the cooperative makes an alternative to private ownership and profit maximisation. Learning from the precedent case in Ghent (2019), new residents participate in the cooperative and should benefit from lower bills and taxes on heating, electricity, water and wastewater management.

Formal: management.

The 2015 NDP successfully highlighted key areas of green space, however, failed to propose ways in which these spaces could be improved and then subsequently managed. With the robust approach to community consultation of this Plan, residents will be provided with a larger platform to voice their concerns and ideas associated with the management of green open space. Having a direct impact on the future of green space will ensure for a more accountable community that wants to strive for their protection, as well as their improvement.

Formal: guidance.

A conceptual masterplan can be used as a ‘springboard’ for constructive collaboration on projects (Carmona, 2017). It effectively communicates the spatial principles that are important for the Forum without confining the creativity of developers to find innovative design solutions. The 2015 NDP opted for design guidance that was not spatially defined, which increases the possibility of ineffective solutions to pressing issues. The precedent case used was the Rochdale Riverside redevelopment.

Consultation and Collaboration

Design Code

Design Review Panel

Developer Contribution (CIL)

Development Brief

Evaluation

Site Allocation Informal: assistance.

Given the importance of the West Hampstead Interchange area for commuters and residents alike, effective consultation and collaboration between residents, business owners, the Forum, Camden Council and TfL will provide the basis for successful redevelopment. As the proper functioning of this particular area is essential for these different stakeholders, intervention without productive consultation and collaboration will result in development that does not meet the demands placed on this area. The precedent cases used were Old Kent Road and ‘Future Brixton’.

Formal: control

A community-led review panel allows the Forum to express their views on design decisions in a structured way and creates a channel for constructive dialogue between the community and developers. The precedent case used was the OPDC Community Review Group.

Formal: control

A design code is a more regulatory form of guidance acting as either a set form of documentation or a process, which operationalises specific design principles and guidelines and sets minimum standards for their implementation. Design codes therefore offer instructions on the more fine-grained design work needed to ensure that aspirations in terms of quality are achieved which is comparative to a masterplan which details the overall vision of a project.

Formal: control.

The 2015 NDP continuously stressed the importance of the need for any new developments to complement its surrounding context, whilst adding to and improving existing infrastructure. Moreover, our current vision of seeking to add a new and respectful layer of place identity is supported by the CIL levy and its easing of seeking S106 obligations. Developer contributions will facilitate the provision of local infrastructure and will support the increased burden new developments can sometimes have on local communities in terms of increased density, strain on the natural environment, and the area’s design and character. We studied Camden’s CIL spending approaches (Inner Circle Consulting, 2016).

Formal: guidance.

This builds on the 2015 NDP’s loosely defined guidance to provide more robust requirements for certain types of development.

Formal: control. Informal: evaluation.

The evaluation of proposed interventions will enable the Forum and other relevant stakeholders to refuse development that does not meet the requirements. A comprehensive review strategy is proposed to ensure successful development.

Formal: control and guidance

If a Local Plan has not allocated sites, provided not enough housing or in the wrong place and of the wrong type, then a Neighbourhood Plan can use this tool to allocate housing sites and provide guidance on the type and amount required. It is a powerful tool in promoting the right kind of housing development for the community, who has a final say in in agreeing with the allocated sites and the design guidance.

TOOLS NOT USED

Evidence

Joint Housing Strategy

Joint Venture Land Development

Ownership and Operation

Shaping Behaviours

Subsidy

JUSTIFICATION

Informal: evidence

The gathering of an evidence base to support the importance of certain interventions was done to some degree in the 2015 NDP. It was felt that the evidence collected (of congestion areas and air pollution, for example) was sufficient to formulate the policies of this Plan, especially considering the interventions proposed in this Plan do not require direct funding from the local council.

Formal: guidance/joint strategy

Where two planning authorities work together to agree a wider housing strategy in support of their separate Local Plans. It provides guidance on how land should be developed in a wider context and sets out ways in which housing and sites will be brought forward. This tool has only been utilised by councils as works in support of a Local Plan and the councils housing requirements, something that is set by a policy level higher than a Neighbourhood Plan. Whilst it could be adapted to a joint Neighbourhood Plan strategy this may have complications in terms of cross boundary/ cross Local Plan conflicts. The precedent case used was South and Vale Joint Housing Strategy (Southoxon, 2018).

Formal: incentive

A joint venture to develop land involves the landowner, developer and local authority coming together to pursue a single goal and share the benefits. The council will in theory ensure the community is the main benefactor of the development and it benefits from the resources of the developer and landowner, something which local councils lack in the current economic climate. In turn the developer and landowner are more likely to develop their land and receive financial gain. This was not a tool that could be used because the neighbourhood plan does not own any land, they lack the resources to purchase any and do not have enough influence to convince a developer or landowner to form a joint development venture. The precedent case used was Barton Park (Oxford Council, 2019).

Formal: control.

The types of development that are desired by the Forum can only be facilitated on privately-owned land (for example in the Growth Area, or managing piecemeal development throughout the Area on private land). The West Hampstead Interchange is similarly mixed ownership between individual private entities and public transport bodies: there is little to no scope for Camden Council to realise the Vision of the Forum through land that it owns.

Formal: control.

Described by Tiesdell and Allmendinger (2005) as “setting the context for market decisions and transactions through shaping the decision environment”, this method for influencing the outcomes of design processes has limited scope in a neighbourhood planning context.

Formal: incentive.

The resources of the Forum are limited. The potential for redevelopment in the Growth Area will enable significant CIL contributions to achieve the solutions that are proposed by this Plan.

5.2 STAKEHOLDERS

In order for the proposals in this Plan to be effective (in the sense that they will materialise within the lifespan of the Plan, first and foremost, and also that they represent the interests of the Forum) collaboration and consultation between the following stakeholders will be essential.

STAKEHOLDERS

Local Residents (homeowners, renters, shop owners...)

The Forum

Camden Council

Greater London Authority (GLA)

Private Developers

Landowners

Conservationists

Utility companies

JUSTIFICATION

The Plan has been formulated on the basis that it encompasses a greater diversity of residents and so is more truly reflective of the community’s desires. For large-scale development in the Area, we have proposed a mechanism of consultation between developers and local residents. These are detailed in paragraph 3.2 and in Policy 5. The Forum facilitates the engagement of local residents and relevant developers. This Plan also proposes that members of the Forum play a key role in decision-making with regards to the form of new development. This is detailed in Policy 3a.

Camden Council has development policies which are designed to facilitate the effective integration of all wards within Camden, and of the borough with the rest of London as a whole. Camden Council has detailed guidance and policy on almost all aspects of planning which makes them a key stakeholder in any development in the FGWH Area

The transport arm of the Greater London Authority, they are responsible for West Hampstead’s Underground and Overground stations. They are also the highway authority for many of the roads in the area, including Finchley Road. TfL have strategic plans, development policies and various schemes and initiatives relating to these transport networks, including London’s cycle network. The Greater London Authority has powers to integrate housing and transport development. Given the significance of West Hampstead’s Interchange for London’s transport infrastructure, the GLA have identified this area of Camden as an ‘Opportunity and Intensification Area’. Developments here will have to accord to the London Plan’s goals of increased housing and employment. The principle mechanism for achieving housing and employment targets in the Growth Area, private developers are bound by the dictates of the market and the need to turn a profit. Effective consultation with the community will ensure a mutual understanding of the aims and limits of the approaches of each stakeholder. A particularly important stakeholder in the Growth Area and in the smaller site allocations, certain development proposals in this Plan are contingent on landowners willing to bring land forward for development. Given the historical significance of this area - including listed buildings and conservation areas - there are formal protections that will need to be respected in future developments, but also less formal and subjective considerations. New developments in the Growth Area will have to work closely with utility networks to limit the impact and to implement sustainable technologies.

The Forum organising a workshop in 2016 for residents to think on the development of the Growth Area. Both are crucial stakeholders of proposed policies.