To debate a Motion submitted by the Opposition Group in accordance with Rules 11 and 13 of the Council’s Constitution. The debate will last for a maximum of 30 minutes.

 

7. Opposition Motion for Debate from the Conservative Group - regarding the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework

 

Councillor Andrew Wood moved and Councillor Peter Golds seconded the motion as printed in the agenda.

 

Councillor Rachel Blake moved and Councillor Danny Hassell seconded the following amendment to the motion to be debated as tabled:

 

Added text underlined

Deleted text scored out.

 

This Council notes:

 

The publication by the Mayor of London on the 21^st November 2019 of the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF).

 

That the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said in his introduction “without a plan in place, this growth is causing unacceptable impacts on existing local communities from construction in the short term to provision of the necessary supporting facilities for these developments in the long term.”

 

The introduction also said, “Unique amongst London’s Opportunity Areas, the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar is currently experiencing intense development pressure, mainly in the form of new, very high density housing.” 

 

That the OAPF contains three growth scenarios for new homes in the area (the wards of Island Gardens, Canary Wharf, Blackwall & Cubitt Town and Poplar):

 

• Baseline 31,000 extra homes
• High growth 38,000 extra homes
• Maximum growth 49,000 extra homes

+ office space for an additional 110,000 jobs in each scenario

 

That these are the largest combined OAPF targets in London.

 

That the new London Plan has a target of 29,000 new homes in the same area + 110,000 new jobs.

 

That the new Tower Hamlets Council Local Plan has a minimum target of 30,601 new homes between 2016 and 2031 in the same Area (56% of all new housing in Tower Hamlets)

 

This Council further notes:

 

• The council’s youth service operates a dedicated youth hub at Andrews Wharf, which has over the last summer been supplemented by additional capacity from the Rapid Response Team.  In addition there are services and activities provided by the voluntary sector at Alpha Grove Community Centre.  Isle of Dogs is also home to Streets of Growth who will be receiving money from the LCF.  More specifically the LCF also includes funding for the Canaan Project which provides activities for young women aged 11-19 on the Isle of Dogs. Working with George Green’s school and Café Forever we offer activities including cooking, craft, sports, and inspirational workshops at our weekly lunch and after school clubs as well as opportunities to join us for regular trips.

 

• That the Alpha Square primary school is no longer required by this Council although construction started in October

 

• The government commitment to fund 60 capital costs for new youth centres nationally but sadly not the ongoing staffing costs for hardworking youth workers who provide life-changing support and services

 

• That the Isle of Dogs & South Poplar area has only two small youth centres, at St Andrews Wharf in Island Gardens and Poplar Spotlight. There are none planned in Canary Wharf and Blackwall & Cubitt Town wards despite both wards being the main focus of new residential growth

 

• The large amounts of allocated, unspent S106 & Community Infrastructure levy which is programmed for new investment

 

• The more than £167 millions of grant money paid by government (New Homes Bonus) to help support high growth which has been reduced by central government.

 

The Council is concerned that:

 

The GLA commissioned Development Infrastructure Finding Study (DIFS) which accompanies the OAPF says that forecast the following amounts (£’000) should have been spent from anticipated from April 2017 onwards on Infrastructure 'Gross' Costs in the Low/Baseline Growth option (excluding DLR Upgrade & Rotherhithe bridge costs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category £’000	2017 /18	2018/19	2019/20	2020/  2021	2021/ 2022	First five years
Utilities	£2,728	£11,088	£8,838	£11,838	£11,838	£46,330
Transport & Local Connections	£139	£9,806	£18,756	£23,830	£17,164	£69,695
Education	£28,946	£28,946	£28,946	£28,946	£28,946	£144,730
Fire, Ambulance, Police, CCTV	£2,930	£0	£0	£0	£0	£2,930
Health	£1,526	£1,526	£1,526	£1,526	£1,526	£7,630
Leisure	£4,764	£4,764	£4,764	£4,764	£4,764	£23,820
Community facilities	£738	£738	£5,411	£5,411	£5,411	£17,709
Total Low	£41,771	£56,868	£68,241	£76,315	£69,649	£312,844

 

During this period LBTH has undertaken it’s own detailed forecasting for school places resulting in 98% of families getting their first choice of primary school.

 

Local Government does not have the necessary powers to direct primary care spending, despite the powers to plan for additional health infrastructure.

 

That with the exception of some spending on the new South Dock bridge that none of it has been spent or is likely to be spent soon despite development continuing and new planning applications being submitted.

 

That the total estimated ‘all-in’ infrastructure costs between 2017 and 2042 are in each growth scenario:

 

Baseline £1,604 million

High growth £1,756 million

Maximum growth £1,840 million

 

The Council resolves:

 

• To report on the newly established set up an internal LBTH team to leading on the programme of infrastructure development required to support this growth paid for by New Homes Bonus
• To report on ask the GLA & TfL to commited staff to supporting this growth in the same way that they have done at Old Oak Common and the Royal Docks which have much lower housing and jobs targets
• To support a cross sector campaign to  the work Canary Wharf Group are doing in trying to increase transport capacity to the area given that even the Elizabeth line is not sufficient to support this level of planned growth
• To responsibly programme, allocate and spend Community Infrastructure Levy and income from Section 106 agreements to the areas with the more significant infrastructure pressures including for example the South Dock Bridge and planned new primary schools commit to only spending Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 money earn’t in the OAPF area in the  area as required by the DIFS, given the forecast funding deficits and lack of clarity over whether the rest of the money will come from
• To review youth services in the borough, including the location of youth centres, reaching out to all young people to ensure the best possible outcomes in the context of declining resources in Local Government. build a new youth centre in one of the sites with planning permission for a school and to partner with the Youth Zone charity in order to reduce the operating cost impact on the general fund

The amendment was put to the vote and agreed

 

Following debate, the motion as amended was put to the vote and was agreed.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The publication by the Mayor of London on the 21^st November 2019 of the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF).

 

That the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said in his introduction “without a plan in place, this growth is causing unacceptable impacts on existing local communities from construction in the short term to provision of the necessary supporting facilities for these developments in the long term.”

 

The introduction also said, “Unique amongst London’s Opportunity Areas, the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar is currently experiencing intense development pressure, mainly in the form of new, very high density housing.” 

 

That the OAPF contains three growth scenarios for new homes in the area (the wards of Island Gardens, Canary Wharf, Blackwall & Cubitt Town and Poplar):

 

• Baseline 31,000 extra homes
• High growth 38,000 extra homes
• Maximum growth 49,000 extra homes

+ office space for an additional 110,000 jobs in each scenario

 

That these are the largest combined OAPF targets in London.

 

That the new London Plan has a target of 29,000 new homes in the same area + 110,000 new jobs.

 

That the new Tower Hamlets Council Local Plan has a minimum target of 30,601 new homes between 2016 and 2031 in the same Area (56% of all new housing in Tower Hamlets)

 

This Council further notes:

 

• The council’s youth service operates a dedicated youth hub at Andrews Wharf, which has over the last summer been supplemented by additional capacity from the Rapid Response Team.  In addition there are services and activities provided by the voluntary sector at Alpha Grove Community Centre.  Isle of Dogs is also home to Streets of Growth who will be receiving money from the LCF.  More specifically the LCF also includes funding for the Canaan Project which provides activities for young women aged 11-19 on the Isle of Dogs. Working with George Green’s school and Café Forever we offer activities including cooking, craft, sports, and inspirational workshops at our weekly lunch and after school clubs as well as opportunities to join us for regular trips.

 

•  That the Alpha Square primary school is no longer required by this Council although construction started in October

 

• The government commitment to fund 60 capital costs for new youth centres nationally but sadly not the ongoing staffing costs for hardworking youth workers who provide life-changing support and services

 

• The large amounts of allocated, unspent S106 & Community Infrastructure levy which is programmed for new investment

 

• The more than £167 millions of grant money paid by government (New Homes Bonus) to help support high growth which has been reduced by central government.

 

The Council is concerned that:

 

The GLA commissioned Development Infrastructure Finding Study (DIFS) which accompanies the OAPF forecast the following amounts (£’000) anticipated from April 2017 onwards on Infrastructure 'Gross' Costs in the Low/Baseline Growth option (excluding DLR Upgrade & Rotherhithe bridge costs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category £’000	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20	2020/  2021	2021/ 2022	First five years
Utilities	£2,728	£11,088	£8,838	£11,838	£11,838	£46,330
Transport & Local Connections	£139	£9,806	£18,756	£23,830	£17,164	£69,695
Education	£28,946	£28,946	£28,946	£28,946	£28,946	£144,730
Fire, Ambulance, Police, CCTV	£2,930	£0	£0	£0	£0	£2,930
Health	£1,526	£1,526	£1,526	£1,526	£1,526	£7,630
Leisure	£4,764	£4,764	£4,764	£4,764	£4,764	£23,820
Community facilities	£738	£738	£5,411	£5,411	£5,411	£17,709
Total Low	£41,771	£56,868	£68,241	£76,315	£69,649	£312,844

 

During this period LBTH has undertaken it’s own detailed forecasting for school places resulting in 98% of families getting their first choice of primary school.

 

Local Government does not have the necessary powers to direct primary care spending, despite the powers to plan for additional health infrastructure.

 

That with the exception of some spending on the new South Dock bridge that none of it has been spent or is likely to be spent soon despite development continuing and new planning applications being submitted.

 

That the total estimated ‘all-in’ infrastructure costs between 2017 and 2042 are in each growth scenario:

 

Baseline £1,604 million

High growth £1,756 million

Maximum growth £1,840 million

 

The Council resolves:

 

• To report on the newly established internal LBTH team leading on the programme of infrastructure development required to support this growth

 

• To report on the GLA & TfL committed staff supporting this growth in the same way that they have done at Old Oak Common and the Royal Docks which have much lower housing and jobs targets

 

• To support a cross sector campaign to increase transport capacity to the area given that even the Elizabeth line is not sufficient to support this level of planned growth
• To responsibly programme, allocate and spend Community Infrastructure Levy and income from Section 106 agreements to the areas with the more significant infrastructure pressures including for example the South Dock Bridge and planned new primary schools

 

• To review youth services in the borough, including the location of youth centres, reaching out to all young people to ensure the best possible outcomes in the context of declining resources in Local Government.