Response to the consultation on the London Plan

Responses below to various sections in the draft London Plan, with the links to the relevant sections at the top
T2 “We support this move to prioritise active transport over motorised transport.”

10.2.2 “Targets for active tranport, separate from public transport use, are required.”

10.2.6 “Distance possible by cycle is not purely dependent upon linear distance, but on ease of travel. Making more routes safe will make longer journeys possible and more inviting due to the lower stress environment. in turn this can reduce pressure on public transport. Specifying “long” and “short” journeys is unhelpful.”

T5 “We support moves to increase access to cycling through infrastructure. We support reallocation of space to cycle parking from other uses such as on-street car parking. We suggest that reallocation of space from other uses such as on-street car parking to cycle infrastructure / routes should be included.”

Table 10.2 “We support these increases in required cycle parking for new developments. The plan must include requirements for cycle parking in all re-development, upgrades, other planning, and existing development cases with a timed implementation plan.”

10.5.1 “We support this plan for a London-wide network of cycle infrastructure.”
Figure 10.2 “This figure looks very weak. This is taken on a borough level, not on a neighbourhood level. Therefore sharp divisions can exist at borough boundaries, where cycling levels may be very similar.”

10.5.3 “The Mayor should not just “support” higher levels in Mini-Hollands and Liveable Neighbourhoods or Opportunity Areas, but mandate higher levels.”

T6 “We support restricting car parking for the reasons given, this should be termed “motor vehicle parking” to include non-car vehicles. Provision for Ultra-Low Emission vehicles must not be at the expense of cycle users: ie. must not be on-street.”

10.6.2 “PTAL assessment should also include level of cycleability in the area.”

10.6.3 “Do not use the word “quantum”.”

10.6.7 “Support, as above using the term “motor vehicle parking” would avoid this confusion.”

10.6.8 “This means nothing, must all new parking provide for ULEV charging, or a %, or all by 2050?”

Table 12.1 “The target of mode share for walking, cycling and public transport at 80% by 2041 is commendable, however it is weak. There must be additional (yearly) interim targets, within mayoral terms. The target must have minimum active travel levels. This must be measured locally and London-wide, and significant local differences from the target must be highlighted.”

SD7 “We support the identification of Town Centres, however are concerned that this misses existing centres in Brent of local and international importance. 1. Wembley is a international centre, as are developments in Stratford. 2. Brent Cross is missing as a Metropolitan Town Centre.”

SD10 “We support the indentification of areas for regeneration, and suggest highlighting that transport poverty is one of the specific causes of deprivation, and that improved facilities for active travel can help overcome this.”

D7 “We are concerned about the suggestion that new developments will include “on-street parking”, on-street parking must not be the norm for new developments. We are concerned that an emphasis on “public realm” leads to unsafe and unsuitable proposals such as the shared space on Exhibition Road, it must be specified that “public realm” improvement does not mean removing infrastructure (e.g. kerb separation) used to promote safety.”

SL1 “The risk of air quality to active travel users should be considered, in addition to areas with low active travel, but high pollution, areas with high active travel, but lower relative pollution levels should be a focus due to the total impact over the people present.”
9.1.9 “If a development cannot meet Air Quality Neutral standards it should not be allowed to proceed, mitigation or payments are not a suitable solution for the Londoners who will be killed through the resulting air pollution.”

9.1.10 “This statement should read “Where there have been significant improvements to air quality resulting in an area no longer exceeding air quality limits, development should not take advantage of this investment and worsen the local air quality.” Extent of worsening should not be considered, any worsening should not be allowed.”

AN3 “We are horrified by the highlighting of Brent Cross as an area of high growth. All the proposals for Brent Cross area completely unsuitable for active travel, will cause the area to continue to breach air quality guidelines, and will not reduce motor vehicle use. The Mayor must not continue to support developments in Brent Cross as long as they continue to breach London Plan requirements.”