Islington Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1

LB of Islington
Islington
Infrastructure
Delivery Plan October 2009
Final Report
COLIN BUCHANAN
in association with
and Professor Janice Morphet

colinbuchanan.com
Islington Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Final Report
Project No: 17147-01-1

October 2009
10 Eastbourne Terrace,
London,
W2 6LG
Telephone: 020 7053 1300
Fax: 020 7053 1301
Email : London@cbuchanan.co.uk
Prepared by: Approved by:
____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
M.Bianconi, R.Blyth and J.Morphet, E.Humphreys, C.Geary J.Pounder
Status: Final Issue no: 2 Date: 22 October 2009
lbi infrastructure idp final edited 22_10_09.doc
(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin
Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report.
No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it
was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and
diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly
stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has
been made
Final Report and Professor Janice Morphet
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The Islington Infrastructure Plan 1
1.2 The context for this study 2
1.3 Study approach 3
1.4 Methodology 5
1.5 Deliverables 7
2 Demand Framework 8
2.2 Growth Estimates 8
2.3 Location and spatial distribution 11
3 Social and Community Infrastructure: baseline and future needs 19
3.2 Early years provision 19
3.3 Primary education 22
3.4 Secondary education 28
3.5 Further education 32
3.6 Higher education 36
3.7 Primary and Acute healthcare 42
3.8 Adult social care 48
3.9 Open space 51
3.10 Leisure centres and swimming pools 59
3.11 Libraries 62
3.12 Community centres 65
4 Emergency services: baseline and future needs 68
4.1 Police 68
4.2 Fire and rescue 72
4.3 Ambulance 75
5 Utilities infrastructure: baseline and future needs 79
5.1 Introduction 79
5.2 Regulation 79
5.3 Electricity 81
5.4 Gas 82
5.5 Fresh water supply 83
5.6 Waste water treatment 86
5.7 Combined Heat and Power 87
6 Flood Risk 90
6.1 Introduction 90
6.2 Summary of evidence available 90
6.3 Baseline assessment 91
6.4 Key messages and identified gaps in knowledge 95
7 Transport: baseline and future needs 96
7.1 Introduction 96
7.2 Streets 102
7.3 Underground rail 110
7.4 Surface rail overview 121
7.5 London Overground 124
7.6 National Rail and other rail services 132
7.7 Other public transport 142
7.8 Understanding future mode share 147
7.9 Conclusions 148
8 Planning Obligations and CIL 152
8.1 Introduction and context 152

9 Partnership working 157
9.1 Introduction 157
9.2 Infrastructure delivery strategy 157
9.3 Recommendations 159
10 Monitoring and review 161
10.1 Infrastructure schedule 161
11 Conclusion 185
Appendix 1: References
Tables
Table 1.1: Infrastructure types 2

Table 1.2: Top 5 London Boroughs by population density (2007 estimates)3
Table 1.3: Top 5 London Boroughs by employment density (2007 estimates) 3
Table 2.1: Growth Figures 8
Table 2.2: Dwelling Growth 11
Table 3.1: Vacancy rates for childcare 20
Table 3.2: Actual roll and capacity figures for 2006 to 2009 22
Table 3.3: Primary school condition survey 23
Table 3.4: Pupil projections and capacity of primary schools in Islington 2011-
2015 27
Table 3.5: Projected numbers on roll (Islington Consortium) 36
Table 3.6: City University Programme of Works 2009 37
Table 3.7: City University: capital proposals and timescales 38
Table 3.8: Recurrent investment in primary and community services 48
Table 3.9: Sheltered housing providers 49
Table 3.10: Extra Care housing providers 49
Table 3.11: Identified programme commitments for open space provision -08/09-
09-10 56
Table 3.12: Playbuilder indicative allocations for 2008/9 and 2009/2010 58
Table 3.13: Age and refurbishment of public libraries 63
Table 3.14: Spread of facilities in Islington 66
Table 4.1: Police station services 68
Table 4.2: Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) bases 69
Table 4.3: Islington fire stations 74
Table 5.1: Price control periods for utility companies 80

Table 5.2: Thames Water: Demand Management and Leakage Programme 85
Table 5.3: Schemes for water resources investment 85
Table 6.1: Data sources 91
Table 7.1: Flow-weighted average excess delay on the NOI by borough (average
of working days in May 2007) 107
Table 7.2: Flow-weighted average traffic speeds on the NOI by borough (average
of working days in May 2007) 108
Table 7.3: London Underground Infrastructure Schedule 118
Table 7.4: London Rail Infrastructure Schedule 129
Table 7.5: National Rail Infrastructure Schedule 140
Table 7.6: TfL Bus Infrastructure Schedule 145
Table 7.7: Mode share by distance travelled for Islington residents’ journeys-to-
work (2001 census) 147
Table 7.8: Forecast 2026 mode share by distance travelled for Islington residents’
journeys-to-work (mode share of walk and cycle both increased by 5%)
148
Table 7.9: Forecast 2026 mode share by distance travelled for Islington residents’
journeys-to-work (mode share of walk and cycle both increased by
10%) 148
Table 8.1: Developer contributions negotiated and collected by LBI 152
Figures
Figure 1.1: Methodology 6

Figure 2.1: GLA 2007 Ward Population Projections for Islington PLP low estimates
9
Figure 2.2: Islington population pyramid 2006 10
Figure 2.3: Islington population pyramid 2026 10
Figure 2.4: Housing trajectory for all dwelling types 11
Figure 2.5: First 5 years supply major sites (residential, hotels and halls of
residence) 12
Figure 2.6: First 5 years supply major sites (non-residential) 13
Figure 2.7: First 5 years supply small sites (permission granted and development
started) 14
Figure 2.8: Major sites for the rest of the plan period (location) 15
Figure 2.9: Major sites for the rest of the plan period (quantum and phasing) 16
Figure 2.10: Key strategic locations 18

Figure 3.1: Location of primary schools by priority of funding required 25
Figure 3.2: Location of primary schools with deficit / surplus capacity 26
Figure 3.3: Location of secondary schools by committed expenditure 30
Figure 3.4: Location of special schools 31
Figure 3.5: Location of colleges by condition and capacity 34
Figure 3.6: Location of universities 40
Figure 3.7: 18-20 year olds in England 2007-2029 41
Figure 3.8: Location of GP surgeries and hospitals 43
Figure 3.9: Location of GP by list size 44
Figure 3.10: Location of dental practices 45
Figure 3.11: Location of parks and open space 53
Figure 3.12: Location of Green space by value and quality rating 54
Figure 3.13: Sports and leisure facilities 60
Figure 3.14: Location of libraries 64
Figure 4.1: Location of police stations by condition 70
Figure 4.2: Location of fire stations by condition 73
Figure 4.3: Location of ambulance stations by current condition 76
Figure 5.1: Historic & Forecast Overall Gas Demand for North Thames Gas
Network 82
Figure 5.2: London WRZ baseline scenario (dry average annual demand)84
Figure 7.1: Islington key regeneration areas (Islington STS, 2006-2016) 98
Figure 7.2: Journey to work mode share (Islington residents, 2001 Census)99
Figure 7.3: Journey to work mode share (Islington employees, 2001 Census) 99
Figure 7.4: TLRN and SRN in Islington 103
Figure 7.5: May 2007 average AM peak delay (Monday to Friday working days
only) 105
Figure 7.6: May 2007 average PM peak delay (Monday to Friday working days
only) 106
Figure 7.7: AM peak period (0700-1000) passenger movements at Islington
Underground stations (RODS 2007) 111
Figure 7.8: PM peak period (1600-1900) passenger movements at Islington
Underground stations (RODS 2007) 111
Figure 7.9: AM peak period (0700-1000) passenger movements at Underground
stations outside Islington (RODS 2007) 112
Figure 7.10: PM peak period (1600-1900) passenger movements at Underground
stations outside Islington (RODS 2007) 113
Figure 7.11: AM peak period LUL line flows (RODS 2007) 114
Figure 7.12: PM peak period LUL line flows (RODS 2007) 115
Figure 7.13: Map of London Underground Infrastructure 120

Figure 7.14: Annual station entries at overground rail stations in Islington (2007/8)
121
Figure 7.15: Surface rail services in Islington 123
Figure 7.16: All day passenger counts of London Overground services at stations in
Islington, April 2009 124
Figure 7.17: London Overground all-day weekday link flows, April 2009 125
Figure 7.18: Planned East London Line service (2012) 127
Figure 7.19: Map of London Rail infrastructure improvements 131
Figure 7.20: Great Northern 2009 peak-hour timetable 133
Figure 7.21: The twenty most crowded train routes in London (Source: London
Assembly Transport Committee) 134
Figure 7.22: Pinch points on the rail network in London (Source: London Assembly
Transport Committee) 135
Figure 7.23: Great Northern indicative 2015 peak-hour timetable 137
Figure 7.24: Route of Crossrail 1 (scheduled to open in 2017) 138
Figure 7.25: Projected rail crowding, 2026 (Source: London Assembly Transport
Committee) 139
Figure 7.26: Map of National and other rail service infrastructure improvements
141
Figure 7.27: TfL Buses Keypoint data (AM peak 0700-1000 total passenger loads
leaving stops) 143
Figure 7.28: Map of other PT infrastructure improvements 146
Figure 10.1: Education 162
Figure 10.2: Further education 163
Figure 10.3: Higher education 164
Figure 10.4: Healthcare 165
Figure 10.5: Police 166
Figure 10.6: Fire and rescue 166
Figure 10.7: Ambulance 167
Figure 10.8: Greenspace 168
Figure 10.9: Sports and leisure 169
Figure 10.10: Community facilities 170
Figure 10.11: Transport (1) 171

Figure 10.24: Utilities 184
1 Introduction
1.1 The Islington Infrastructure Plan

1.1.1 Colin Buchanan, in association with Capita Symonds and Professor Janice Morphet, has
been commissioned to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan for the London Borough of
Islington.
1.1.2 Growth of the scale proposed in the Core Strategy will have a significant impact upon the
Borough local infrastructure. The Islington Sustainable Community Strategy (2008) refers
to the need of improving mainstream services and aligning service plans. It suggests that:
1.1.3 “Improving mainstream services delivered to the people of Islington will be a crucial way
of overcoming barriers, ensuring access to services and opportunities for all, and
achieving the objectives of the strategy. The shared vision and priorities for action of the
strategy will inform the plans and strategies of the ISP’s members who include the main
providers of public services in Islington like the council, the NHS, police and education
establishments, as well as community groups and business partners” (p. 33).
1.1.4 The purpose of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan aims to support the production of the
Core Strategy and identifies the future infrastructure and service needs for the Borough
for the plan period up to 2025/26. More specifically, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan:
Provides a benchmark of existing infrastructure provision which identifies how well
existing needs are met
Identifies future infrastructure requirements to support population change, housing
and employment growth as detailed in LDF documents
Provides an indication of the potential costs and means of funding the required
infrastructure through public funding, developer contribution and other sources
Sets out a roadmap for governance arrangements that place the balance on
outcomes towards the establishment of effective ways of working which will be
sustainable well beyond the life of individual projects.
1.1.5 The range of infrastructure assessed in the Plan is wide ranging. Information has been
gathered for the services and facilities detailed in Table 1.1 below.
1
Table 1.1: Infrastructure types
Sector Infrastructure Type Sector Infrastructure Type

Water Sourcing, storage and Energy Electricity distribution
infrastructure treatment infrastructure Gas distribution
Water distribution CHP
Waste water capture
and management
drainage and flood
defence
Transport Overground Railways Healthcare Primary and secondary
Cross Rail health provision
Underground Dentists
Buses
Roads/Highways
Off street car parks
Cycle and pedestrian
facilities
Education Primary and Cultural Libraries and general
Secondary services community facilities
Adult education
Further and higher
education
Emergency Police, Fire and Leisure and Publicly funded provision
services Rescue and Sport
Ambulance services facilities
Adult Social Childcare Nurseries
Care
Green Park and open spaces
Infrastructure and play spaces
1.2 The context for this study
London Plan
1.2.1 The adopted London Plan (consolidated with Alterations since 2004 – with the most
recent in 2008) sets out the broad development strategy for London. The Plan makes the
following provision for housing development in Islington - 11,600 units from 2007/8 to
2016/17. These figures are currently being reviewed as part of the London Housing
Capacity/Strategic Land Availability Assessment which will inform the publication of the
new version of the London Plan.
1.2.2 The existing London Plan identifies a number of Areas for Intensification, which includes
parts of Islington and neighbouring boroughs. Local authorities in London are expected to
‘exploit their public transport accessibility and potential for increases in residential,
employment and other uses, through higher densities and more mixed and intensive use’.
These areas include:
Arsenal/Holloway (Islington)
Farringdon/Smithfield (Islington/City of London)
Holborn (Camden/City of London)
2
Haringey Heartlands (Haringey).
1.2.3 The London Plan also includes Opportunity Areas which are ‘capable of accommodating
substantial new jobs or homes. These areas are likely to accommodate approximately
5,000 jobs and 2,500 homes and related infrastructure (i.e. local shops, leisure facilities
and schools, health and social care facilities and services. In Islington and neighbouring
boroughs, those areas encompass:
King’s Cross (Camden and Islington)
Euston (Camden)
Tottenham Court Road (Camden)
City Fringe (including City Road Basin and EC1 New Deal for Communities Area).
1.2.4 Other regeneration areas within Islington include Angel Town Centre, Highbury Corner
and the area around Archway station and the area around Finsbury Park station.
1.2.5 Of all the boroughs in the GLA area, the pressures on the transport network in Islington
are among the most intense, and they are set to increase over the next few decades.
Tables 1 and 2 indicate that by 2007, Islington had the second highest overall population
density and the third highest employment density in the capital.
Table 1.2: Top 5 London Boroughs by population density (2007 estimates)
Estimated 2007 Area Population

Rank Local authority population (km2) density
1 Kensington and Chelsea 178,600 12.4 14,415
2 Islington 187,800 14.9 12,638
3 Hackney 209,700 19.1 10,999
4 Camden 231,900 21.8 10,640
5 Westminster 234,100 22.0 10,627
Table 1.3: Top 5 London Boroughs by employment density (2007 estimates)
Estimated 2007 Area Job

Rank Local authority employee jobs (km2) density
1 City of London 307,127 3.2 97,414
2 Westminster 576,794 22.0 26,184
3 Islington 184,039 14.9 12,385
4 Camden 263,518 21.8 12,090
5 Tower Hamlets 198,797 21.6 9,218
1.2.6 The Islington’s Sustainable Transport Strategy (STS) indicates that the average density
of new housing developments within the Borough is now nearly double the current
density of 56 dwellings per hectare.
1.3 Study approach

1.3.1 The recent changes to PPS12 (Local Spatial Planning) make it clear that LDFs and
development management processes need to identify, and where possible to deliver,
economic, social and green infrastructure both for the existing areas and for new
3
development in order to met the longer term requirements of the area as envisioned in
the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS).
1.3.2 In order to achieve a sound Core Strategy, LB Islington will need to meet the Tests of
Soundness of the Core Strategy as set out in PPS 12 (para 4.44). One of these is
‘effectiveness’ which includes:
Deliverability (para 4.45)
Flexibility; and (para 4.46)
Monitoring (para 4.47)
1.3.3 The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has provided a checklist of questions that Inspectors
will be considering in the Examination by an Independent person. Those questions in the
Test of Soundness which relate to delivery include:
Have the infrastructure implications of the strategy/policies been clearly identified?
Are the delivery mechanisms and timescales for implementation of the policies
clearly identified?
Is it clear who is going to deliver the required infrastructure and does the timing of
the provision complement the timescale of the strategy/policies?
Is it clear who is intended to implement each part of the strategy/DPD? Where the
actions are outside the direct control of the LPA is there evidence that there is the
necessary commitment from the relevant organisation to the implementation of the
policies?
Does the DPD reflect the concept of spatial planning? Does it go beyond traditional
land use planning by bringing together and integrating policies for the development
and the use of land with other policies and programmes from a variety of
agencies/organisations that influence the nature of places and how they function?
1.3.4 The deliverability test requires that local agencies and bodies are signed up to the
delivery of the infrastructure that has been identified and that they are committed to
funding in through their own capital programmes. Through our research and stakeholder
consultation the study team has sought to confirm the full range of existing funding
commitments and establish the degree to which providers themselves have forecast
longer term demand associated with population change and new growth, and planned for
it.
1.3.5 The conventional approach to infrastructure planning is to prepare a list of infrastructure

required over the plan period – usually 20 years – and attempt to ascertain how much of
that infrastructure could be funded from conventional funding streams, on the assumption
that those needs and funding streams remain unaltered for the 20 year period. In our
view, this approach is unrealistic.
1.3.6 In reality, infrastructure schedules can only be fully worked up in detail for years 1-5 of a
Development Plan. Longer term requirements for years 6-15 can be included where
funding has been agreed (e.g. waste management facilities, transport infrastructure and
flood defences). The Infrastructure Delivery Plan should set out the governance
approaches to developing and delivering infrastructure requirements; providing
confidence that the relevant providers are signed up to working alongside the local
planning authority to deliver identified needs.
1.3.7 This approach is more realistic and represents an acknowledgement that:
Many models of service and infrastructure delivery will change a number of times
over the period covered by an LDF e.g. health, fire and rescue, education etc; a
detailed 15-20 year infrastructure programme is not realistic
4
”Static” infrastructure studies do not develop skills and build capacity within
authorities for managing infrastructure planning and delivery
A static infrastructure schedule will inevitably be out of date on the day that it is
published
It is important to provide certainty in relation to what will be delivered in years 1-5,
in terms of costed schedules of commitment.
1.3.8 One of the key outcomes of the project is therefore to establish ways in which
infrastructure planning methods and skills are embedded as a mainstream activity within
the local planning authority alongside effective governance arrangements to ensure
ongoing and cross-sectoral participation by all relevant local infrastructure providers.
1.4 Methodology
1.4.1 The preparation of an Infrastructure Delivery Plan for LB Islington provides an opportunity
to bring about a coordinative policy mechanism capable of identifying the key
infrastructure needs and to link them to existing and potential additional funding streams.
1.4.2 The brief for the study asked consultants to deliver two key outputs: Task A required the
appointed team to assess Islington current infrastructure needs but also those that stem
from the pattern and distribution of growth as set out in the draft core strategy.
1.4.3 Building on Task A, Task B required the consultant team to prepare an Infrastructure Plan
looking at infrastructure delivery, and more specifically at the potential means of
remedying anticipated shortfalls in infrastructure provision, the scope for joint provision of
infrastructure, the cost of facilities, sources of funding, priorities for investment and a
monitoring framework for reviewing an updating the Infrastructure Plan.
1.4.4 Accordingly, the programme of work was divided into two stages and associated tasks,
some of which were undertaken in parallel. More details on methodology adopted are
provided below.
5
Figure 1.1: Methodology
Task Outcomes
STAGE 1: List of service standards

BASELINE Task 1.1 Infrastructure Diagnostic Gap analysis of existing evidence
AND Review of datasets used by
FUTURE service providers
NEEDS
Task 1.2 Baseline current service

provision
GIS layers showing existing levels
of deficits and spare capacity and
Social conditions of facilities by service
& Roads Utilities agreed with local providers
Commu Rail ICT
nity
GIS map showing LDF locations

Task 1.3 Future needs for growth
assessment: identify committed GIS map showing committed
expenditure and projects expenditure
Identify additional infrastructure Infrastructure schedule in 5 years
needed tranches
Multi-layered ‘heat maps’
Task 1.4 Cost future infrastructure Add costs to schedule

needs Produce a note explaining
methodology adopted
STAGE 2: Task 2.1 Review of public funding List of overall scale of public
IMPLEMENTATION sources funding available by infrastructure
AND DELIVERY type
Task 2.2 Review of developer Likely funding available from s.106

contributions and CIL Procedural road map to move from
a tariff approach to CIL
Validation of schedule
Task 2.3 Joint funding and Identification of opportunities for
delivery: workshops joint funding
Task 2.4 Monitoring framework A proforma for annual monitoring
6
1.5 Deliverables
1.5.1 The key outcomes, forming part of this commission comprise the following:
A policy position paper which defines the magnitude of demand, the scale of
investment required and implications for the activities of the LB of Islington, its
delivery partners and other agencies.
An Infrastructure Delivery Plan details how and where population and employment
growth trigger the need for additional infrastructure, its capital costs and related
delivery strategy.
A GIS database showing locations, conditions and levels of capacity (where made
available by service providers) for individual components of infrastructure and/or
facilities.
A series of infrastructure schedules (Excel spreadsheet) detailing future capital
commitments, the phasing of the various schemes, capital costs (where made
available by service providers), estimated revenue expenditure and lead agencies
responsible for their delivery.
1.5.2 In addition, an updated list of contacts for each service/infrastructure provider, detailing
key staff in charge of the management of estates and facilities will be delivered to the
client group once the commission is completed.
1.5.3 The draft final Infrastructure Delivery Plan follows on from the inception report which
detailed the findings of the diagnostic analysis and the policy position paper, which
summarised the key findings from Stage 1 to inform the draft Core Strategy
1.5.4 The Plan is structured as follows:

Section 2 provides an overview of the quantum and distribution of the expected
growth in terms of demographic change, population growth forecasts, residential
and employment development.
Section 3 - 7 are organised thematically, by infrastructure type and provides a
supply side assessment of infrastructure which considers any geographical
variation in existing provision, and comments on committed proposals to increase
capacity. These also provide high level estimates of infrastructure needs based on
proposed levels of population growth.
Section 8 provides an assessment of the potential implications of moving from the
existing approach to the collection and use of developer contributions (using s.106)
to the implementation of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Section 9 focuses on the delivery strategy and possible governance
arrangements.
Section 10 provides a series of infrastructure schedules that can be used to
monitor and review infrastructure delivery and implementation.
Section 11 identifies key issues from all chapters.
Appendix 1 contains a list of the documents used.
7
2 Demand Framework
2.1.1 In order to understand the future requirements for infrastructure provision it is essential to
assess the impact of demographic change and anticipated levels of development, in the
context of current infrastructure deficits and surpluses. The Plan identifies the impact of
both residential and commercial development on the projected demand for relevant
Infrastructure items.
2.2 Growth Estimates

2.2.1 The assumptions on anticipated changes in population, commercial floor space and
dwellings that have been used for the purpose of the analysis are summarised below:
Table 2.1: Growth Figures
Category Existing Growth to Growth of Dataset

2026 Existing
Population 191,302 213,000 11% GLA 2007 Round of
people people Demographic Projections
resident resident - PLP Low, Source of
data: ONS mid-2001
population estimates
Employment 191,766 224,000 27% Islington Employment
Study update (2008)
Dwellings 88,537 113,118 28% London Plan (factored up
(units) to 2026)
2.2.2 Although estimates on future demand for social and community infrastructure can be
based on pro-rata calculation against population and household growth, it is important to
acknowledge that this simple methodology has its limitations.
2.2.3 Most social and community infrastructure serves local needs. Hence it is possible to
produce a quantitative assessment of need relative to population. However, transport
infrastructure and social and community infrastructure that has a more strategic
catchment and also infrastructure that is provided by the private sector, is more difficult to
assess and to quantify shortfalls/oversupply.
2.2.4 The relationship of this type of infrastructure with population distribution is more complex.
Hospitals, higher and further education and transport infrastructure are seen as key
examples of this as the manner in which demand is met (relative to increasing population
growth) is not necessarily bound by existing facilities and the manner in which services
are provided within the Borough. For example Whittington and Moorfields Eye Hospitals
serve a regional catchment and so have the capacity to absorb all predicted population
growth in Islington. But it would not be necessarily appropriate or desirable for new
population to use that facility; needs may be better met locally or in new polysystems. In
addition, journey/travel patterns and mode choice react to the capacity of existing
conditions, i.e. they are self moderating. This does not mean that failing to provide more
infrastructure is a viable or recommended option, but is a recognition of the limitations of
applying ratios to facilities and using simplistic models to assess infrastructure shortfalls.
2.2.5 Furthermore, the relatively small geographical area covered by the Borough and its
location, stretching from the City of London in the south to the borders of Haringey and
8
Camden in the north and west, means that there is very little infrastructure that is not
used by residents of neighbouring boroughs and vice versa.
2.2.6 Here, it is critical that Local Authorities identify the common geography that enables
cooperation and joint delivery mechanisms – which could be with adjoining boroughs or
based on service provider geography.
Figure 2.1: GLA 2007 Ward Population Projections for Islington PLP low
estimates
220
210
200
Population ('000s)
190
180
170
160
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026
Year
2.2.7 For some services such as education and adult social care, the changes in specific age
groups of the population have a direct impact on service provision. Figure 2.2 and Figure
2.3 show the change in population structure in Islington from 2006 to 2026 (based on
ONS data).
9
Figure 2.2: Islington population pyramid 2006
Male Female
80-84
70-74
60-64
50-54
Age
40-44
30-34
20-24
10-14
0-4
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
% of population
Source: ONS sub-national population projections (based on 2006 mid-year population estimates)
Figure 2.3: Islington population pyramid 2026
Male Female
80-84
70-74
60-64
50-54
Age
40-44
30-34
20-24
10-14
0-4
8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8
% of population
Source: ONS sub-national population projections (based on 2006 mid-year population estimates)
10
2.2.8 A comparison of the two population pyramids shows a gradual ageing of the population in
Islington. For example, it is noticeable that the proportionate size of the 25-39 cohort
contracts to 2026 whilst the 60-64 cohort expands.
2.2.9 Additional information on dwelling growth is provided below.
Table 2.2: Dwelling Growth
Source Lower Limit Upper Limit

Extant permissions 6,735 6735
Nov 08
Major scheme areas 5400 6200
Direction of Travel
Windfalls outside major unknown unknown
scheme areas
Target 2008-2016 10440 10,600
Assumed target 2016- 11,600 11,600
2025
Figure 2.4: Housing trajectory for all dwelling types
Source: Islington Annual Monitoring Report (2009)
2.3 Location and spatial distribution

2.3.1 The Figures below show where future development is expected to take place. Figure 2.5,
Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7 consider the first five years supply (2008-2013), respectively for
major sites (residential and non-residential) and for small sites (≤ 0.25 ha). Figure 2.8 and
Figure 2.9 show location, quantum and phasing of growth within major residential
redevelopment sites for the period between 2014 and 2026 as included in the draft
London Housing Capacity/Strategic Land Availability Assessment. In this respect, it is
important to note that major residential redevelopment is expected to cater for only for
50% of growth between 2014 and 2026, with the remainder expected to emerge from
windfall sites.
11
Figure 2.5: First 5 years supply major sites (residential, hotels and halls of
residence)
12
Figure 2.6: First 5 years supply major sites (non-residential)
13
Figure 2.7: First 5 years supply small sites (permission granted and
development started)
14
Figure 2.8: Major sites for the rest of the plan period (location)
15
Figure 2.9: Major sites for the rest of the plan period (quantum and phasing)
16
2.3.2 From the figures above, it is clear that housing and employment growth is expected to be
distributed unevenly across the Borough and the Core Strategy will need to reflect the
effect specific development will have on different neighbourhoods. To this end the
Council has identified six areas of the Borough for which there are specific spatial policies
for managing growth and change in the plan period.
2.3.3 Figure 2.10 below identifies the key areas of the Borough for which there are specific
spatial policies for managing growth and change in the plan period. In the Core Strategy,
each area is addressed in detail with a map supporting the policy text for each area. The
boundaries of the designations on the area maps give indicative areas for the relevant
policy; they do not represent definitive boundaries.
17
Figure 2.10: Key strategic locations
18

Islington Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Islington Infrastructure Delivery Plan Part 1

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LB of Islington

and Professor Janice Morphet

Project No: 17147-01-1

Prepared by: Approved by:

Status: Final Issue no: 2 Date: 22 October 2009

lbi infrastructure idp final edited 22_10_09.doc

8.1 Introduction and context 152

Table 1.1: Infrastructure types 2

Table 5.1: Price control periods for utility companies 80

Figure 1.1: Methodology 6

Figure 2.10: Key strategic locations 18

Figure 7.13: Map of London Underground Infrastructure 120

Figure 10.17: Transport (7) 177

1.1 The Islington Infrastructure Plan

Table 1.1: Infrastructure types

Sector Infrastructure Type Sector Infrastructure Type

1.2 The context for this study

 Haringey Heartlands (Haringey).

Table 1.2: Top 5 London Boroughs by population density (2007 estimates)

Estimated 2007 Area Population

Table 1.3: Top 5 London Boroughs by employment density (2007 estimates)

Estimated 2007 Area Job

1.3 Study approach

1.3.5 The conventional approach to infrastructure planning is to prepare a list of infrastructure

1.3.7 This approach is more realistic and represents an acknowledgement that:

Figure 1.1: Methodology

STAGE 1: List of service standards

Task 1.2 Baseline current service

GIS map showing LDF locations

Task 1.4 Cost future infrastructure Add costs to schedule

Task 2.2 Review of developer Likely funding available from s.106

Task 2.4 Monitoring framework A proforma for annual monitoring

1.5.4 The Plan is structured as follows:

2.2 Growth Estimates

Table 2.1: Growth Figures

Category Existing Growth to Growth of Dataset

Figure 2.2: Islington population pyramid 2006

Figure 2.3: Islington population pyramid 2026

2.2.9 Additional information on dwelling growth is provided below.

Table 2.2: Dwelling Growth

Source Lower Limit Upper Limit

Figure 2.4: Housing trajectory for all dwelling types

Source: Islington Annual Monitoring Report (2009)

2.3 Location and spatial distribution

Figure 2.6: First 5 years supply major sites (non-residential)

Figure 2.10: Key strategic locations

Вам также может понравиться

Haringey Heartlands (Haringey).