Please comment on the council's IPPF

The IPPF is a planning document that lays out the council’s vision of what Walthamstow will be like for the next 20 years or so. It says what developers can and can’t do in the area – and what bits are likely to be redeveloped. In short, it’s about the most important document you’re likely to see in some time. And once it’s accepted, it will be much more difficult to argue about a new building on your doorstep, or dramatic changes to the town, if they fit with the IPPF.
So we’re asking everyone, please, to take a look at it. We know it looks a bit boring and dull. But it is very important – read it, and respond to it with your objections by 4 April. We’re not planning experts, but if you have any questions that aren’t answered by the council (or you don’t want to ask them, but do want to ask us), email us at mail@fighttheheight.co.uk and we’ll do our best to answer them.
Don't leave it to the politicians to decide what happens in Walthamstow. Please read the IPPF and then make sure you get your objections to this document in by 4th April 2008 to Sam Neal.
In case it helps, these are the things that most concern us (just click on "read more" below). If you think we’ve missed anything, please get in touch urgently!

1. The council ominously hasn’t included housing targets for the “Central” area of Walthamstow. The area that to the council represents “a prime opportunity to increase housing and commercial provision” includes not only the High Street/Hoe Street junction, town square, The Mall, bus and tube station etc. but also residential streets including Cleveland Park Avenue, Westbury Road, Eastfield Road and Priory Avenue. There is no protection in the IPPF to keep these roads as they are. They’re key to Walthamstow’s Victorian, low-rise character. Also, despite more housing planned throughout central Walthamstow, there’s no mention in the IPPF of extra schools, playgrounds or open space.

2. The IPPF talks about a mix of uses and mix of housing for the area. But there are no targets for what mix we’d end up with. We currently have too few family houses and way too many fast food chicken outlets. The IPPF needs proper, enforceable targets for housing and usage mix to deal with problems like these.

3. There’s lots in the IPPF about how new developments should be “compatible with” or “improve their surroundings”, should be “maintained to a high level” etc. How will a council that doesn’t water the grass on the Town Square Gardens during summer keep developers to vague promises like that? We want the council to set a good example and ensure that all of its property in the town centre is maintained “to a high level”, and we want the council to exert pressure on existing landowners and tenants to improve their properties. We also want all ideals, such as those above, to be backed up with enforceable targets and plans to achieve those targets. Otherwise the IPPF is set to be just a load of hot air.

4. Why is the Arcade site still excluded from the IPPF? On the drawings it is included as part of Central area. Yet it is not mentioned anywhere. The council cannot maintain that the Arcade site precedes this framework, as the framework is here, but the Arcade site hasn’t had a planning application yet. The IPPF should include the Arcade site. And the Arcade site’s height should be in keeping with what The Prince’s Foundation/the IPPF recommends for the rest of Walthamstow.

5. This council is poor at consulting residents. Biased questionnaires lead to results that are kept secret and findings that are ignored. For example, the Prince’s Foundation consultation found residents overwhelmingly against highrise development; yet that’s exactly what we’re seeing in central Walthamstow. Consultation is currently a waste of money. We’d like the IPPF to formally ensure that the council must not only consult the residents of Walthamstow about its plans for the town centre, but then actually listen to and act on their concerns.